Advice on reading Nietzsche and Proust

[Desolation]

I've decided to spend the next few weeks devoted to these two writers. I've read one book from each, Swann's Way from Proust, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra from Nietzsche, both of which are in my top favorite books. But despite how much I loved them, I'm not sure that I really appreciated them as well as I should have.

So, I'd like advice on how best to read these two notoriously complex writers, and manage to get the absolute most out of them(without actually reading books about reading them). And along with that, I'd like to know whether it's best to read In Search of Lost Time in one stretch, or to read it it in pieces.

Thank you.

[mayneverhave]

I've decided to spend the next few weeks devoted to these two writers. I've read one book from each, Swann's Way from Proust, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra from Nietzsche, both of which are in my top favorite books. But despite how much I loved them, I'm not sure that I really appreciated them as well as I should have.

So, I'd like advice on how best to read these two notoriously complex writers, and manage to get the absolute most out of them(without actually reading books about reading them). And along with that, I'd like to know whether it's best to read In Search of Lost Time in one stretch, or to read it it in pieces.

Thank you.

I'm currently nearing the end of Swann's Way, and the reading hasn't necessitated the use of extraneous material in order to understand the novel - though I'm sure it wouldn't hurt.

Most would probably tell you to read all of In Search of Lost Time at once - in fact, I would probably tell you to as well, though I'm reading it in pieces, simply because I have so many other things to read this summer, I cannot be bogged down reading 7 very long volumes at one time.

As for Nietzsche, his notoriously difficult reputation precedes him. I have not, as of yet, read Zarathustra, but I have read On the Genealogy of Morality. My edition (tr. Walter Kaufmann) featured an introduction by the translator and very numerous, lengthy footnotes - which aid in the reading.

With the help of footnotes, and perhaps some extraneous criticism, understanding Nietzsche (provided you have some wits about you) shouldn't prove too difficult.

[billl]

With the help of footnotes, and perhaps some extraneous criticism, understanding Nietzsche (provided you have some wits about you) shouldn't prove too difficult.

That's a good point--all the books by Nietzsche that I bought had great introductions. (I read translations by both Kaufmann and Hollingdale).

Here's like the next four I'd recommend, in no particular order:

Beyond Good and Evil is pretty inspiring. Lots of short chapters, so I never got too wrapped up in an area that wasn't interesting to me, and I could flip around, and re-read stuff I particularly liked. Written right after Zarathustra.

Twilight of the Idols was intended as an introduction to his thought when he wrote it, but I didn't know that until just now, when I looked at the wikipedia page to spark my memory. Might be good for that reason, but otherwise go with something else next.

The Gay Science (it has nothing to do with homosexuality, but man was I uncomfortable when the cashier turned out to be maybe the hottest girl at the university bookstore. Please don't think I'm homophobic, it was just an inconvenient translation of the title for me at the time. It even had a kind of rainbow color scheme on the cover :() is sort of like a jumble of short essays, like flipping through a notebook, I thought. Lots of interesting passages. Simlar structure to Beyond Good and Evil, but comes before Zarathustra.

Ecce Homo (I was proud of my mature, fearless behavior at the register with this one, can't even recall the cashier) is his last real book, and has some of his greatest stuff (in my opinion), but it'd be best to wait until reading maybe a couple more or so, I'd say. Bluntly (humorously?) egotistical, him celebrating himself. You're really getting to know him in this one.

I'm no expert, of course, there'll hopefully be more opinions and input, maybe just reading the back covers in the bookstore or flipping through them will help you decide better than anything. It's been a looonng time since I read them, too. I really enjoyed them, though, so it was fun to look back and research/remember them a bit for you.

So, in case you don't get enough to go on elsewhere, that's my prescription.

[Desolation]

I'm currently reading a book called 'The Essential Writings of Nietzsche', and it has the complete texts of The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morals, The Case of Wagner, and Ecce Homo, along with snippets from other works, all translated by Kaufmann. I skipped most of 'Tragedy' as Kaufmann recommends, and I'm planning on reading Twilight of the Idols & the Anti-Christ(which I have together in another book, unfortunately not translated by Kaufmann, but I read that it's done by an equally competent translator) between 'Wagner' and "Ecce Homo'.

Thank you for the advice and short descriptions.

[Dr. Hill]

Beyond Good and Evil is a wonderful read. The fact that morality is relative is really all you need to accept before reading this one.

[mayneverhave]

Yes, Nietzsche's best work is primarily in ethics, in which On the Genealogy of Morality is considered his best.

