Richard Appignanesi (1940–2025)
Author of Introducing Postmodernism
About the Author
Richard Appignanesi is a Research Fellow at King's College London.
Series
Works by Richard Appignanesi
Introducing (Box Set of 8 paperbacks) - Islam; Quantum Theory; Freud; Postmodernism; Psychology; Feminism; Stephen Hawking; Philosophy (2007) 5 copies
Macbeth 3 copies
Freud läßt grüßen: Alles, was Sie schon immer über Neurosen, Libido, Ich, Es und Über-Ich wissen wollten (2006) 2 copies
Herkes i©ʹin postmodernizm 1 copy
Freud Yeni Başlayanlar İçin 1 copy
Graphic Freud: The Wolf Man 1 copy
Italia Perversa 1 copy
Introducing Kafka 1 copy
Associated Works
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- Appignanesi, Richard
- Birthdate
- 1940-12-20
- Date of death
- 2025-04-08
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Loyola College, University of Montreal (BA, English Literature, 1962)
University of Sussex (Postgraduate Studies, Department of the History of Ideas, 1967-1983)
University of Sussex (D.Phil., Sociology of Art, Department of the History of Ideas, 1973) - Occupations
- editor
art director
graphic novelist - Organizations
- Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative (founder, director)
Beginners Books Documentary Comicbooks
Wyvern Publications UK
Icon Books
Third Text
Futures (journal) - Awards and honors
- Canada Council Arts Award Grant for Fiction Writing (1986)
Directors Club Merit Award, New York, for art direction of the Beginners' Books Documentary Series (1980)
Canada Council Grants for D.Phil. program (1968-1973)
Province of Quebec Bursary for Postgraduate Studies in Art History (1967)
E. Archambault Pour Mérite gold medal finalist and music scholarship, Montreal Conservatory (1953) - Relationships
- Appignanesi, Lisa (ex-spouse)
Appignanesi, Josh (son) - Short biography
- Appignanesi was born in Montreal, Canada of Italian parents. He distinguished himself in music at an early age when at the age of 13 he was an E. Archambault Pour Mérite gold medal finalist and obtained a music scholarship at the Montreal Conservatory. He traveled to England in 1967 and, in 1973, completed a Ph.D. in Art History from the University of Sussex (The Origins of Art Criticism in the Classical Greek and Later Phases of Antiquity). In the early 1990s he did biographical research on the Portuguese poet, Fernando Pessoa, at King’s College, London. He was married to writer Lisa Appignanesi (née Borensztejn) with whom he has one son, filmmaker Josh Appignanesi; the couple divorced in 1984. He also has a son, Raphael, and a daughter, Rosa, with different partners. He lives in London, UK.
- Nationality
- Canada
- Birthplace
- Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Places of residence
- London, England, UK
- Place of death
- London, England, UK
- Associated Place (for map)
- London, England, UK
Members
Reviews
The book is a collection of essays written with the following formula: Select a major name in postmodern philosophy (or Plato) and either one technology or one technological buzzword. Mix vigorously, but not rigorously, and call it an "encounter" or "chance meeting" between old philosophy and new [fill in the blank]. Brush off any objection by claiming it fails to account for the new technology or the paradigm represented by the buzzword. Rush to presses.
Worst offender: George Myerson's show more "Heidegger, Habermas, and the Mobile Phone." The primary problem with this essay may be that Myerson's entire conception of the significance and impact of mobile phones is built directly from the self-congratulatory and sales-oriented ad copy of cell phone companies--the essay literally cites snippets of business press articles and corporate press releases without giving them any critical examination. Lifting some of the vaguest phrases Habermas may have ever penned and tossing these into the mix, Myerson ends with the hopeful conclusion that maybe, if we are lucky, there will still be communication in the post-cell-phone world. (In fairness, he concocts a story about how cell phones usher in one-sided communication because we could, for example, ostensibly make purchases with them from machines instead of from cashiers, etc.)
Best essay (used loosely): George Myerson's (yes, again!) "Donna Haraway and GM Foods." Myerson still buries his essay in two-sentence news clippings, and these still have approximately the same effect on the argument of the essay as George Bergeron's "mental handicap radio" has on his own train of thought. Nevertheless, on an undistracted read-through Myerson does manage to argue that Haraway's work points to some moderate, marginally well-thought-out conclusions about how we should think about genetically modified foods. Whether you buy into the argument depends largely on whether you buy into Haraway's rhetoric. None of the conclusions of this essay in themselves tell us how to deal with the situation "frankenfoods" present, but Myerson readily admits this, and in the context of this collection that is a remarkable level of intellectual humility and candor.
