Wie faul, wie widerwillig, wie schlecht liest er! Wie viele Deutsche wissen es und fordern es von sich zu wissen, dass Kunst in jedem guten Satze steckt,—Kunst, die errathen sein will, sofern der Satz verstanden sein will! The German does not read aloud, not for the ear but only with the eye: meanwhile his ears are put away in a drawer.
In antiquity men read—when they did read, which happened rarely enough—to themselves, aloud, with a resounding voice; one was surprised when anyone read quietly, and se- cretly asked oneself for the reasons. A period in the classical sense is above all a physiological unit, insofar as it is held together by a single breath.
We really have no right to the great period, we who are modern and in every sense short of breath. All of these ancients were after all themselves dilettantes in rheto- ric, hence connoisseurs, hence critics and thus drove their rhetoricians to extremes; just as in the last century, when all Italians knew how to sing, virtuosity in singing and with that also the art of melody reached its climax among them. Wie wenig der deutsche Stil mit dem Klange und mit den Ohren zu thun hat, zeigt die Thatsache, dass gerade unsre guten Musiker schlecht schreiben.
Daybreak, Preface 5 —Finally, however: why should we have to say what we are and what we want and do not want so loudly and with such fervour? Above all let us say it slowly. A book like this, a problem like this, is in no hurry; we both, I just as much as my book, are friends of lento. It is not for nothing that I have been a philologist, perhaps I am a philologist still, that is to say, a teacher of slow reading:—in the end I also write slowly. Nowadays it is not only my habit, it is also to my taste—a malicious taste, per- haps?
My patient friends, this book desires for itself only perfect readers and philologists: learn to read me well! Vor Allem sagen wir es langsam. Man ist nicht umsonst Philologe gewesen, man ist es viellecht noch, das will sagen, ein Lehrer des langsamen Lesens:—endlich schreibt man auch lang- sam. Regarding my Zarathustra, for example, I do not allow that anyone knows that book who has not at some time been profoundly wounded and at some time profoundly delighted by every word in it; for only then may he enjoy the privilege of reverentially sharing in the halcyon element out of which that book was born and in its sunlight clarity, remoteness, breadth, and certainty.
To communicate a state, an inward tension of pathos, by means of signs, including the tempo of these signs—that is the meaning of every style; and considering that the multiplicity of inward states is exceptionally large in my case, I have many stylistic possibilities—the most multifari- ous art of style that has ever been at the disposal of one man.
Here my in- stinct is infallible. And until then there will be nobody to understand the art that has been squandered here: nobody ever was in a position to squander more new, unheard-of artistic devices that had actually been created only for this purpose. That this was possible in German, of all languages, re- mained to be shown: I myself would have rejected any such notion most unhesitatingly before.
Before me, it was not known what could be done with the German language—what could be done with language in gen- eral. Mein Instinkt ist hier unfehlbar. Some are best character- ized as treatises or essays. The Birth of Tragedy, with about pages, is by far the longest, unless one consid- ers the three essays of the On the Genealogy of Morals as one treatise, in which case this would be the longest, with about pages.
Sometimes these compositions have a title, though they are always con- tinuously numbered therefore we call them sections and refer to them by their numbers. We will elaborate on these aphoris- tic writings later in this chapter. Third, there is the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
According to Nietzsche himself this book has a very special place among his other writings: Among my writings my Zarathustra stands to my mind by itself. With that I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made to it so far. EH, pref.
The speeches, talks, interior dialogues, and songs of Zarathustra almost all consist of very short paragraphs of either one or a few lines. They can be read as aphorisms although they are joined together into greater entities and have a coherent place in the story of Zarathustra. But this coherence is to some extent illusory. Nietzsche himself repeatedly and for several reasons indicates that this book is incomparable. In reviewing his own books in Ecce Homo, he wrote more extensively on Zarathustra than on any of his other writings. He calls this book the result of an extraordinary kind of inspiration, to be considered as music rather than literature.
It is not only about the Dionysian, but it presents the Dionysian in the language of the dithyramb: Epigrams trembling with passion, eloquence become music, light- ning bolts hurled forward into hitherto unfathomed futures. These notes are sometimes aphorisms or provi- sional sketches for aphorisms, sometimes smaller essays or plans for such, and sometimes they are simply outlines, sketches, memos, ex- cerpts, and so forth.
It seems therefore inappropriate to call these notes a fourth type of writing. We should instead try to understand better what he did publish and the way in which he did so; that is, to understand better the form that Nietzsche apparently thought to be the most appropriate for his philosophy. They are relatively short and for the most part they stand more or less apart from each other. Sometimes Nietzsche will say that what he is going to write is based on lengthy research without, however, showing any of this research see, for example, BGE 3, 6, 59, , But again, this is done deliberately: I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them and quickly out again.
That one does not get to the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. The freezing cold makes one swift. GS Such surface explanations mean that understanding aphorisms re- quires special skills from the reader. By means of their characteristics, aphorisms force their readers to become active themselves. Whoever cannot or does not will be left behind, misunderstanding the text. And every reader must not only do so, but must do so again and again.
A great man? We will return to most of these characteristics later in this chapter. The aphorism addresses the reader and challenges him or her to react by opposing, answering, continuing, or applying what was ex- pressed in the aphorism. He began writing aphoristically from the moment where he left his more or less regular life as a professor, a life in which he was at least bound to a permanent residence.
From Nietzsche often left Basel for reasons of health. In he had to resign from his chair for these same reasons. He then started to wander from one place to another, ever searching for the best conditions for his weak constitution, without any permanent address, living either in rented rooms or with friends, pref- erably at the seaside or in the mountains see chapter 1, pp. In addition to this type of living his headaches and other sufferings also prevented him from reading much.
