The worst book I've read in this series - frustratingly vague and gnomic. In a short introductory book for newbies, you really need to make sure every sentence has clarity and purpose. Instead it was frustratingly difficult to work out what Horrocks meant at times. I also feel the book would have worked better if it had focused on a few key ideas and explained them clearly rather than whizzing through his books chronologically. Not sure the illustrations add much either.

I came away from the 'Introducing' book on Derrida (who is famously complex, and who I've never read anything by) with a clearer idea of his work. In contrast I've read some Foucault and struggled with this.

Edited to add - if you're looking for a good, brief overview of Foucault, you're better off doing what I just did and googling the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry. Sweet sweet clarity.

This does offer a kind of biography and explanation of Foucault's ideas over his life, but the scorn shown by the authors for the subject, or I guess I should say object, make it a less than ideal introduction. It did, however, give me more context some of Foucault's ideas that I'm encountering in my Gender Studies course.

starting to slowly accept i’ll just never understand his philosophy, either that or i already do understand it and it’s just really gappy and he completely overlooked how he could apply his philosophy to be useful to real people.

foucaultism if he saw women as human people >>>>

this book was super fun though x

Review here:
http://the-wounding-pen.blogspot.com/2010/11/foucault-graphic-guide.html

Adequate material for bullshitting in theory discussion for a passing grade, just make sure you're not arguing against a Marxist and or feminist. The book is also surprisingly dismissive of Foucault in comparison to the rest of the Introduction series (*cough* Nietzsche). To be fair, as an architect, Foucault at least brought the concept of discourse in the realm of art and architecture after it got screwed up by Le Corbusier and the bunch of Modernists. Your choice of philosophers to quote (as an architect) is probably limited to Heidegger, Deleuze and Foucault, so be nice to the guy?

Still unsure of what Foucault's thoughts on philosophy actually are. I think this book is only a beginning and a lot more in depth research is needed to flesh out his philosophy's but still making it coherent for the beginners out there. The book did throw up some interesting ideas but like I said before I'm gonna have to do a bit more research.