Frankly, I enjoy ill-conceived mashups between influential thinkers and novel concepts. Every so often there is some signal in the noise, and the noise itself is often cleverly written and so entertaining regardless of the content. The End of Everything is all noise, and only strains (and fails) to be clever. The book is, borrowing quotes from the Foreword by Will Self, both "a cut-and-paste job on the human condition" and "achingly dull."
(Added this review when entering this book into my collection; I did not realize that I had reviewed it previously.) show less
Worst offender: George Myerson's show more "Heidegger, Habermas, and the Mobile Phone." The primary problem with this essay may be that Myerson's entire conception of the significance and impact of mobile phones is built directly from the self-congratulatory and sales-oriented ad copy of cell phone companies--the essay literally cites snippets of business press articles and corporate press releases without giving them any critical examination. Lifting some of the vaguest phrases Habermas may have ever penned and tossing these into the mix, Myerson ends with the hopeful conclusion that maybe, if we are lucky, there will still be communication in the post-cell-phone world. (In fairness, he concocts a story about how cell phones usher in one-sided communication because we could, for example, ostensibly make purchases with them from machines instead of from cashiers, etc.)
Best essay (used loosely): George Myerson's (yes, again!) "Donna Haraway and GM Foods." Myerson still buries his essay in two-sentence news clippings, and these still have approximately the same effect on the argument of the essay as George Bergeron's "mental handicap radio" has on his own train of thought. Nevertheless, on an undistracted read-through Myerson does manage to argue that Haraway's work points to some moderate, marginally well-thought-out conclusions about how we should think about genetically modified foods. Whether you buy into the argument depends largely on whether you buy into Haraway's rhetoric. None of the conclusions of this essay in themselves tell us how to deal with the situation "frankenfoods" present, but Myerson readily admits this, and in the context of this collection that is a remarkable level of intellectual humility and candor.
Frankly, I enjoy ill-conceived mashups between influential thinkers and novel concepts. Every so often there is some signal in the noise, and the noise itself is often cleverly written and so entertaining regardless of the content. The End of Everything is all noise, and only strains (and fails) to be clever. The book is, borrowing quotes from the Foreword by Will Self, both "a cut-and-paste job on the human condition" and "achingly dull."
(Added this review when entering this book into my collection; I did not realize that I had reviewed it previously.) show less
I'm really impressed! I absolutely cannot stand Romeo and Juliet. It is my least favorite of Shakespeare's plays, and I can think of several unpleasant things I would rather do than read it again. That said, I picked this book up at the library on a whim, and while I was really hesitant, I'm always up for trying new manga.
I am so glad I read this book! It's amazing! It has a whole new take on the original story, with plot twists! It has gorgeous artwork which brings this retelling of a show more Shakespearean classic to life. I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes manga, or Shakespeare. Well worth it. show less
I am so glad I read this book! It's amazing! It has a whole new take on the original story, with plot twists! It has gorgeous artwork which brings this retelling of a show more Shakespearean classic to life. I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes manga, or Shakespeare. Well worth it. show less
I like the 'Introducing' series, they really do make complex theoretical literature accessible. This one was especially quick to read and clearly explained. Indeed, in comparison to Lacan's convolutions Freud seems positively staid. Of course, Freud's work has filtered into the mainstream far more thoroughly, so his terminology seems much more familiar than Lacan's. This book provides a useful explanation for what Freud actually meant, though, as the vague understanding I'd gained from show more popular culture was incoherent. It's funny how many of Freud's terms have entered popular speech, really. Someone being 'anal' about something, a Freudian slip (apparently his term was 'parapraxis'), and the Oedipus complex occur in conversation with relative frequency.
Actually, it's interesting to compare Freud's current reputation to his actual work. He often seems to be dismissed these days as a sex-obsessed crank, but he pioneered the 'talking cure' approach to treating mental disorders and this continues to thrive. It is his emphasis on sexuality as the motivation behind nearly all behaviour that has been dismissed. I didn't previously realise, also, that he was moved the concept of 'hysteria' away from being exclusively female and wrote about how femininity and masculinity are social constructions rather than absolutes.
As with every other bit of psychoanalytic theory I've read, I just can't believe that there is a single universal model for human development and behaviour. Freud's may apply in some cases, but his emphasis on the Oedipus complex and infantile sexuality doesn't convince me. I rather like his model of the id, ego, and super-ego, though, as long as the impulses and desires within the model aren't all assumed to be sexual. Likewise, 'libido' is a tricky concept. As far as I can tell, Freud identifies it almost exclusively with sexuality, whereas I think Lacan did so only partially (distinguishing a 'sexual libido'). Personally, I think Lacan's definition is more helpful, although his theories are bewilderingly complicated.
