"Birth of Tragedy" can be stated as the first study off the hands of a master, concerning the European thought while establishing cross-roads between theater and music. According to Nietzsche, who approaches diverse philosophical problems along paths other than European philosophical tradition, thinking man is defined as creative, progressive and productive. His superior talents qualify him as one of the "über-mensch". Tragedy too embodies an application quality which makes its way through the dephts of human nature with the aid of music. Thus, this study is among the works which represent the intellectual personality of Nietzsche excuisitely.

To begin I must say that as to content and organization, this is an excellent book. The problem is it is about style. This is only a problem in that the book itself lacks one. In the words of the Negro Spiritual "Everybody talkin' 'bout hebben aint goin' there." Is it perhaps enough to talk about Nietzsche's style when he explicitly tells us that conquering nihilism requires we enact our own (GS 290)? Could it be that our author has imbibed too much nihilist French criticism, which evades coming to grips with Nietzsche (which must come at the expense of dealing with the me myself) in the name of becoming merely "Nietzschean?" Is this not, perhaps, how all "Truth" begins: in becoming critical in order to avoid having to come to grips with the me myself? By all means, buy this book. Read this book. But become who you are, not just somebody who knows how to debunk "Truth."

As Bataille said somewhere, 'Nietzsche's madness is one of the most horrifying challenges to the whole mindset of the West in this century' or something like that ... yep, one day the rug will be rolled back and we will laugh at ourselves for falling for the trite and too-neat myth of Nietzsche the Syphilitic. Prof. Crawford's book goes a long way to dethroning this myth, and assembles many key factoids and quotes. Although, she then looses the reins a tad and sails off into some inane theory that he was then faking it! Egads. Truly, we have sunk far far far from our shaman fire-gazing ancestors who let the holy spirit tear off the roof of their mind every night, and toss them into the vast oblivion. Meher Baba's work with the Masts is probably the key information that prof. Crawford needs to correct some of the excesses of this book. Otherwise, a step in the right direction, ... i.e. closer to the cliff!!!

This is a fabulous book. It contains some of the clearest writing about Nietzsche that is currently available. It contextualizes Nietzsche through the lens of Lacan, Freud and many others without being overwhelming for the novice reader-though I'm sure many scholars will also devour this book.

Berkowitz does a good job undermining (a) the "new Nietzsche" of recent French theory and the postmodern politics of identity and difference; and (b) the "old Nietzsche" cavalierly dismissed as a nihilist and relativist. Where Berkowitz falls way short is in failing to understand how and why Nietzsche "relies" on traditional notions he allegedly "repudiates" (e.g., nature, reason, morality). Nietzsche is not interested in repudiation but transfiguration. You can't transfigure what isn't first "figured" (life and values as they have been). What Berkowitz calls the "contest of [irreconcilable] extremes" at the heart of Nietzsche's thought is actually the context in which Nietzsche argues for a life-affirming morality beyond the life-denying ethics of what we would call "traditional values." One may like the venerable truths Berkowitz favors. But how ironic to turn Nietzsche, of all thinkers, into a virtual pretext for arguing traditional values!

I read this book immediately after finishing Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Berkowitz presents Nietzsche's philosophy in a way not often undertaken. He emphasizes the ethics that Nietzsche holds, despite his lack of belief in God. I enjoyed this because I felt, while reading Nietzsche, that he did not imply the death of morality with the death of God. Berkowitz does a fine job of proving this point.

I've been reading Nietzsche for over four years now (which is about one fifth of my lifetime) and I still find this by far the best book on the subject (in second place is a book called "What Nietzsche means" by one George Morgan - first published in 1939!). Peter Berkowitz analyses, criticizes and, in this way, almost f i n a l i z e s Nietzsche's thought as he shows in which way Nietzsche's failures, too, contribute to his overall achievement, which is to show a n d j u s t i f y the limits of man's power over his own destiny. By all means read it: it is a milestone in modern thinking and will still be read in a hundred year's time.

