…a book itself is a little machine; what is the relation (also measurable) of this literary machine to a war machine, love machine, revolutionary machine, etc. — and an abstract machine
that sweeps them along? We have been criticized for overquoting literary authors. But when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into, must be plugged into in order to work. Kleist and a mad war machine, Kafka and a most extraordinary bureaucratic machine… (What if one became animal or plant through
literature, which certainly does not mean literarily? Is it not first through the voice that one becomes animal?) Literature is an assemblage. It has nothing to do with ideology. There is no ideology and never has been.
一本書本身就是一座小小的機器。文學機器與戰爭機器、愛情機器、革命機器、…等等一以貫之，這些「抽象機器」（abstract machine）之間的關係是什麼？可以怎麼測量？我們被批評過份引述了許多文學作家。但是當我們寫作時，唯一的問題就是文學機器可以插入那一個機器中，來讓其運轉？Kleist 啟動了一個瘋狂的戰爭機器，卡夫卡發動了一部獨特的官僚機器….（要是人們藉由、透過文學變成了動物或植物該怎麼辦？這不是字面上的意義，是一種比喻象徵）文學就是一種組裝。組裝跟意識形態無關。從實際的觀點上來看，沒有意識形態這回事，也從來就不曾存在過。
A Thousand Plateaus — capitalism and schizophrenia, by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, translated and forwarded by Brian Massumi.