I also wondered whilst reading this to what extent Freud thought the purpose of psychoanalysis was to achieve sort of ideal, balanced personality. Labelling fetishists, for example, as neurotics implies that they should identify the root of that behaviour and stop doing it. You could also argue, though, that if their neurosis isn't hurting anyone and doesn't upset them, there is no need. Psychoanalytic theory seems to have been taken up in the sphere of political theory, at least in the bit of Žižek that I've managed to read. That makes me think of psychoanalysis as a potential tool for persuasion, or simply to reduce heterogeneity. Rather than speculating vaguely, however, I should just read more Žižek. After all, the reason I've been working my way through several of the 'Introducing' series is that they provide helpful stepping stones towards reading and understanding other books. They are useful enablers. show less
Actually, it's interesting to compare Freud's current reputation to his actual work. He often seems to be dismissed these days as a sex-obsessed crank, but he pioneered the 'talking cure' approach to treating mental disorders and this continues to thrive. It is his emphasis on sexuality as the motivation behind nearly all behaviour that has been dismissed. I didn't previously realise, also, that he was moved the concept of 'hysteria' away from being exclusively female and wrote about how femininity and masculinity are social constructions rather than absolutes.
As with every other bit of psychoanalytic theory I've read, I just can't believe that there is a single universal model for human development and behaviour. Freud's may apply in some cases, but his emphasis on the Oedipus complex and infantile sexuality doesn't convince me. I rather like his model of the id, ego, and super-ego, though, as long as the impulses and desires within the model aren't all assumed to be sexual. Likewise, 'libido' is a tricky concept. As far as I can tell, Freud identifies it almost exclusively with sexuality, whereas I think Lacan did so only partially (distinguishing a 'sexual libido'). Personally, I think Lacan's definition is more helpful, although his theories are bewilderingly complicated.
I also wondered whilst reading this to what extent Freud thought the purpose of psychoanalysis was to achieve sort of ideal, balanced personality. Labelling fetishists, for example, as neurotics implies that they should identify the root of that behaviour and stop doing it. You could also argue, though, that if their neurosis isn't hurting anyone and doesn't upset them, there is no need. Psychoanalytic theory seems to have been taken up in the sphere of political theory, at least in the bit of Žižek that I've managed to read. That makes me think of psychoanalysis as a potential tool for persuasion, or simply to reduce heterogeneity. Rather than speculating vaguely, however, I should just read more Žižek. After all, the reason I've been working my way through several of the 'Introducing' series is that they provide helpful stepping stones towards reading and understanding other books. They are useful enablers. show less
This is surprisingly good, surprisingly so because it is a short graphic rather than lengthy text-based description of one of the most difficult 'schools' of Western philosophy which I am reluctant to label 'existentialism' following Appignanesi's own scepticism about the term.
Let's start by saying that it is not really introductory at all. If you want a cogent introduction I would start with one of the many other general textual introductions - I began with Mary Warnock's many years ago but show more Appignanensi has delivered one of his own quite recently.
Appignanesi compromises little in his limited space in trying to reach deep into the thought of the 'existentialists'. Many readers are going to find it very obscure and difficult without a grounding in the history and ideas on which the text is based - but I think you might like to persevere.
If you have read already in the subject, he has insights that make the difficulty worthwhile. What I like is his avoidance of the tum-ti-tum standard narrative that takes us from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche via Dostoevesky through Heidegger to Sartre and Camus.
He restores the often forgotten core of the school, Husserl's phenomenological turn, and then sets the very different yet dialectially challenging Heideggerian and Sartrean world views in the context of the critical business of choice and survival in the second quarter of the twentieth century.
Occasional digressions into the broader literary culture and into the politics of the era are suggestive and apposite. The book is the philosophical equivalent of a haiku - many deep thoughts compressed into surprisingly small space. The images entertain but do not distract.
I would argue that this school of thinkers still provides the greatest challenge to the liberal group-think of our age. The logic of their thinking towards intensive introspection and liberal science (Husserl), Nazism (Heidegger) and Marxism (Sartre) remains thought-provoking.
Attempts to moralise the last two out of their decisions and choices would be seen as futile by any decent 'existentialist'. The silences and refusals to apologise epitomise not the worst but the best of humanity faced with our technologisation and simplistic expectations.
The post-existentialists have contributed important criticisms of the existential turn. Foucault in particular has helped us to understand the nature of power relations and Derrida the role of the text but the turn has been taken too far - there is a cultural evasion here with political effects.
The 'existential' turn is terribly terribly dangerous to modern liberal society. Yet it is true to our relationship with Being. The challenge of this critique has scarcely been explored. The result is that modern liberal society has been taken by surprise as the new populism emerges.