When his condition allowed, he often walked and let his thoughts come while walking: We do not belong to those who have ideas only among books, when stimulated by books. It is our habit to think outdoors—walk- ing, leaping, climbing, dancing, preferably on lonely mountains or near the sea where even the trails become thoughtful.
Cramped intestines betray themselves—you can bet on that—no less than closet air, closet ceilings, closet narrowness. And often this writing and copying was the most his health would allow him to do. Are they aphorisms? KSA 9, 7 Apart from remarks like this, there are several other reasons that entail the conclusion that Nietzsche intentionally wrote his texts as apho- risms. An example is section 63 from Human, All Too Human, vol. Sometimes the develop- ment of a passage into a more aphoristic form takes place over a longer time.
Thus Nietzsche inten- tionally used the aphoristic style. This appears to be true of Human, All Too Human, vol. I, sec- tions 35—38, as it does of Human, All Too Human, vol. I, sections — and — The fact that Nietzsche did not write only aphoristic works, and that most of his last writings are instead treatises, does not prove that he would prefer the latter over the former. Twilight of the Idols contains many pure aphorisms. And as the third essay of the On the Genealogy of Morals is presented as the interpretation of an aphorism from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the treatise turns out to be instrumental to the aphorism instead of the other way around.
Apart from intentionally writing aphorisms, Nietzsche also in- vested a lot of work in arranging them, dividing them over several chapters, and determining their order. The meaning of a text lies in what it is able to tell us and bring about in us both because of and de- spite the intention of the author. Texts do not simply deliver their con- tents in an arbitrary form; rather, they reveal their meaning by bringing about something in the reader. Their style intended or not is the in- strument of this accomplishment.
To understand the meaning of texts, we have to let them do their work; that is, we have to learn to read them. At the end of the chapter we will return to the question of how to read his texts pp. Already in these early notes it turns out that Nietzsche tries to re- alize through his style a kind of discourse that overcomes as much as possible the distorting and alienating effects of language. And as al- ways, the great rhetoricians of antiquity are his examples. The Distorting Effects of Language Though thinking does not exist outside of the words in which it is ar- ticulated, there is still a certain tension between thought and language.
These frames are estab- lished through the rules of grammar, but, even before that, through the most elementary material of language: words. The instincts of this or- ganism its survival instinct, its craving for domination , its physiologi- cal conditions, its relation to other specimens of the same species and to its wider surroundings, all these things have left their mark in lan- guage.
Language creates regularity and order. They attribute actions to causes and distinguish the latter from their respective effects. In this way an articulated order originates from an original chaos, as in the story about the creation of the world in the Old Testament.
But now it is not God who creates this order, but humans, and, more particularly, a certain type of human: the one that dominates through strength or number and is the most successful in the struggle for survival or for power. How- ever critical such thinking might be, it will unavoidably reformulate the conditions of life that express themselves in the words which it uses. Even when this thinker tries to be radical and to clarify precisely this domination of language over our perception and conception of reality, he will necessarily do so by means of language.
And even supposing that such a thinker would succeed—or to the extent to which he or she succeeds at, for example, creating a new lan- guage, or talking ironically or parodically and in so doing saying new things with old words, or by singing instead of talking as Zarathustra sometimes does see ThSZ III, Convalescent —even then the distort- ing power of language would persevere in the ears of those who are ad- dressed by this new way of speaking.
Those who want to de- nounce this particular type of human existence—existence framed by language—will by necessity constantly struggle with the frames that are forced on them by the language they use, and by the ears and eyes of those they want to reach with their spoken or written words.
The pathos of the weak expresses itself in a need for a stable and reli- able world in which a thing is what it is and words have unequivocal meanings. For that reason this pathos must hide its own effectiveness in language formation and development. Clearness, stability, and uni- versality are the ideals of the style of the intellect which develops from this pathos.
Its language is an abstract language of concepts and gener- alizations. The speaking person is, as much as possible, repressed or hid- den behind logical structures. Nietzsche reads a much stronger pathos in the words of some of the ancient writers. In his own writing he tries to realize a new style of pathos himself. This style of pathos will, contrary to the style of the intellect, put the speaking or writing person in the foreground, acknowledge its own ef- fectiveness, and leave space for a plurality of meanings and interpreta- tions.
It will dismiss the idea of language as a representation of the world but instead use language as a creative force. Its language will not be a language of dead concepts but rather will try to redress the solidi- fying tendency of language as much as possible by means of living im- ages. This language will have to give an account of the pathos of life, and for that reason it will have to be as versatile, full of contrasts and even contradictions, as is life. As said before, this language will hardly be understood, particu- larly by those who do not share this same pathos of the strong life.
But he does want to be understood by those who can, or, to say it more accurately, he does want to change people into those who can understand, and through his writing he tries to select those who can. His weapon in this struggle is his mastery of language. I will start by discussing the way in which Nietzsche deals with the problem of communication by looking at his types of writing and the way he presents or hides himself as their author. Finally, we will consider some more or less explicit hints Nietzsche gives to the reader to encour- age an appropriate reading of his writings.
In hiding himself, Nietzsche tries to prevent an overly quick understanding which would inevitably be an understanding according to the rules of prevalent thinking and speak- ing, and thus a misunderstanding. Nietzsche uses these techniques throughout his texts. Aphorisms do this not simply by saying what they say but by hiding their content in a rid- dle, or by leaving open a space for interpretation. But there are more means besides the aphorism which Nietzsche uses to bring about this effect.
Often Nietzsche uses dialogue in such a way that any attempt by the reader to determine the intention of the author will be in vain. He hides behind either or both of the persons who are presented as speak- ing with each other. Therefore the reader is forced to determine his or her own position. Or is it, on the contrary, just a second mask? Wanderer, who are you? Name it: whatever I have I offer to you! You are inquisi- tive! What are you saying! Say it! A second mask!