For the sake of brevity, I will say merely that this translation was entirely successful in its aim to vulgarize Nietzsche's stylistic idiosyncracies for the sake of mass consumption. This is a beautiful book, and deserves a more sympathetic treatment. R.J. Hollingdale's translation is the best, but even Walter Kaufmann's is preferable to this one. It DOES matter!

In this book, Nietzsche is concerned with bringing about the end of those idols that have the "feet of clay." Much has grown hollow in the light of modern discoveries, and the old idols must fall. We are not to worry too much about what shall replace them, because Nietzsche's hammer is impatient to speak. And new values need room before they can flourish, so it is out with traditional (mis)conceptions for Nietzsche.

This book is an interesting insight into Nietzsche's, if not the human, psyche. He reveals the insecurity that must stalk those who fancy to be significant people (are you really the ideal/person you represent to be, or just an actor?) This book is also the origin of the famous "what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" maxim. It's a terse and impressive statement, but it is clearly not always true. You may not come out stronger out an illness or a psychologically traumatic experience. Nietzsche overvalues hardness and overestimates the power of the subconsiouss to motivate our actions. As a short and insightful book, however, this is still a great read.

Polt's is an accessible, readable, but faithful translation of a powerful book that summarizes Nietzsche's main thoughts...

Strongly influenced by an analytical interpretation of Nietzsche from Danto's Nietzsche as Philosopher Nehamas does more harm to Nietzsche than good. Nehamas's own "creative" interpretation of Nietzsche is utterly irresponsible. Interpreting Nietzsche analytical only makes Nietzsche's moral properties run amok. Nehamas interprets Nietzsche like most Christians interpret the Bible: He takes away a few things he can use, dirties and confounds the remainder and reviles the whole. Nietzsche asserts, rather than believes, that "untruth" is indeed a condition of life. But he does not assert any kind of "theory of truth," as Nehamas would have us to believe. Nietzsche's moral philosophy is Descartian - doubting to believe to discover one's own perspective of truth - not a dogmatic religious truth! His intent is rather, to give us his perspective to help us discover truth in ourselves, not in Nietzsche, himself.

This is one of the well known hatchet jobs done on Nietzsche over the last two decades in order to sell the idea that Nietzsche is a postmodernist -- a person who buys the Derridian line that there is nothing outside the text. But Nietzsche is not one of those types. Indeed, 'there is nothing outside the text' is one of those pieces of philosophical insanity that can only be compared to other such pieces: like Parmenides belief that nothing moves, or Barkeley's belief that there is no such thing as matter, or Palto's belief that things do not have their properties, and so on. The position Nehamas takes is an outgrowth of German Idealism, which is just Berkeley all over again. Nietzsche was a realist. He thought of German philosophy as a flight from reality, and a coward's philosophy designed to make a big show. The very notion of life as literature is self-contradictory. But, of course, like all postmodern theorists, Nehamas is un-selfcritical. His rectitude is all that matters, and it cannot be questioned.

The structure of this book is tight; the author unfolds his subjects with great skill. Probably the most intriguing book on Nietzsche in English.

Miklowitz's tome is written in the language of solipsistic academese. THough most of his interpretations and analogies start out well, they disintegrate into obfuscated enigmas shortly thereafter. Having read other authors on the same subject--including Paul Ricouer, under whom Miklowitz has studied--I recommend going to straightforward sources and not trying to waft through pages of dense and tricky text if you are looking for something comprehensible.

Do not let the sentences packed full of jargon discourage you from spelunking through the Hegelian word-stalagtites to the core of this work! First, a dtermined reader will find great illumination not only of Hegel's thinking (and who couldn't use this), but of his place and meaning in the Continental tradition. And once through the mires of the Hegelian "Meta-mess", a light-hearted, though still heavy-worded adventure through the enigmatic "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" examines Nietzsche's ironic and complex literary wit. The interpretation offered is viable and must be discussed in any subsequent work attempting to grapple with the Hegel, Nietzsche and any possible future for philosophy.