Elite liberalism has been in denial for far too long about that relationship to Being and our personal choices in a world of roles and material things. The panopticon approach, the attempt to create social hegemony, could never succeed against the raw resistance of those who think apart.
Somewhere and somehow radical thought will reappear to take this problem that existence precedes essence and the phenomenological anaysis of our situation and so create the humanism required before transhumanism is possible - and offer a 'poetic' attitude to being in the world.
Personally, poetry bores me. If something needs to be said, let it be said, and, if not, let it be experienced in direct relation to Being. The text is the very source of our alienation. Yet Heidegger's stance suggests that that which is poetic or spiritual links to the human core.
Husserlian 'scientific' investigation of the mind's relationship to itself, Sartrean concern with our performance in the world and Heideggerian investigation of our relationship to Being provide (in this book) the start of an inquiry into a sufficient rebellion to preserve us against new intelligences.
We are in the midst of a revolution in which the post-moderns and the academics appear increasingly surplus to requirements much as monks became in the age of printing. A philosophy to cope with this exists already in the formative work of this school if only we knew it.
A sound if difficult and challenging guide to a difficult and challenging way of thinking. Grasp it correctly and you will never be the same. Its assertion of mind against 'science' is life-affirming, The reading list at the back, though not all there is to say on the matter, will be useful. show less
Let's start by saying that it is not really introductory at all. If you want a cogent introduction I would start with one of the many other general textual introductions - I began with Mary Warnock's many years ago but show more Appignanensi has delivered one of his own quite recently.
Appignanesi compromises little in his limited space in trying to reach deep into the thought of the 'existentialists'. Many readers are going to find it very obscure and difficult without a grounding in the history and ideas on which the text is based - but I think you might like to persevere.
If you have read already in the subject, he has insights that make the difficulty worthwhile. What I like is his avoidance of the tum-ti-tum standard narrative that takes us from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche via Dostoevesky through Heidegger to Sartre and Camus.
He restores the often forgotten core of the school, Husserl's phenomenological turn, and then sets the very different yet dialectially challenging Heideggerian and Sartrean world views in the context of the critical business of choice and survival in the second quarter of the twentieth century.
Occasional digressions into the broader literary culture and into the politics of the era are suggestive and apposite. The book is the philosophical equivalent of a haiku - many deep thoughts compressed into surprisingly small space. The images entertain but do not distract.
I would argue that this school of thinkers still provides the greatest challenge to the liberal group-think of our age. The logic of their thinking towards intensive introspection and liberal science (Husserl), Nazism (Heidegger) and Marxism (Sartre) remains thought-provoking.
Attempts to moralise the last two out of their decisions and choices would be seen as futile by any decent 'existentialist'. The silences and refusals to apologise epitomise not the worst but the best of humanity faced with our technologisation and simplistic expectations.
The post-existentialists have contributed important criticisms of the existential turn. Foucault in particular has helped us to understand the nature of power relations and Derrida the role of the text but the turn has been taken too far - there is a cultural evasion here with political effects.
The 'existential' turn is terribly terribly dangerous to modern liberal society. Yet it is true to our relationship with Being. The challenge of this critique has scarcely been explored. The result is that modern liberal society has been taken by surprise as the new populism emerges.
Elite liberalism has been in denial for far too long about that relationship to Being and our personal choices in a world of roles and material things. The panopticon approach, the attempt to create social hegemony, could never succeed against the raw resistance of those who think apart.
Somewhere and somehow radical thought will reappear to take this problem that existence precedes essence and the phenomenological anaysis of our situation and so create the humanism required before transhumanism is possible - and offer a 'poetic' attitude to being in the world.
Personally, poetry bores me. If something needs to be said, let it be said, and, if not, let it be experienced in direct relation to Being. The text is the very source of our alienation. Yet Heidegger's stance suggests that that which is poetic or spiritual links to the human core.
Husserlian 'scientific' investigation of the mind's relationship to itself, Sartrean concern with our performance in the world and Heideggerian investigation of our relationship to Being provide (in this book) the start of an inquiry into a sufficient rebellion to preserve us against new intelligences.
We are in the midst of a revolution in which the post-moderns and the academics appear increasingly surplus to requirements much as monks became in the age of printing. A philosophy to cope with this exists already in the formative work of this school if only we knew it.
A sound if difficult and challenging guide to a difficult and challenging way of thinking. Grasp it correctly and you will never be the same. Its assertion of mind against 'science' is life-affirming, The reading list at the back, though not all there is to say on the matter, will be useful. show less
Lists
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 44
- Also by
- 11
- Members
- 5,264
- Popularity
- #4,740
- Rating
- 3.6
- Reviews
- 71
- ISBNs
- 200
- Languages
- 20