. . .but in serious need of an editor. It has numerous problems, from typos to continuity issues to a fairly jumbled (but apparently unintentionally so, ha ha) ordering of ideas within the text. This only interferes with readability in a few places, but it might be enough to confuse a reader who is new to either Foucault's ideas or this style of academic writing. Despite this, I think it should come in handy as an accessible gloss of some difficult material. On the other hand, it would be a shame to substitute reading this for reading either the original texts or competing interpretations of Foucault's work.

As the English speaking world is lacking the definitive collection of Foucault's numerous occasional writings for journals, newspapers and forwards to books, any addition to the ever-expanding oeuvre of translations is a plus.

Most of the selections here have been published previously in other collections. However, this collection includes some interesting pieces that were previously hard to find. My favorite may be "Who are you, Professor Foucault?" an interview conducted shortly after Les Mots and les choses, in which Foucault dismisses the criticism of anti-humanism by referring to humans as mere functioning species. Classic. Also, the essay, "Is It Useless to Revolt?" is a stunning and conflicting piece of political writing. Beautifully written (and translated). The editor includes a selection of Foucault's final lectures which outlines the intended fourth volume to the History of Sexuality: The Confessions of the Flesh.

In all, these essays provide an interesting contrast between Foucault's aesthetic views and views on spirituality and religion. Indeed, the mystical side of Foucault are highlighted in his essays on Klossowski and modern French fiction when read alongside his writings on the Church and mystical experiences.

Oh, and this collection includes a marvellous brief memoir by James Bernauer. Good stuff...

I must agree with the first review. Although this book is well-researched, it suffers from a complete lack of understanding. Foucault's entire philosophy is junked in this attempt to apotheosize yet another French thinker... And if the author abstains from excessive jargon, I say it is because he cannot understand and effectively use that jargon; he is beneath the contemporary intellectual current.

The first thing you need to know about David Halperin's SAINT FOUCAULT is that the title is only moderately ironic. That is, Halperin really sees Foucault as a sort of liberating force for the Western gay world: although he makes his case quite passionately, his claims seem very blinkered by his adoration. This is a good book to assign students insofar as it makes a useful argument to tear apart, but time has shown that Halperin's vision of Foucault has more to do with Halperin and less to do with Foucault himself and what he actually said.

Halperin's book is very interesting: it stakes a somewhat extreme position on Foucault (be forewarned that the title isn't ironic!) and attempts to mount a case for Foucault's critical centrality to gay studies and gay theoretical discourse in very clear (and very emotional) rhetoric.

It's useful to have book of this sort as a kind of diatribe, and it's actually quite refreshing to have someone stake such a claim to poststructuralist thinking in such a candid and emotional manner. But it's very easy to pick apart Halperin's arguments, to see his blind spots and where his adoration of what he thinks Foucault stood for actually misrepresent Foucault, or (in other places) aren't as useful or as empowering for gay men and women as he would like to believe. Still, realizing this is in-and-of-itself quite instructive (I should note that its flaws make the book teach very well in courses on sexuality or gender--the students have a great deal to pick apart), and it's still a bracing little polemic.

if you're bothering to check out this book, let alone read my review of it, you've doubtless come in contact with foucault before, somewhere or other. this was true of me, when i first had the book thrust upon me, as part of a seminar course i was taking. i had read discipline and punish, and history of sexuality at the time, and little else by foucault. i had found both of those books to be dificult, but worth the effort. not so with foucault live, unfortunately. the book focuses primarily on foucault's preoccupation with himself, his brilliance, and his status as non-figurehead of any movement. much of the interviews here deal with the man, either in conjuction with his work, or seperate from it. i found the man a lot less interesting than his work. to be sure, there are articles here that shed light on his thoughts pertaining to the construction of sexuality, and the nature of modern society, and the treatment of our undesirables, as would be expected, and it was a great source for quotes to use when addressing passages from his other work; overall, however, it offered very little in the way of original thought. he's said everything here elsewhere, and, more often than not, better. as i said, it's a fine place to fine quotable lines, if you've got a paper to write, and an idea what you want to say, but it doesn't shine much light on his philosophy. but i could be wrong.

Lots can be said about the genial and conversational style of Foucault in 90 minutes. Strathern does not pull any punches to vigorously outline his personal strong belief in his sweep of the philosopher's life and work. He does not disappoint with Foucault in 90 minutes. I would like to caution the reader about the reading and use of this (and I am not even sure it qualifies as a "book" - it is more like an essay actually) book. Readers unquestionably should not use these extremely short, and often opinionated volumes as a replacement for reading Foucault's books. On occasion, Strathern judges Foucault guilty of a number of intellectual oversimplifications, and clearly dislikes, not Foucault's homosexuality, but of some of the Foucault's life choices. I strongly feel that if you are going to provide a "reader" or "introduction" of sorts, a writer needs to be neutral and as objective as he/she can possibly be - Strathern in neither. As a point of style, the first section of the volume covers Foucault's life and work. At the end of the essay, Strathern, lists quotations from the Foucault's work and tries a chronology of his life and of the history of philosophy. In concluding, I would like to reiterate the point I made above, Strathern's Foucault in 90 minutes would have been as a good introduction to demystify Foucault, to establish a form of working context which makes the life and work of Foucault less ominous. Unfortunately, Strathern is neither. Best to try Macey, Eribon, Miller or even David Shumway (all available on Amazon.com) for a more scholarly introduction.

Miguel Llora

...except it is in French and I can't read a word of it.

Might have been nice if that were mentioned before I one-clicked. oh well.