This melancholy seems to set the tone for the second half of the last part of the book. But that does not mean that Nietzsche simply put the remaining apho- risms at the end of the book, not having another place for them. The end of a text is, on the contrary, a very important part of the text, and we may expect Nietzsche to reserve it for a special element of his think- ing. There are dialogues that are being commented on by him , but most are not, and some of them are interior dialogues , Apart from the last two sections, in which Nietzsche clearly gives himself an important role, it is never completely clear whether he hides behind one or more of the dialoguing partners.
In section he presents him- self as being the student of a mysterious God, and in section he hides himself by complaining that his written words do not meet his thoughts. This art of concealment is a double weapon. Were you able to read it for your own account without attributing it to this particular author?
Are you among those who know how to hide themselves? But its placement at the end is also important for rhetorical reasons. From this perspective we might also look with a different view at the book which is in a certain sense at the end of all of his writings: Ecce Homo.
Even its title suggests that here the author himself as a per- son will come to the forefront. That is also what he explicitly announces he will do in his preface: [I]t seems indispensable to me to say who I am. One form of this weapon of self-concealment that Nietzsche uses most often is irony. Irony is a way of appearing differently from what one is, or a way of saying something different from or even opposite to what one says literally.
It is a way of using old words without handing oneself over to those words, a way to say new things with old words. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back to- gether in an ironic fashion [. TL, p. Regularly he will try to wrest writing and speaking from the serious- ness of the prevailing modes of thinking through some ironic turn. Sometimes, however, Nietzsche will appear to be critical of irony itself. But in most cases that is due to Socrates who is proverbially re- lated to this concept but who uses it, according to Nietzsche, in a com- pletely opposite way.
For Socrates, irony becomes a means to remove all concealment behind traditional or fashionable and unauthentic knowledge, to thus present himself completely honestly and without any mask, and to require his fellow citizens to do the same. Nietzsche opposes against this plebeian Socrates his image of the noble philoso- pher. And it is an ironic turn of Nietzsche to present this noble philoso- pher as characterized by his masks.
That is, we ridicule something by using its own words. Nietzsche makes use of the patterns of language to denounce its distorting func- tioning. But he also speaks explicitly about his writings being parodical. According to the preface to The Gay Science, Nietzsche as a poet in the poems which were added to this book makes fun of all poets, and he announces that there is a lot more parody to expect GS, pref. That is what happens in The Gay Science: science making fun of sci- ence.
The book ends with a reference to an approaching tragedy which would at the same time be a parody. Rhetorical Figures and Procedures Being born into a family of ministers, Nietzsche may have had almost by birth a sense for the power of words. Certainly his education was oriented towards becoming a master in the art of speaking, and his training in Schulpforta as well as his study of ancient philology without doubt contributed to his excellence in this art.
- Table of contents;
- Essential Indonesian: Speak Indonesian with Confidence! (Indonesian Phrasebook) (Essential Phrase Bk);
- B raune Ö kologen - Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
As a professor in Basel, several times Nietzsche taught courses on the ancient rhetorics. Rhetorical forms are not just secondary ad- aptations of language, but language itself is from the beginning rhetori- cal.
Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL
All words, ac- cording to Nietzsche, are the result of such a transition. There are thus no so-called adequate formulations. Language is essentially and structurally metaphorical or rhetorical. As his theory of language develops, he will be more and more convinced that conditions of life are being trans- ferred or translated into language, and that through their survival in language they maintain their grip on us. It becomes clear to him that language should be one of his main points of attention. And as his un- derstanding of the rhetorical nature of language grows, he enables him- self more and more to make use of this power of language itself.
Meta- phor, metonymy, and synecdoche are not only key concepts from his theory of language, but also the main procedures in his own rhetorical use of language. Those techniques are of differ- ent kinds and perform different functions. The others work on the level of clauses, sentences, or clusters of sen- tences and often perform the function of structuring the parts of a unit into a whole, be it a sentence, a section, a chapter, or a book inclusio, parallelism, gradation, repetitio. Some perform the function of involv- ing the reader and pushing him or her into a more active role, either directly interrogatio, apostrophe , or indirectly by challenging him or her through antithesis, understatement, or hyperbole.
Some enhance the imaginative force of the language and so the need and possibility of interpretation on the level of words, others do the same but on the level of sentences and sections irony, parody. The language of someone like Nietzsche who is experienced and skilled in the art of rhetoric cannot be adumbrated in simple schemes or rules.
His mastery enables him to make free use of all the possibili- ties which language gives him see TL, p. For Nietzsche, the metaphor represents several different kinds of related rhetorical procedures. In this transmission unequal things are being equalized, rela- tions like those between the whole and its parts, the species and its specimens, cause and effect, activity and passivity. All these concepts themselves are being invented; that is, all kinds of metaphorical, meto- nymical, and other rhetorical operations are taking place in this process of transmission.
Language is itself metaphorical. There is no principal difference between literal and metaphorical language. But Nietzsche will argue against theories that pretend to be the true description or explanation of reality itself by pointing to their metaphorical or rhetorical nature. And he himself will develop a language full of new metaphors in order to open new perspectives. Sec- tion 19 of Beyond Good and Evil gives an example of, on the one hand, the complicated metaphorical constructions that Nietzsche discovers and exposes behind philosophical theories about the will, and, on the other hand, his own metaphorical way of speaking about the will.
For example, scien- tists are represented by a person lying stretched out on the ground with his or her arm in a swamp, waiting to be bitten by leeches in order to study them ThSZ IV, Leech. His or her characteristics are supposed to show some- thing of the actual topic. So Nietzsche writes that the name of truth might be Baubo GS, pref. Through his presentation of this kind of messenger Nietzsche explains something regarding the mes- sage, as we will see in chapter 5. Another famous example is section of Beyond Good and Evil, where Dionysus is eulogized.