This book attempts to explain how and why the traditional philosopher's ambition to provide a complete account of reality and truth has been largely abandoned in the twentieth century. Miklowitz argues that this high-minded ambition is realized in Hegel, but that its realization is catastrophic: the audacity of "absolute idealism" discredits the entire project, and leads to the nihilism of Nietzsche's anti-systematic perspectivism. This is a subtle and difficult book about an extremely important paradigm shift from "modernity" to what some call "postmodernity." Highly recommended for anyone interested in a serious interpretation of the philosophical underpinnings of contemporary culture.

Once in a lifetime a book comes along ... that is so arm-wavingly silly that it's almost Pythonesque. This book, "Nietzsche and Wagner: a Study in Subjugation" is actually less reliable than Robert Gutman's or Marc Weiner's Wagner books, which were previously the record-holders. But Kohler beats them hollow. I'm sorry to say that this book has the scholarly merit of a UFO abduction memoir.

Kohler doesn't even bother to try to substantiate his various untrue and silly claims. One of these claims is that Nietzsche was homosexual, for which Kohler (as several critics have pointed out) adduces no evidence at all. Maybe Kohler thinks that Nietzsche calling a book "Die Froeliche Wissenschaft" (The Gay Science) makes Nietzsche "gay" in the current sense. (The meaning of "gay" seems to be changing again, but that's another story.) But we have plenty of evidence of Nietzsche's heterosexuality and no evidence at all of same-sex desire or practice. Nietzsche was a misogynist, hostile and contemptuous towards women, also clearly afraid of them, but that doesn't make him homosexual. Kohler seems to think that claiming something is the same as making it so.

Kohler also claims that after the Nietzsche-Wagner split Wagner conducted a relentless and vindictive campaign against Nietzsche on the grounds that he (Nietzsche) was homosexual. Again, Kohler doen't support this claim of a homophobic campaign by Wagner with any evidence. But then, how could he? There was no such campaign. Instead there was the famous letter from Wagner to Nietzsche's doctor, expressing concern for the health of "our young friend N."and suggesting that Nietzsche's nervous problems might be caused by excessive masturbation.

Wagner's letter is splendidly dotty, but it also brings Kohler's claims crashing to the ground. (1) Masturbation is not the same thing as homosexuality. Wagner did not think Nietzsche was homosexual; instead, prescient in so many things, Wagner was the first major thinker to call Nietzsche a wanker (just kidding, Nietzsche fans). (2) A kindly meant, if eccentric, letter to Nietzsche's doctor is not quite the same thing as persecution. It's clear from Cosima Wagner's Diaries that Wagner's private reaction to the split with Nietzsche was regret, a wish to have the breach healed, and an undoubtedly patronising pity for "that poor young man" Nietzsche. These are not the sort of feelings that lead to persecution or a campaign of vilification, as Kohler claims.

As well, Wagner's actual attitude to homosexuals (there were no gays in the 19th Century) is suggested in an earlier letter to a homosexual friend. Wagner suggests that his friend "try to cut down a little, on the pederasty"... The attitude is one of amused tolerance, which won't do now, but it was progressive and liberal by the standards of his time. Wagner wasn't a homophobe.

In fact Wagner didn't respond in public to Nietzsche's repeated attacks (except once, a very indirect reference in one of his essays, without mentioning Nietzsche's name); contra Kohler, the abuse was very much a one-way street, and not in the direction that Kohler suggests.

Kohler also presents a Nietzsche who wrote antisemitic passages in his works during the alliance with Wagner, but who stopped after the split. This is simply and flagrantly untrue. The post-Wagner Nietzsche attacked antisemites, but he also continued to attack and insult Jews. There are many, many antisemitic passages in Nietzsche's work - Nietzsche fans, like Kohler and the reviewer from Kirkus Review quoted above, like to overlook Nietzsche's antisemitism, but antisemites find Nietzsche a useful supporter and resource. You'll find plenty of antisemitic quotes from Nietzsche on proud display on the Web's neo-Nazi sites, and the vast majority of these antisemitic passages were written AFTER the split with Wagner.

