And understanding — one of me wants to argue that understanding is all wrong as a mode of engagement with the plateaus. Too linear. Too (phal)logocentric. I think one can only “understand” D&G as one “understands” a poem
As one pro to another, you don’t really believe this bullshit, do you? Of course you don’t. It’s all very ludic.
There are two broad intepretations of Deleuze as far as I can see: 1) it’s a kind of Rorschach test and 2) you can get it if you’ve read enough of his sources. I suppose most lit folks subscribe to #1. I’m more of a #2 person, myself.