|. . . Karl Kraus|
|. . . 2005-05-26|
2. Only Nietzsche's? Or even moreso?
What strikes me is the blatancy with which Nietzsche's practice is ignored by his elucidators. But his work is hardly alone in that regard, you're right. Maybe if I started thinking of the process as something like Hollywood adaptations — not pretending to get at any better understanding of the material, but at least publicizing it and occasionally providing entertainment of its own — it wouldn't seem so odd to me....
they ALL ignore ALL the formally and methodologically and practically idiosyncratic writers' and thinkers' schticks. even when they don't ignore they don't ignore by writing monographs in which they don't ignore.
Whatever I'm selling, Turbulent Velvet's not buying.
And if you think he's wrong, look closer before you leave the shop. All aphorisms are nonrefundable.
Josh Lukin comments:
I always thought somebody must have been insisting on Nietzsche's system's aphoristicness for Thomas Mann to have worked so hard at challenging that view (in fifty years, people will be substituting "Wilde" and "Hitchens" for those names). Or am I missing your point?
And "Hollywood adaptation" criticism (beautiful analogy) can do a lot. Where would we be if Delany or Butler had understood Althusser correctly?
Plenty of unsystematic Nietzscheans and anti-Nietzscheans around, true. We aphorists don't pretend to novel insights, just to novel phrasings. My point — or more accurately my initial motivation — was to understand a certain shared limitation, or flaw, across a range of aphorists.
And of course I'm grateful to any scholar who will defend the use-value of misinterpretation.
Copyright to contributed work and quoted correspondence remains with the original authors.
Public domain work remains in the public domain.
All other material: Copyright 2015 Ray Davis.