And there's Nietzsche's attack on Wagner in which he claimed that Wagner had a Jewish father. There is irony, of course, in claiming an antisemite has Jewish parentage. But it reflects what Wagner himself seems to have believed, that the man who was almost certainly his real father, Ludwig Geyer, was Jewish. For this attack Nietzsche must have drawn on his private conversations with Wagner, in which Wagner poured out personal fears to a man he believed was his friend. The nastiness in Nietzsche's attack is in the betrayal of confidence, not in the claiming that Wagner had a Jewish parent.

I mention this attack by Nietzsche, couched in antisemitic terms and involving personal betrayal, because Kohler skips blithely over it. Imagine what he'd said if it had been the other way round; Wagner attacking Nietzsche in antisemitic terms while betraying an intimate confidence. But in fact there are suspiciously few quotes of any kind from Nietzsche in Kohler's book. Given the book's profound ignorance of the details of Nietzsche's or Wagner's life and philosophies, I suspect this is not so much because Kohler wants to keep it simple, but because he is not particularly familiar with his subjects' work. Given the sort of book he's written, he didn't need to be.

By the way, an earlier book by Kohler, that's only just been translated into English, "Wagner's Hitler", is now available. Friends who've read the German edition tell me that it's even more fanciful, nonsensical, dishonest and incoherent than this book. I'll look for it in a remainder bin.

Laon

NW is not the most academic of books in form, but readability and lack of footnotes do not make a book worthless. Köhler may not have enough evidence to convince the critical, but the material provided is well worth the read. Homosexuality/onanism/anti-semitism: these elements are simply not central to either individual (Wagner's anti-semitism may be the exception). Some of Köhler's conclusions may be questionable, but his observations are not what make the book. The content itself is very interesting, and the intelligent and familiar (with RW/FN) will come away with a great degree of insight. To anyone sincerely interested in either, it is requisite. Perhaps you will not agree with Köhler, so what? The book is simply worth the read. My opinions didn't change from the book, but I have a much richer picture of both men. (I am honesty surprised that anyone could find this book upsetting [see review below]. It's a fun little book, if you hate it, you really ought to relax a bit. Not for tyros: if you've only read a bit of FN or seen an opera, and you want a key to understanding either, forget it. But if you are deep into either, you skip it at your peril.

The author of _Zarathustra's secret_ takes us through the period encounter between Nietzsche and Wagner in a quite graphic tale of one of the first of the modern celebrity farces, that of Wagnerian ego and its hangers on. Although the account is well done, I should wonder if a clever cutpurse like Nietzsche was ever really subjugated and whether he didn't, despite an series of emotional shocks, achieve the net equivalent of going undercover as a Wagner disciple, to his profit or loss in unclear. For all the background music of the philosophic, more than musical, leitmotiv (Schopenhauer gave it away with fake hint, the 'will') this account of artistic overdrive twice over is a remarkable tale of psychological helplessness, in Wagner and Nietzsche. Anyway, worth reading.

This book has certanly nothing of the "essential" Nietzsche. Nothing but lines taken out of context. Doesn't mean a thing.

This book of supposed Nietzsche work is not very true to how Nietzsche felt, and how he actually wrote. I would not recomend this selection to those unfamilar with Nietzsche, if your just starting with Nietzsche try Beyond Good and Evil, or The Will to Power.

This "edition" is the equivalent of a K-tel record collection greatest radio hits: a SELECTION of bits and pieces ("radio-edit" versions) rearranged topically into a collection that never existed before, and for good reason.To begin with, a topical organization is entirely antithetical to Nietzsche's thinking: Nietzsche, perhaps more than any other western philosopher was a thinker of contexts, of nuances, and contradictions. To take fragments out of context is almost necessarily to misunderstand him (and these topics are entirely the editor's invention, NOT Nitezsche's, and not even coming necessarily from the interests Nietzsche shows in his work). (...)If I haven't made myself clear yet, DO NOT READ THIS SCRAPBOOK of Nietzsche's aphorisms, ESPECIALLY AS AN INTRODUCTION to Nietzsche's philosophy.