His theories on ressentiment, the development of morality, his praising of Napoleon, and his outrageous anti-semitism make it an interesting read.

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

Obviously read both authors very carefully and slowly. Make sure you understand the fundamental works of the philosophers and philosophies Nietzsche criticizes (or praises).

[Bastable]

His theories on ressentiment, the development of morality, his praising of Napoleon, and his outrageous anti-semitism make it an interesting read.

Nietzsche wasn't an anti-semite.

[billl]

Well, at the very least, he at one point lamented at length that the Germans were worse.

[amarna]

Nietzsche wasn't an anti-semite.

He made several anti-semitic remarks and several anti-anti-semitic remarks as well. His attidude was very inconsistent and he changed it impulsively, maybe due to his mental disease. But finally it were not single antisemitic or racist remaks which made Nietzsche one of the predecessors of nazi ideology but the aggressive elitism of his late writings as a whole.

[Desolation]

He made several anti-semitic remarks and several anti-anti-semitic remarks as well. His attidude was very inconsistent and he changed it impulsively, maybe due to his mental disease. But finally it were not single antisemitic or racist remaks which made Nietzsche one of the predecessors of nazi ideology but the aggressive elitism of his late writings as a whole.

Actually, his influence on Nazis was largely based on misinterpretation, and his anti-semitic sister ****ing with his works to make them more Aryan-race acceptable. Nietzsche, despite thinking that some men were better than others, ultimately wanted everyone to rise above the herd and their slavery mindsets. It is unlikely that he would have had any feeling but loathing for a man who wanted to suppress every single individual in Europe and subject them to herd mentality.

I watched a Nietzsche documentary last night :D

[amarna]

Actually, his influence on Nazis was largely based on misinterpretation, and his anti-semitic sister ****ing with his works to make them more Aryan-race acceptable. Nietzsche, despite thinking that some men were better than others, ultimately wanted everyone to rise above the herd and their slavery mindsets. It is unlikely that he would have had any feeling but loathing for a man who wanted to suppress every single individual in Europe and subject them to herd mentality.

I watched a Nietzsche documentary last night :D

I don't really believe the misinterpretation myth. Foerster-Nietzsche never edited something her brother hadn't written, so the reception history is suggested by Nietzsche's writings themselves, not by his sister.
Maybe his ideas are so attractive because they appeal to secret narcisstic needs almost anyone has (I read a book about narcissm last week :D), even his efforts to generalize his longing for grandiosity and superiority seem to me being narcisstic.

[Uberzensch]

Wow! I would have said that the advice given here was great - especially about reading Beyond Good & Evil. (By the way, the edition you have is a fantastic place to start. Many great texts all in one volume!)

However, the complete misrepresentation of Nietzsche as an anti-semite causes me to second-guess any recommendations by those posters. He most definitely was not - as far as anyone can tell without knowing him personally. Yes, he was a poster-child of the Nazis. However, that has been widely refuted. His sister was primarily responsible for destroying his legacy. Her husband was a proto-nazi. After Nietzsche went mad, she wheeled him around in a wheelchair and used him for fame. She reordered and rearranged his aphorisms to serve her purposes. The main work that she presented of her brother was not completed or finalized by him. Judging from the meticulous notes Nietzsche had, the constant revisions and changes, I would think that using his notes would not be that authoritative. Never mind the fact that Nietzsche's writing style is hardly easy or straightforward to begin with. It's very easy to see how an ironic phrase taken out of context could seem like something else.

Further complicating this mess is Nietzsche's argument of the Jewish slave revolt. However, the Jews are implicated as much as the Christians - in fact the Christians are the tool used to make the revolt succeed. So, if he's anti-Semitic, it's only in the same way that he's anti-christian, and, presumably, anti-muslim.

I hope all of that helps...

[amarna]

However, the complete misrepresentation of Nietzsche...

"The weak and unsuccessful shall perish: Main principle of our philanthropy. And one has to aid them with perishing." (Antichrist, 2nd chapter).

Is there anything to misrepresent?

[Uberzensch]

"The weak and unsuccessful shall perish: Main principle of our philanthropy. And one has to help them with that." (Antichrist, 2nd chapter).

Is there anything to misrepresent?

Where is the anti-semitism?

I don't have the text in front of me right now, so I'll assume there is something surrounding this text that is anti-semitic?

Unless, of course, you are referring to the weak and unsuccessful perishing. However, if the Jews are included in that group because of their slave mentality/morality, that does not make N an anti-semite. You have to remember that he would also include Christians in that group.

[amarna]

I guess we'll never ever compromise about Mr. Walrus Moustache. Never mind. :)

[promtbr]

Well if you have Neitzche in a thread topic title of this forum, you can expect threadjacking... (one of the reasons I return less and less to this site, as tho its potentially the best lit forum, its the worst for immature and inconsiderate threadjacking.)


As to your Proust question. Don't be disauded from reading "The Seach" with the idea that you must read it all once you start it. A good english translation (same translator all 6 volumes) would be The Modern Library's version. The Vintage I believe has a different translator in each of the first 4 volumes and do not have the last volumes translated.

No you do not have to have a lot of secondary lit. If you do nothing else than read Beckett's thin Proust and maybe the very readable Roger Shatuck's Proust Way..

As I see you prefer not to read ANY (?) criticism *oy* ... Then at the very least I WOULD DEFINITELY look up a summation, an overview of Henri Bergson's Philosophy as it pertains to Time. Proust studied under a famous Bergson protege and Bergson's concept of durational time is pretty much the machine that drives Proust's engine. Its really not a lot of material and the few days reading spent on these will pay back dividends. At first to some, the convoluted multiple subordinate clauses may give one fits, but once you let it flow and get a sense of it, it becomes easier and reading experience like no other. It is NOT allusion filled nor is it a symbol-hunting lit. Proust's prose is the "meaning", it teaches you how to read it.

Take a deep breath and ease your way into his pace, let the sentences flow. Sometimes reading aloud is good too. IMHO, it is a work you can procede in stretches, maybe by volume. You can do a volume or two, drop it for a time and comeback to when you can. It is not primarily plot driven (but yes, there are plot lines as such), so its not like you have to refresh everything when you pick it back up. ENJOY! This is "wisdom lit" by one of its high priests...

[Uberzensch]

I guess we'll never ever compromise about Mr. Walrus Moustache. Never mind. :)

Really? That's it?

[promtbr]

Really? That's it?

The Original Poster says thank for that.

[Aelita]

I am agree with Amarna. However, we shouldn't blame Nietzsche for the crimes of nazis.

I like the Amarna name. Remind me about my studying of Ancient Egipt art history.

[mal4mac]

I'm currently reading a book called 'The Essential Writings of Nietzsche', and it has the complete texts of The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, The Genealogy of Morals, The Case of Wagner, and Ecce Homo, along with snippets from other works, all translated by Kaufmann. I skipped most of 'Tragedy' as Kaufmann recommends, and I'm planning on reading Twilight of the Idols & the Anti-Christ(which I have together in another book, unfortunately not translated by Kaufmann, but I read that it's done by an equally competent translator) between 'Wagner' and "Ecce Homo'.

Thank you for the advice and short descriptions.

I read the "Essential" book last year, and can't think of a better introduction to Nietzsche. It contains all the books recommended by Harold Bloom in his " The Western Canon", except "The Will to Power", which is what I will be reading next. I read "Twilight" and "Anti-Christ" a few years ago in a Penguin translation by R. J. Hollingdale, and found it excellent, up to the standard of Kaufmann.

I found "Zarathustra" crazy & difficult (Bloom calls it unreadable, which is almost right, only 'almost' I did read it! I'll read anything.) So if you found that easy the rest of his works should be a breeze!

Kaufmann's biography of Nietzsche is well worth reading. Or try Bloom's "The Western Canon" if you want to see Nietzsche in the context of Western Literature in general. Bloom is also good on Proust.

[Desolation]

I read the "Essential" book last year, and can't think of a better introduction to Nietzsche. It contains all the books recommended by Harold Bloom in his " The Western Canon", except "The Will to Power", which is what I will be reading next. I read "Twilight" and "Anti-Christ" a few years ago in a Penguin translation by R. J. Hollingdale, and found it excellent, up to the standard of Kaufmann.

I found "Zarathustra" crazy & difficult (Bloom calls it unreadable, which is almost right, only 'almost' I did read it! I'll read anything.) So if you found that easy the rest of his works should be a breeze!

Kaufmann's biography of Nietzsche is well worth reading. Or try Bloom's "The Western Canon" if you want to see Nietzsche in the context of Western Literature in general. Bloom is also good on Proust.
Bloom may have been a little off the mark to include The Will to Power in his Western canon, as opposed to Twilight of the Idols or The Anti-Christ, or any other of Nietzsche's works. It's not bad, but it's little more than a collection of scraps, and not really representative of Nietzsche's philosophy. I disagree with his opinion of Zarathustra as well, but I can see where he's coming from.

