What are you reading?

[mne]

You should post this in the Rick Owens thread - this one is really for books. Thanks!

Ahh thanks! I wasn't 100 % sure. Will do next time

[Aska]

Midway through Hunger by Knut Hamsun - fantastic so far. One of those minor modernist masterpieces that are usually under the radar.

Hamsun is one of my favorite writers! For me Hunger is his magnum opus but I would also recommend The Wanderer if you haven't read it? less feverish madness and more social realism à la Steinbeck.

Right now I am reading Querelle of Brest by Jean Genet. Interesting nihilistic study of moral and the human psyche.

[Faust]

Thank you - I will pick that up.

[flicers]

I've only read Mysteries and Pan (which are usually considered his most important modernist works). If you like Hunger you'll also enjoy Mysteries.

For anyone interested in Hamsun this review is a great overview and it also touches his nazism.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n23/james-wood/addicted-to-unpredictability

[oulipien]

Nietzsche isn't that hard go cet into. Just read birth of tragedy and Zarathoustra, easy reads and you'll cet the gist of what he thought. You don't need an introduction

This is not good advice, on several dimensions!

- They are not "easy reads" (except perhaps in the sense that Hume is an easy read: it's not dense, baffling Hegelian prose);
- It is not wise to assume that there is a "what he thought" that spans the periods of Birth of Tragedy and Zarathustra, or even any two books;
- It isn't even wise to assume that there's a "what he thought", at all, at least in some periods, if that's supposed to indicate a positive doctrine;
- Secondary literature is really, really helpful (even if lots of it is not very good, sadly).

Personally I would choose The Gay Science over either of the two books above as a "first Nietzsche".

I have taught on Nietzsche and published in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies and take myself to have at least enough relevant expertise to make the above claims.

(One might even go so far as to say that TRANSLATIONS AND CHEAP (not to mention free, online or in the library) EDITIONS ARE RUINING 19TH CENTURY GERMAN PHILOSOPHY, since formerly you'd have to learn German and work with professors on a long course of study, and sure graduate school can be a harrowing nightmare but lots of people you encounter are smart and helpful and when you've made your bones in your thesis---really getting to know the work of the people you're discussing---you'll actually know what you're talking about, unlike some rando picking up On the Genealogy of Morality because it's, like, dark and nihilistic and cool or whatever. But I personally wouldn't go that far, because that would be ridic, like the time David Chang got his undies in a twist because suddenly just anyone could have good ramen.)

[galia]

"getting the gist of what he thought" was perhaps a poor turn of phrase, but I stand by my statement.

birth of tragedy will give you the concepts of appolonian and dyonisiac, while zarathoustra will introduce you to the concept of übermensch and to the idea of the self reliant individual and the concept of "force" a a positive value, which are all nietzchean concepts that have had a historical impact on how the world evolved and that have changed many people's perceptions of reality and mankind. you might not consider them most central to nietzchean thought as a whole, whatever that may be since the guy was insane for a good part of his life, so I'm not sure that applies. I thought these books were easy and comfortable to read and allowed you to have a cursory understanding of several illuminating ideas. It's quite a litterary prose. If you find a good edition with notes, you don't need an introduction.

I have not read The Gay Science, so you might be right that it would be even better, although I do not believe there is one perfect introductory book and I think your post was quite snobbish tbh. I think the best way to get into any author it to find out which are his more accessible books and then to read a summary and pick whichever one piques your interest most.

[t3hg0suazn]

my old reply was deleted, but you both make valid points. the suggestions Galia gave were good in terms of subject matter. But with my limited attention span I did find even Birth of Tragedy hard to really focus on and understand (I got the Kaufmann translation). I ended up getting the "gist" by reading Wikipedia and the introductions from several different editions. I will have a go at Zarathustra when I have time, both with actual translated text and secondary source, as the topics there interest me the most.

[augustinn]

My previous post was deleted as well...

Pascal Garnier's work is cracking me up. Anyone else read The Islanders, or his other books?

[Fuuma]

This is not good advice, on several dimensions!

- They are not "easy reads" (except perhaps in the sense that Hume is an easy read: it's not dense, baffling Hegelian prose);
- It is not wise to assume that there is a "what he thought" that spans the periods of Birth of Tragedy and Zarathustra, or even any two books;
- It isn't even wise to assume that there's a "what he thought", at all, at least in some periods, if that's supposed to indicate a positive doctrine;
- Secondary literature is really, really helpful (even if lots of it is not very good, sadly).

Personally I would choose The Gay Science over either of the two books above as a "first Nietzsche".