Through indicating that he was addressed by someone, the author presents himself in a per- sonal way. The author personally ad- dresses his readers. Much of his mastery of language is put in the service of this: the transformation of the philosophical treatise into the self-communication of one person, Nietzsche, to an- other person, his reader: Good is any style that really communicates an inward state [. Always presupposing that there are ears—that there are those ca- pable and worthy of the same pathos, that there is no lack of those to whom one may communicate oneself.
The distinction between the dif- ferent types of techniques is not clear cut. A sustained metaphor can be the constitutive ele- ment of the unity and entirety of a textual entity. It would be a mistake to attribute this to the literary nature of his texts. Although it does constitute, at least partly, this literary mark, it is mo- tivated by what I mentioned before as being the two main goals of his linguistic struggle: the realization of a plurality of meaning and the se- lection and transformation of his audience see pp.
The second goal will give his writing an explicit and extreme performative nature. It will have to bring something about in and among those who expose themselves to this literature. The composition of a text in the sense of making a coherent whole from a plurality of thoughts and interpretations, and producing at least part of the effect of a text through this organization, takes place at sev- eral levels: the sentence, the aphorism, and the collection of aphorisms in a chapter or book. The way in which Nietzsche constructs his sen- tences will be discussed at the end of this section.
We have already ob- served the aspects of the aphorism, which itself challenges the reader to become active and to leave space for a plurality of interpretations. It selects through these effects because it leaves behind those readers who are not prepared or not able to read actively, to create their own inter- pretation, and to endure the undecidability of a single true interpreta- tion.
For example, he uses the dialogue to pre- sent different perspectives in one text, sometimes further multiplying the perspective when the partners each have different voices. Irony and parody are ways of saying something and not saying it at the same time. This kind of plural and performative text demands a strict organiza- tion. Even if the aphorism is rather short, and certainly if it is longer than an aphorism in the strict sense, it must be organized and con- structed in a way that guarantees its effectiveness. It requires special attention and tech- niques to compose a book out of seemingly distinct aphorisms and to prevent such a book from becoming like a card tray in which the items have only an arbitrary order.
In our discussion of sections —96 of Be- yond Good and Evil see pp. The inclusio is mainly used for larger por- tions of texts. Sometimes Nietzsche is very ex- plicit about this. We will elaborate on this in our discussion of the will to power see chapter 3, pp. But even the aphorism must have a coherent form, and so must a book of aphorisms if it wants to be different from a card tray. Nietzsche uses all his linguistic mastery to realize this combination of antithesis, plurality, and tension on the one hand, and coherence, style, and form on the other.
The inclusio is one of his favorite instruments to this effect. We al- ready saw a good example of this in our discussion of sections —96 of Beyond Good and Evil. Two aphorisms with a similar thesis or form, two texts that, so to speak, rhyme with each other, hold together every- thing that is put in between. The inclusio brings some coherence in an otherwise polyphonic, versatile, and equivocal writing, and it is to be used by the reader to get a grip on the texts. Even where there is no inclusio in the strict sense of the word, Nietzsche will sometimes make connections in his writings in a similar way.
Apart from using the beginning and the end of an aphorism, a group of aphorisms, or a chapter as the points from where the texts are bound together, the middle of a text is also often used in this same way. We saw an example of this in the second half of the last chapter of Be- yond Good and Evil.
Section played an important role. By pointing to that passage, or at least to that topic, he shows that it is the central theme of the book and makes clear that he now, in this supplementary part, will elaborate the state of affairs with respect to this event of several years ago. By paying attention to the ways in which Nietzsche builds coher- ent texts from a sometimes diverging plurality of notes, we might be- come more sensitive to the effectiveness which precisely is the result of this structuring. Nietzsche will probably make use of the ancient tech- niques of eloquence in order to attain this result.
As an example we could refer to his On the Genealogy of Morals. Gradually more unrest; sporadic lightning; very disagreeable truths are heard grumbling in the distance—until eventually a tempo feroce is attained in which everything rushes ahead in a tre- mendous tension. In the end, in the midst of perfectly gruesome detonations, a new truth becomes visible every time among thick clouds. Nietzsche opens his essay with an exor- dium or a proemium. This will be easily recogniz- able for the audience and, because of its polemical character, will en- gage them 1—3. Then follows the treatment of the problem in a threefold argumentatio.
Three times Nietzsche starts a new line of arguments for his hypothesis: sections 6— 7, 10—11, and 13— The last two sec- tions are a perfect peroratio in which the author not only gives his con- clusion but also gives a prediction as to how the described development will continue. Finally, he delivers his instructions to the audience in or- der to make them continue in an appropriate way 16— Nietzsche turns out to follow a well-tried and trusty rhetorical device of Quintil- lianus in constructing this text.
We will have to account for this when reading his writings. In concluding this section we pay attention to still another lesson Nietzsche learned from the an- cient rhetoricians: how to bring the reader to the required mode of reading. He states: My sense of style, for the epigram as a style, was awakened almost instantly when I came into contact with Sallust.
And even in my Zarathustra one will recognize a very serious ambition for a Ro- man style, for the aere perennius in style. Nietzsche wants to write in the same way in which the ancient rhetori- cians spoke. The sentences have to be constructed in a way that the readers will be carried along by them, even seduced by them. Nietzsche does so in several ways.
Many of these instructions are intended to activate the reader, to involve him or her explicitly in what is read. We saw already that Nietzsche often addresses the reader in a very personal way see above, p. The reader is forced not only to take note of what the author says, but to relate it to his or her own situation. There are too many names, but at least they all seem to say that we are different. The alternative Nietzsche offers his readers is the choice between being behind or being ahead, between belonging to those who are criti- cized or to those who are criticizing even criticizing themselves as self- criticism is one of the main characteristics of those critics , between old and new.
This is not only a very seductive way of putting the alternative, it also turns it into a polemic: the choice is between being a companion or being an opponent. The function of these numerous questions is to incite the reader to answer them and eventually to guess the answers. Often the questions are rhetorical. In such a case the question marks have a function similar to the exclamation marks which are also frequently used. The reader should also pay attention to the arrangement of both types of punctuation marks throughout the texts.
A noticeable example is the preface to the second edition of The Birth of Tragedy The last section counts another ten question marks in two pages of text and contains even more exclama- tion marks. The function is clear: through the many rhetorical ques- tions the reader is well prepared for the categorical nature of the clos- ing section. This philosopher will deliberately use quotation marks for this purpose, to show that he or she uses typical or common words but in another way.
Quotation marks are the trademark of an ironic philosophy. This section is about the relation between morality and nature. Initially Nietzsche presents morality as tyranny against nature. But then a different thesis is gradu- ally developed: nature itself is presented as tyrannical. It is nature which makes morality tyrannical, and at the end tyranny is presented as shorthand for the moral imperative of nature.
Does Nietzsche suggest that there exists no nature without any moral interpretation, as there exists no morality without a natural basis? A rather different way in which Nietzsche selects and molds his readers lies in his use and placement of periodic sentences. Repeatedly he stresses the importance of tempo and rhythm for that which is at stake in a text: to communicate by means of signs an inner state or pathos of the author to the reader, to let the reader take part in this pathos.
It is evi- dent that this art cannot be described in measures and forms that can be exactly determined in a general way. Such would contradict its task of being appropriate to the pathos it has to communicate, apart from yielding to a much-too-mechanical rhythm to allow real effectiveness. Nevertheless, we can give some characteristics.
This shortness has the effect of leaving the read- ers their autonomy. When that has been done, the reader can successively be carried along by means of one or two longer sentences which often are true periodic sentences. Section of BGE is a perfect example, and treats, not by chance, this art of writing. Most readers consider underlined words or parts of a sentence as representing the key elements with regard to the contents. An underlined word usually has to be read with emphasis.
Nietzsche does want to write in this style of antiquity and he demands that his texts be read in that way. Apart from underlining, one of the other instruments he uses for this are capital letters. Usually this indicates that the word should be pronounced with emphasis. A very important punctuation mark is the dash, not only because it occurs all too often, but also because of its many intentional func- tions. Nietzsche writes in several unpublished notes that he likes in his books the dashes more than everything that is expressed with words KSA 11, 34[65; ].
In fact, he makes many outlines for books with dashes, as the intended titles suggest. Sometimes he uses the dash to indicate the presence of a thought without expressing it. This may mean that the reader has to complete the sentence, and that those who cannot do so reveal them- selves to be unsuitable for an understanding of the text. It may also mean that Nietzsche does not want the corresponding thought to be pronounced, neither by himself nor by others, perhaps because any wording of it would degrade it.
In Zarathustra for example, it turns out that the thought of the eternal return does not allow itself simply to be expressed. The dash can, however, also indicate that at this point even for the author new ground is opening up to develop, new channels are present to explore.
It even can indicate an aporia, one that is not hidden but appears literally. But the dash can indicate still more. Sometimes it divides the text and makes a cesura between its parts. It might have the musical func- tion of one count of rest or, again as in music, point to the fact that the thought has to be held. It can mark the place in a text where the readers have to breathe to enable themselves to continue to the sentence which follows, and it also can simply have the function of marking off an in- terjected clause.
The text shows many dashes that successively have the following functions. We saw that according to Nietzsche writing is the art of communicating through signs an inner state or pathos to the reader. Zarathustra expresses this by saying that worthwhile writing is written with blood. This evidently puts high demands on the reader: Whoever writes in blood and aphorisms does not want to be read but to be learned by heart. ThSZ I, Reading and Writing When I imagine a perfect reader, he always turns into a monster of courage and curiosity; moreover, supple, cunning, cautious; a born adventurer and discoverer.
The rules which he formulates for the reading of his texts can be summarized in two main rules, both narrowly related to each other: to read slowly and to read ruminatively. Reading slowly is requisite because the text is also written slowly, or rather, be- cause the text only says what it has to say slowly.
Both the book and its author are so much ahead of their age that they will have to wait quite some time for their readers anyway. The reader will need so much time to arrive at the contents of the book that there is no rea- son for the author to hurry. But does not this mean that the reader needs to hurry to under- stand the book? The more the reader hurries the longer the book will last and the more he or she will become distanced from it.
Nietz- sche appeals to his skills as a philologist. The comparison with philology may provide us also with an ex- planation for this necessary slowness.
Using Der, Die, and Das Correctly in German
The texts with which the philolo- gists work are a great distance from us: temporally speaking, two thou- sand years or more separate us from their authors. The greater the distance, the more time is needed to bridge it. Whoever reads quickly what was written long ago will merely read the prejudices of his or her own age into the text. Close reading reaches further. And this is even more true because our age is one of haste and speed, tending to bridge ever greater distances in ever less time. In section of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche reminds us of the fact that ancient people did read aloud.
We know that reading silently was discovered only at the beginning of our era with Ambrose — Nietzsche also writes his texts for the ears. They have to be read aloud, even learned by heart, and this can only be done slowly. The au- thor tries to question morality in a way that has never before existed. Morality, which is the framework of our thinking, now becomes the sub- ject matter of it, and even becomes recognized as a prejudice to be over- come.
Apart from the opposition of fast and slow, there is another oppo- sition which characterizes the difference between the ages, between the tastes and habits of the reader, and those to which the book will bring the reader under the condition that he or she knows how to achieve the right tempo. In short, Nietzsche selects those who know to be appropriately passive in the activity of reading. The doors left open are the doors of a text which opens itself to the readers who allow the text to bring about in them whatever it may, who admit the thoughts that the text may evoke, and who therefore read with hidden thoughts.
This is even more important when the text is written with hidden thoughts. This reading with hidden thoughts, or with doors left open, demands that we read slowly. Nietzsche acknowledges that his texts are not easily accessible. He demands that his readers make an effort to penetrate them: his texts select their own readers.
Then he gives two examples of his texts: Thus Spoke Zarathustra and the apho- ristic works. We will see, however, that this does not mean that Zara- thustra is not an aphoristic work. Zarathustra does have a place of its own, and is incomparable with all other writings because of the extreme pathos which it expresses. For the wording suggests that being wounded and being delighted do not happen at the same time. Every word of Zarathustra should have both effects at least once. To bring about this result it will have to have spoken at different moments; it will have to be read and meditated several times.
Only then may it be felt in these ways, or in the imagery of ruminating: only then may it become incorporated and digested. Probably because of the char- acteristic hurry of our modern industrious existence, we are inclined to think that an aphorism can be read as a message. They have to be interpreted, not simply read. Ich vermute mal, Sie meinen einen positiven Wandel. Hab ich ehrlich gesagt wohl verpasst.
Welche Skeptiker sind damit gemeint? Vermutlich nicht, aber genau da liegt das Problem der Klimaskeptiker. Mein Eindruck ist eher, diese Sorte hat inzwischen jeglichen Kredit in den Medien verspielt, absolut bedeutungslos geworden. Lachen Sie ungehemmt, Andreas, auch gern doppelt, aber unbedingt aufrichtig. Kurz, nicht vom Thema ablenken: die wirklich "inconvenient truth" ist "in der Mitte der Gesellschaft" angekommen.
Eine Sorte, die gerade reihenweise auszufallen scheint. So was konnte schon bei der Schneeballschlacht auf auf dem Schulhof schief gehen. Interessanterweise hat Martenstein geschrieben, was ich denke, ohne es zu wissen. Was nun? Wie gesagt: Wenn Martenstein nicht falsch verstanden werden will, soll er nicht schreiben, was er nicht denkt. Ich verstehe die ganze Aufregung nicht. Man sollte doch den Text in dem Umfeld sehen in dem er erschienen ist, er ist nicht an Skeptiker gerichtet, nicht mal an Alarmisten. Demzufolge ist es auch keine Satire, wie es Andreas wohl zu erkennen glaubt.
Nein, er nimmt sich selbst ein wenig auf die Schippe, und damit auch seine Leserschaft. Nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger. So gesehen ist der Text humorvoll, ohne eine Satire zu sein. Viktor Lenzer Welche "inconvenient truth" ist angekommen? Welche "Wende"? Sorry, ich verstehe Sie nicht, kann daher auch nicht darauf eingehen.
Quentin Quencher "Demzufolge ist es auch keine Satire, wie es Andreas wohl zu erkennen glaubt. Ich sprach von Glosse, nicht Satire. Ich warne aber dringend vor Wikipedia, das soll von Alarmisten unterwandert sein. Ja, er spricht einen wahren Kern an. Temperaturen stagnieren und die letzten Winter hierzulande eher kalt waren. Wer beim Lesen der Glosse oder beim Lesen meiner Links nicht lachen musste, dem kann ich auch nicht helfen.
Ansonsten gibt es wichtigeres als die Frage, ob Martenstein ein Skeptiker ist. Aber ich finde, wir sollten den Martenstein ausdiskutieren. Andreas "ich verstehe Sie nicht" Bedaure, aber das ist Ihr Problem. Weshalb nicht gleich "Voldemort", Dennis? Lenzer Nun ja, es steht Ihnen frei, aus ihren Ansichten ein Geheimnis zu machen. Keine Ahnung, wie das passiert ist. Gute Nacht Andreas. Nun auch Martenstein bei Marc Moranos "climate depot"! Mal schauen, was noch so kommt. Meine Frage steht weiter unbeantwortet im Raum: Sind das nun Skeptiker, die jetzt ernstgenommen werden sollen?
Andreas kommt drauf an. Wir wissen, dass die Artikel nur Schwachsinn sind. So verzerrt man jede Nachricht. Sowas aber auch. Andreas "Ich lach mich schlapp, jetzt ist es sogar schon doppelt lustig ;- " Dann haben sie den Artikel in Der Zeit wohl nicht verstanden?! Gewagte These.
Okay, ich nehme mir meinen eigenen Ratschlag auch zu Herzen, Andreas. Das ist nur angemessen. Klimawandel ist auch eine Frage der Haltung. Ich finde seinen Artikel eher kritisch. Er sagt doch eisgentlich genau das was Martenstein schreibt. Aha, haben sie meinen Kommentar 1 und 24 nicht gelesen oder nicht verstanden? Vielleicht belegen Sie einfach mal, was Sie mir vorwerfen. So, und jetzt lese ich nochmal den Martenstein, wie man im Internet politisch korrekt beleidigt. Sie scheinen die Lektion schon gelernt zu haben. Warum denn? Doch Lamb degradiert seine Kronzeugen zu Statisten einer Kampagne.
Ab und an mal reingeguckt? Oder geht es um etwas ganz anderes? Dahinter steckt vielleicht einfach mehr als nur "Gezerre". Allerdings haben wir nun ganz den Klimawandel hinter uns gelassen und auch vergessen, dass Martenstein einfach nur eine nachdenkliche Kolumne, eine Glosse geschrieben hat - und kein neues Klimamanifest.
Das passt ganz gut. Der Herr Schnabel fand uns wohl irrelevant. Heutzutage fragt man ab und zu an, meist um auch eine "andere" Stimme zu haben. Nur der Ernstfall zwingt die Menschen erst sich so eindeutig zu positionieren. Das erscheint mir doch sehr platt. Und was Martenstein bedeutet - eigentlich nichts etc. Lagerbildung eben.
Herr Krauss, ich kenne Bourdieu nicht, kann dazu also nicht viel sagen. Was war zuerst da. Es ist ein Hinweis dass sich Zweifel an den Wahrheiten einschleichen. Ihre zweite Bemerkung leuchtet mir nihcht ganz ein. Wer bestimmt denn die Wichtigkeit von Wissensgebieten? Die Wissenschaftler allein? Es ging mir aber um was anderes wenn ich schrieb, dass Martenstein und das Publikum abwinken, wenn Wissenschaftler Gehoer suchen fuer immer neue Erklaerungen, die den alten widersprechen.
Es handelt sich hier ja nicht um einen Klima-krieg - kaum jemand bezweifelt doch, dass es sich beim Klimawandel um einen Ernstfall handelt. Das Problem ist nur, was dieser nun genau ist und wie dieser zu definieren ist etc. Das Problem mit dem Klimawandel ist ja gerade, dass man nicht genau voraussagen kann was passieren wird etc. Ich nehme Ihnen auch nicht ganz ab, dass diese Auseinandersetzungen "langsam groteske Formen" annehmen - das war doch schon viel schlimmer, finde ich. Gerade hier ist Martenstein doch relevant, zumindest um eine Tendenz abzulesen: vormals festgezurrte Positionen lockern sich auf, vielleicht kann man als Alarmist heute auch mal die Klimaforschung hinterfragen oder als Skeptiker respektieren, dass der Klimawandel durchaus der Beachtung verdient.
Oder zumindest nachdenklich mit Sybille Berg eine Zigarette auf dem Balkon rauchen - nachdenklich eben. Wo sind in dieser Deutung die Unsicherheiten geblieben? Wattsup verstanden haben. MfG Yeph. Leider bin ich immer noch nicht schlauer geworden, woran Sie dies festzumachen glauben. Herr Krauss, es stimmt, die grotesken Formen waren schon schlimmer.
Wir erleben zur Zeit eine Verlagerung weg vom Klimawandel hin zur Nachhaltigkeit im allgemeinen. Und das Problem der anderen ist, dass die keinen Angriffspunkt bei einem derartigen schwammigen Begriff haben. Geht es hier um eine Ansammlung von Texten zu Costa? Geht es um eine Vorstellung des Filmemachers, um bestimmte Ideen von ihm oder den Autoren? Warum dieses Buch jetzt? Der Hauptfokus liegt auf der Arbeitsweise des Filmemachers, das wird zumindest deutlich.
Diese vier Texte behandeln mehr oder weniger exakt die gleiche Fragestellung mit unterschiedlichen Worten. Leider wiederholen sich diese Gedanken in den unterschiedlichen Texten immer wieder. Im Essay von Brombach wird ein weiteres Problem deutlich. Ventura will sie in drei Filmen vor Cavalo Dinheiro entdeckt haben. Nur sucht man vergeblich danach wie diese Weiterentwicklung denn nun aussieht. Pantenburg ist der einzige Autor, der in seinem Text zu Casa de Lava tiefer in die Materie eindringt.
Es ist ein vielversprechender Ansatz, der in der Knappheit des Textes erstickt wird. Am Ende ist diese Ausgabe von Film-Konzepte zu brav. Vielleicht verstehe ich den Sinn und das Anliegen solcher Publikationen aber einfach nicht. Vielleicht ist es aber auch beruhigend zu sehen, dass man einem solchen Filmemacher mit diesen sich selbst erstickenden, Muster-Strategien nicht wirklich nahe kommen kann.
In erster Linie orientiert sie sich dabei an fotografischen Arbeiten der letzten rund sechzig Jahren. In der Heimat sind wir verwurzelt, der Heimat sind wir verpflichtet, und umso mehr wird Heimat zu einem problematischen Begriff, wenn sie nicht ist. Heimatlosigkeit und fehlende Verwurzelung sind eine Geisel unserer Zeit. Eindeutig zu trennen sind die verschiedenen Bedeutungsebenen ohnehin nicht. Heimat als geographischer Bezugspunkt.
Ohne Zweifel hat diese Selbstwahrnehmung der Deutschen auch die Fremdwahrnehmung des Landes beeinflusst. Heimat als Kultur und Sprache. Diese Kunstwerke sind Teil einer bestimmten Kultur, die ebenfalls als Heimat verstanden werden kann. Besonders deutlich wird das, wenn sich Vertriebene mit der Frage auseinandersetzen, ob an einem anderen Ort wieder so etwas wie Heimat entstehen kann. Heimat als formale Kategorie. Heimat als Miteinander.
Sie versuchen eine kritische Masse an Menschen abzulichten, die in ihrer Querschnittsmenge so etwas wie die Essenz des Deutschen ausmachen. In Umfang und Form unterscheiden sich diese Versuche sehr stark. Heimat als Heim. Dogramacis Buch ist ein gelungenes Projekt.
Michael Guarneri and Patrick Holzapfel end their discussion about the films they have seen after meeting with Mr. Costa in Munich, in June But is there really an end in cinema or does it have to be written on the screen artificially, as Serge Daney once stated, in order for us to believe in it and be able to leave the cinema to find out that outside the sun also shines bright? Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Patrick: … I want to ask you two questions: 1 Do you think Mr.
