I Am Dynamite!: A Life of Nietzsche by Sue Prideaux
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
"I am dynamite" was not, as far as I know, said about himself BY Nietzsche. Rather, one of his first positive reviewers, JV Widmann, said "There is dynamite here!" in his review of "Beyond Good and Evil."
This started out as a pretty good book, but not quite great. However, in the chapter on Nietzsche's post-madness life, Prideaux jumped the shark into what I consider mendaciousness, something I've run into on several recent reads. I've specifically noted that in two others, including Bart Ehrman, who will also be getting an expanded version of my review of his latest book posted here.
First, I’m not a Nietzsche Deadhead, but I’m familiar enough with enough of his works, having grazed through Walter Kaufmann’s Portable N. long ago, and thus knowing that the anti-Semitic claims were a fabrication by Elisabeth. (That’s not to say that every bit of Kaufmann’s take is correct.)
I know that Nietzsche Deadheads reject the claim his madness was syphilis, and instead cite a brain tumor. Not so fast! Prideaux notes Elisabeth covered tracks on their dad’s death that leave open the possibility HE died of syphilis. If so, N. could have had it congenitally. Beyond that, she indicates serious mental illness ran in his dad’s side of the family. So, whether due to syphilis or not, likely conclusion is that he was nuts, even before his breakdown.
Also, I’m not a medical doctor nor do I play one on TV, but brain tumors don’t normally produce insanity of the sort of N’s. And, a tumor that did such would surely have killed N in much less than 11 years, or so I would think.
That said, the diagnosis of tertiary syphilis upon admission to Basel’s clinic in 1889 is compounded by N. actually having had gonorrhea twice. And, he was apparently never examined after transfer to Jena. That said, none of this would exclude syphilis. Also, her claim that some of the stigma surrounding syphlis was fading by 1889 is ... her opinion, I think.
That said, there's an issue here. Prideaux suggests a variety of reasons for his insanity, and that of his foather, without ever mentioning frontotemporal dementia and without noting a 2006 paper covered this in detail. Its symptoms would cover everything N. suffered, and his dad before him, other than the deteriorating eyesight.
Her noting of Harry Kessler’s descriptions of N. are interesting.
Definitely, the full background of Elisabeth and husband’s grfiting attempt to start Neuva Germania, and of course her appropriation of his work and ideas in the service of anti-Semitism was good.
Third, she further convinces me that, even if one discounts his earlier work, N. is surely one of the most overrated philosophers of the 19th century, and possibly one of the most overrated in the entire Western canon. If not among “most” overrated, he’s certainly overrated. I think he horribly misinterpreted much of Hellenic philosophy, ie, pre-Socratics through Aristotle (to the degree he cared about Aristotle), and didn’t wrestle with how Hellenistic philosophy saw the Hellenic.
That said, the book’s not perfect. The main failing is that I infer that Prideaux is insinuating in spots that some of his illnesses, around times of visiting his mother or sister for any length of time, were psychosomatic. But, she never follows up with what I perceive as insinuations. (This connects with her insinuation that Father N.’s “inheritale disease” could actually have been syphilis, then no follow-up.)
Prideaux also claims that August Strindberg’s introduction of Edvard Munch to N’s writings led him to paint his famous The Scream. Munch’s own description of his inspiration mentions no such thing. Wiki's description DOES mention that his sister was a patient at a asylum next to the spot he was painting in the background. More here here, with Munch’s own words. That site notes that Munch’s painting has often been interpreted as reflecting N’s “god is dead,” but Munch himself said no such thing. In fact, it was part of a series of paintings called The Frieze of Life. And, contra Prideaux’s claim, Munch’s painting of N looks not at all like The Scream. Given that Prideaux has also written a bio of Munch, I won’t be reading it, and this book fell to three stars with this. And, though I only use my “bs-pablum” for 2 stars or less, I applied it here. Her Goodreads bio claims she trained as an art historian, which makes this all worse. I have NEVER heard this claim before.
Beyond this, on the lesser side? It’s got historic errors, such as claiming Bavaria fought on Austria’s side in the Seven Weeks War, and her interpretations of life in the Bund (German Confederation, and why doesn’t she use that phrase?) are questionable at times. In addition, there’s a few linguistic errors. You “stanch” a wound, you don’t “staunch” it. Finally, for a book this level, a few more photos than it had, though the ones it did have were good.
View all my reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment