Dr. Young is probably the sympathetic biographer that every great (or lesser) man and woman dreams of - certainly the one that Nietzsche deserved after over a hundred years of misinterpretation - though  the writer's constant attempt at finding common ground feels like an apologia at times.  Philosophy students and those inclined towards a history of ideas approach to their subject will find much to admire in this expansive look at 19^th century Europe in general and the German-speaking world in particular.  

For those who know of Nietzsche through his "rep" as a proto Nazi and anti-Semite, atheist, misogynist, and moral relativist will be surprised to discover just the opposite:  a thinker who was extremely enlightened for the times and place of his society. He was an extremely deep and cogent thinker - way ahead of his contemporaries - and he has much to say to us today.  Much of the bad press comes from the piecemeal release of his writing from Will to Power after he went insane in 1889, just as he was starting to become famous.  Will to Power - a writer's notebook, never intended for publication - is the single work that every group with an agenda plunders.  A complex, unfinished work that traverses the spectrum from far right to far left, in an attempt to bridge a systematic worldview, it seems to sit equally well in the milieu of National Socialism as it does in the ethos of Postmoderism.  Dr. Young argues convincingly that Nietzsche had pretty much rejected Will on logical grounds - he painted himself into a philosophical corner.  It was compiled by his sister Elizabeth after his breakdown, and organized by subject, not arranged in the order written, and sold with an eye toward profit.  She worked her mother out of his literary estate and with their mother's death in 1897 controlled access to all of his unpublished papers, which were much in demand after his passing in 1900.  The book has a smiling Elizabeth waving to Hitler in the 1930s; she herself died in 1935.  

Nietzsche was plagued by significant health issues from childhood.  He was hypersensitive to light, had recurrent bouts of headaches, with nausea and vomiting, suffered from insomnia, depression, intestinal disorders, and spent many, many periods of his life in constant pain.  His struggle to find relief is truly poignant, resulting in an early pensioned retirement from teaching.  (The medicine of the day had really nothing to offer him).  He thought the weather and food and even people were at the root, causing him to move repeatedly at various times of the year for about a decade, change his diet routinely with every passing fad, self-medicate (chloral hydrate and sever many (what we would call toxic) relationships to live an extremely isolated existence.  Most of his remaining friends knew him only through the mail.  The biographer goes through a number of possible medical conditions which led to his madness - syphilis, meningioma, a psychiatric illness-and finds that the evidence favors the latter, a form of bipolar disorder.  I'm not so convinced.  I'd rule out syphilis for the reason that most end-stage syphilitics go quickly, not living another 11 years.  An optic meningioma, benign and slow-growing, answers many of the questions, but not all.  It may be that he had co-morbidity, common with psychiatric disorders:  he may have had a brain tumor - explaining his problems with gait - imposed on his bipolar condition and perhaps other medical ailments.  Ultimately, we don't know and probably never will know what led to his breakdown or death.  But does it really matter?

Professor Young's strong suit is approaching his subject's life as a straight chronology.  He alternates the biographical and cultural with an assessment of his writing, which has the benefit of placing the works in historical context.  He adeptly locates Nietzsche's emerging and changing views - part of his misreading - as well as identifying those ideas that were with him from the beginning.  He gives good treatment of Schopenhauer's philosophy and the relationship of Richard Wagner, both of whom are assessed evenhandedly.  He correctly points out that Nietzsche was a classical philologist - not a trained philosopher - and overlooked much of the history and discipline of that field.  (As such he viewed life through the lens of Greek society and his mature thinking embraced a model of the ideal society that bears striking resemblance to Plato's Republic.)  Though, it could be argued, that as an outsider (and philologist) he had a fresh and original approach which enabled him to see further, if not differently, in articulating and solving problems that philosophy posed.  He faults him only on his negative views of women, though his views were based to a large extent on his sister - a monster would be a generous assessment of her character - and a failed late-life love affair - whose object was a femme fatale of the first order.

Professor Young also makes a case that Nietzsche never entirely rejected Wagner's conception of the artistic masterwork (Gesamtkunstwerk), embodied by opera, as his own efforts at Will to Power attempt to articulate.  He and Wagner were on the same page when it came to a rejection of modernity and a tragic take on life; though Nietzsche's view was to embrace it affirmatively, "What does not kill me makes me stronger." 

Though the biographer touches on it at the end of Nietzsche's writing life, you may wonder earlier in his output as I did:  Was this grandiosity a literary device, a persona, he created to get his points across or was he merely crazy?  He and Wagner were the cultural warriors of their day, fighting the good fight for the higher cause.  However, Nietzsche's rant, especially after the split with Wagner starts to look like a break with reality.  His polemics, in shorter aphoristic bursts, after eight hours a day (or more) spent walking, take on the look of a blog that he was locked into for the duration.

Certainly the great style in his writing is there, but the endless harping on the same topics in an ever more strident voice begins to raise questions, if not grow old.  Is this the mark of perseverance or the manifestations of insanity?  If Nietzsche is right - truth is perspectival, you should love your fate, meritocracy is the preferred social structure, God (like the novel or theater!) is dead, and there is no world but the world of the senses (and even they fail us) - it won't matter whether a scientist or madman brought it to us.  But if he's wrong, we may be dancing to the tune of a bad news Pied Piper.  He won't be the first or the last so let the reader beware!

The biography's font size is small, with the extensive quotations even tinier, and those whose vision is not the best (or so corrected) or of a certain age, will find the reading a workout (ironic given Nietzsche's poor eyesight).  Mr. Young's writing, though very engaging, is professorial and philosophic in every sense.  He's prone to analyzing every issue in comfortable detail and taking many digressions along the way.  At 649 pages, it will represent a considerable commitment from the reader, but I found the investment well worth the effort.    What you get is a tremendous journey - what a life, it couldn't be invented! - and, to borrow from T.S. Eliot, when you arrive at the place from which Nietzsche started you will know it for the first time.  Our thanks go to Julian Young for making this enjoyable and moving trip possible.

For those new to Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols are the most accessible of his works.  These short pieces will provide you a nice cross-section of his mature thinking and many excellent examples of his entertaining prose style. 

© John F. Glass September 12, 2010