By this point, almost a year after the original post, I've read all of Nietzsche's works from Zarathustra to Ecce Homo(as well as pieces of TWTP), as well as Kaufmann's incredible biography. Now, Nietzsche is my favorite writer. :)

[ktr]

Nietzsche an anti-semite? are you kidding? if you're not you're absolutely misinformed. he had a huge falling out with his family and country over the issue.

[ktr]

In 1886 Nietzsche broke with his editor, Ernst Schmeitzner, disgusted by his anti-Semitic opinions. Nietzsche saw his own writings as "completely buried and unexhumeable in this anti-Semitic dump" of Schmeitzner—associating the editor with a movement that should be "utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind".[17] He then printed Beyond Good and Evil at his own expense, and issued in 1886-87 second editions of his earlier works (The Birth of Tragedy, Human, All Too Human, Dawn, and The Gay Science), accompanied by new prefaces in which he reconsidered his earlier works. Thereafter, he saw his work as completed for a time and hoped that soon a readership would develop. In fact, interest in Nietzsche's thought did increase at this time, if rather slowly and in a way hardly perceived by him. During these years Nietzsche met Meta von Salis, Carl Spitteler, and also Gottfried Keller. In 1886 his sister Elisabeth married the anti-Semite Bernhard Förster and traveled to Paraguay to found Nueva Germania, a "Germanic" colony—a plan to which Nietzsche responded with mocking laughter.[18] Through correspondence, Nietzsche's relationship with Elisabeth continued on the path of conflict and reconciliation, but they would meet again only after his collapse. He continued to have frequent and painful attacks of illness, which made prolonged work impossible. In 1887 Nietzsche wrote the polemic On the Genealogy of Morals.

[OrphanPip]

He also goes to great length to condemn Wagner's anti-semitism in The Case of Wagner.

[mal4mac]

By this point, almost a year after the original post, I've read all of Nietzsche's works from Zarathustra to Ecce Homo(as well as pieces of TWTP), as well as Kaufmann's incredible biography. Now, Nietzsche is my favorite writer. :)

He's OK, but I haven't felt inspired to read more since I stopped reading him about a year ago. I'm finding Shakespaere, Dante, Mozart, and several others, of greater aesthetic value.

[Nietzsche]

Actually, his influence on Nazis was largely based on misinterpretation, and his anti-semitic sister ****ing with his works to make them more Aryan-race acceptable. Nietzsche, despite thinking that some men were better than others, ultimately wanted everyone to rise above the herd and their slavery mindsets. It is unlikely that he would have had any feeling but loathing for a man who wanted to suppress every single individual in Europe and subject them to herd mentality.

I watched a Nietzsche documentary last night :D


Indeed you are correct. Any of my issues with the Jews are on a religious basis. I defended the integrity of the Jews several times, which you can find in the following places. Mind not my ravings on their religion which can seem racist, or my ***** sister's manipulation of my later works.

Aphorism 475 in Human all too Human

205 in The Dawn

251 in Beyond Good and Evil

Note that in Human, All Too Human part 475, I write

As soon as it is no longer a question of the conserving of nations but of the production of the strongest possible European mixed race, the Jew will be just as usable and desirable as an ingredient of it as any other national residue.

In the recommended reading in Beyond Good and Evil, Note that I write,


The Jews, however, are beyond any doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race now living in Europe

Do I sound like I believe their ethnicity makes them any less human than my fellow indo-european Germans? No, I praise them and believe they are a blessing to German society!

Anyway, in regards to how to read my works, you can find a video series from youtube user MrCropper in which he reads and explains Zarathustra. Read my works very carefully , slowly, and if something doesn't make sense, pause and think about it. My works are highly metaphorical.

( I just love writing from Nietzsche's point of view)

[Nietzsche]

Sorry, my post double posted for some reason so I just deleted the second copy.

[SunnySleepsLate]

It doesn't sound like you should read either writer yet, since you are unsure if you have understood the pieces you have read. Those two writers specifically should hit you like a ton of bricks; you should kind of feel like you know where they are coming from very well already, while you are reading it. I would hold off for a few years. The reading experience will be better. Proust and Nietzsche created some of the best things on this planet, so make sure not to ruin it for yourself.

Heidegger says read Aristotle for ten years before reading Nietzsche, but I wouldn't go that far.




www.notentertaining.com

[WuWei]

You definitely want to read Proust's Recherche all at once. And take your sweet time doing it, it's a journey you're unfortunately only allowed to make once (as a first-time reader). The books actually make so much sense as a whole, a wonderfully developed symphony with recurrent themes and a great finale, that you would really lose a lot chopping it up.