I have taught on Nietzsche and published in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies and take myself to have at least enough relevant expertise to make the above claims.

(One might even go so far as to say that TRANSLATIONS AND CHEAP (not to mention free, online or in the library) EDITIONS ARE RUINING 19TH CENTURY GERMAN PHILOSOPHY, since formerly you'd have to learn German and work with professors on a long course of study, and sure graduate school can be a harrowing nightmare but lots of people you encounter are smart and helpful and when you've made your bones in your thesis---really getting to know the work of the people you're discussing---you'll actually know what you're talking about, unlike some rando picking up On the Genealogy of Morality because it's, like, dark and nihilistic and cool or whatever. But I personally wouldn't go that far, because that would be ridic, like the time David Chang got his undies in a twist because suddenly just anyone could have good ramen.)

I've skateboarded with Nietchey on at least 3 instances and I'd say arguing for the transvaluation of all values counts as having a positive doctrine. Your other points about translations and the lack of stability of one's thinking over a series of works -Heidegger's turn being a prime example-are quite cogent.

I'd say the main question Galia was trying to answer is simple: how can I get a proper entry point into Nietzsche's work without getting discouraged cause it is too complicated (e.g. someone advising people to get started on Badiou with being and event).

[oulipien]

"getting the gist of what he thought" was perhaps a poor turn of phrase, but I stand by my statement.

birth of tragedy will give you the concepts of appolonian and dyonisiac, while zarathoustra will introduce you to the concept of übermensch and to the idea of the self reliant individual and the concept of "force" a a positive value, which are all nietzchean concepts that have had a historical impact on how the world evolved and that have changed many people's perceptions of reality and mankind. you might not consider them most central to nietzchean thought as a whole, whatever that may be since the guy was insane for a good part of his life, so I'm not sure that applies. I thought these books were easy and comfortable to read and allowed you to have a cursory understanding of several illuminating ideas. It's quite a litterary prose. If you find a good edition with notes, you don't need an introduction.

I have not read The Gay Science, so you might be right that it would be even better, although I do not believe there is one perfect introductory book and I think your post was quite snobbish tbh. I think the best way to get into any author it to find out which are his more accessible books and then to read a summary and pick whichever one piques your interest most.

I'll cop to snobbery (though tbh that does seem the spirit of the place...). But the point is that "apollonian" and "dionysian", "self-reliant individual", "übermensch", etc. are all really, really, really obscure things, that don't obviously mean the same thing in different or even the same books depending on what Nietzsche is talking about, or whom he's addressing, at a given point.

To Fuuma's point, for instance, it's not always clear that Nietzsche is *arguing for* a transvaluation of values so much as asserting that the strong simply *do* transvalue values. (And so, in some cases it seems, do the weak! But not in the same way.) It's certainly much more modish, these days, to talk Nietzsche as arguing for particular theses or doctrines, than it used to be (Bernard Williams has a good line comparing him and Wittgenstein on these grounds).

Anyway, so as perhaps to be less snobbish let me say I was primarily (over)reacting to the suggestion that Nietzsche is easy and you can "get the gist" by reading in isolation.

[galia]

to be honest, I don't really care about what N actually thought as much as I do about how some of his concepts influenced the course of history, but of course in doing so these concepts were truncated and tweaked by perception. whatever, I'm not that into philosophy, this is all based on what I remember from university, so you're probably right. although to be fair, nothing you said would be helpful to what the guy was asking

[Faust]

]I'll cop to snobbery (though tbh that does seem the spirit of the place...).[/B]

That you have to excuse your expertise as snobbery is a testament to how shitty our culture has become. Never apologize for knowledge and taste. Fuck everyone.

[bukka]

I have to agree with oulipien on this. Wrong advise is useless. And his message wasn't particularly snobbish...
Reading Mabanckou. Verre Cassé atm, really really recommended for a fun and wise read.

[oulipien]

That you have to excuse your expertise as snobbery is a testament to how shitty our culture has become. Never apologize for knowledge and taste. Fuck everyone.

Eh, there is a big difference between knowledge and snobbery. You can definitely be knowledgeable without being a snob and you can be a snob without being particularly knowledgeable (which is the worst of both worlds). Someone using knowledge or expertise as a cudgel perhaps should apologize, because that's a dick move, even though knowledge, expertise, and taste, and their exercise, in themselves are all good things.

[oulipien]

Slightly more on topic, I recently finished Moby-Dick which turns out (who knew?) to be utterly, utterly fantastic, absolutely exuberant linguistically, and have moved on to Molloy (which I am anachronistically finding slightly reminiscent, in parts, of Gerald Murnane).