Costa films more the things he loves or the things he fears? Michael: 1 I think it is a matter that goes beyond fear or love. I guess that Mr. Costa films the things, the places, the people, the dynamics that interest him. He films stuff that he wants to know more about.
Can we say he is a searcher, a researcher, a historian, a chronicler? Nevertheless, what is crucial to me is that Mr. This is what I admire. I am open to all possibilities, I guess. Even though, I have my prejudices, as discussed before…. Like an essay, or a Riis-esque news report, a novel….
Patrick: No, I cannot imagine those works as written texts. Costa is very much about the material sensuality as well as the time of things, in my opinion. There might be another relation to the Straubs: I cannot imagine someone blinking in another medium. People talk about Hou Hsiao-hsien as a chronicler also, and I have problems with it.
Yes, there is history in their works, there is a sense of time, politics and how they relate to each other. But I think to call them historians is wrong. They make cinema. Of course, we can talk about history through cinema, but there is an immediate presence of things that comes way before it… the wind, the movement, the eyes… all these things… and please do not tell me that this is mysticism again! It is not. There is a director and he makes a decision. It cannot be history without first being cinema, and by first being cinema it becomes presence when done by those masters.
It is a philosophical question, no doubt. Cinema can give me the experience of time… this is not what historians do. Historians — as much as I admire some of them — can also make me aware of time, but they can never make me experience it. This is an emotional topic for me.
Concerning the questions about fear and love, there is a strange relationship going on between them in life, and also with Mr. Costa, I think. We were talking about that before: this fear of desire… When I was a child, cinema could make me be afraid of something, and this is why I have loved it. But now it is the other way around. Now, it can make me love certain things, and this is why I am afraid of it.
Have you seen any John Ford after we met with Mr. Which naturally brings us to that good old fascist John Ford. Nah, just kidding. To answer your question: yes, I have seen some Ford after we met with Mr. What do you think about it? I think it is quite a ridiculous film. Patrick: I have seen 7 Women after having seen many Ford movies in a row and, for me, it was one of his weakest. It touches the ridiculous, especially in terms of casting. His last film… It is full of bitterness and cynicism.
There is a statement in the end. Moreover Ford got rid of many things there, it is a film that goes to the essence which in this case is survival for me. What makes you dislike it? Costa has talked about abstraction in the past and how he observed that filmmakers are heading towards abstraction in their later works.
Would you say he is right, also in regard of Ford? Maybe his next project I am sure there was a next project, there always is… was a romantic comedy, who knows? I think it is one of the fallacies that affect last films: their importance tends to be overestimated in dramatic, bitter and cynical terms, more often than not because they are THE END of an author. This annoys me, I have to be honest.
In the utopic atoll everything turns out fine for the main characters, Wayne gets the city girl and they all live happily ever after. Anyway, back on the main subject, yeah, in 7 Women the casting is kinda meh. The lines are awful most of the time, and the acting… ouch! The Anne Bancroft character is tough and cool, but watching her playing a johnwayner version of John Wayne is just painful.
Plus, Mike Mazurki wrestles Woody Strode and wins? No fucking way. However, I believe that at that point in his career Ford was experienced enough to make a film in which everything is intentional, so if he did things like that, he wanted the film to be like that, for some reason I cannot grasp. If the core was survival, there would be no need for the Bancroft character to kill herself: she could have killed the big bad wolf and try to survive the aftermath of her action… Running away or something.
Worst case scenario, the henchmen catch her and kill her. But no. She kills the baddy and immediately commits suicide. Because she must fulfill her duty: to be a hero and a fallen woman. Just my two cents, sorry if it sounds dogmatic. Costa says. Do you think so? On the matter of aging filmmakers, I agree with Quentin Tarantino, who said that as a filmmaker gets old, his films tend to be not so good as the first ones.
There are many exceptions, of course, but in my opinion this is generally true. I think duty in Ford is not a question of morals, getting an order or something like that; it is about a political statement and the fiction that is built around it. In this regard, the ending of 7 Women may not be as dull as you described it. It is not China as China. As far as my perception and memories of the film are concerned, you take things very literally. Do we accept it? Here, his solution is killing, which leads to suicide.
Is this a dull statement, or do we find something in-between, maybe more on an abstract level? The dry way suicide is shown is far away from heroism in my view. Maybe Ford even had the same thoughts as you about the stupidity of duty? I tend to find always both sides in Ford, especially in his endings. The romanticism of the hero, which he most clearly shows in Young Mr. Lincoln , is not always pure.
This film is far more abstract than many others and it is not a late work of Ford… There is an invisible enemy and a feeling of sad impuissance in the face of war. Feelings we can understand today. There are also suicides. In the end, there is a kind of savior. A Sergeant defends himself against all enemies until another patrol saves him. For me, in The Lost Patrol as well as in 7 Women though the former is a much, much better film, I am only trying to state that the latter is not dull , Ford tells about the fictional nostalgia of heroes in the shadow of a reality that overpowers anyone in it.
There is a constant inability to explain, to communicate in these enclosed worlds of men or women. Maybe those words are much too big, but I find your approach to Ford in terms of narration, and how casting justifies it, a little narrow. For me, he is not a director that can be watched without his formalistic choices. It has been almost a year since I have seen it, so my arguments may feel a little basic.
Sorry for that. But I feel like defending Ford here because, firstly, he has done worse than 7 Women , and secondly with Ford there is always another film that speaks with the one you were seeing and which enriches the experience. What would cinema be without these mythologies? Moreover it surely stimulates thoughts about the worldview of this or that filmmaker. There are not many last films I really love. There is no doubt, no struggling visible any more. The problem for me is when I sense that somebody knows too well what he is doing. In terms of abstraction I certainly feel that it is the case with Mr.
Which leads me to an obvious question: do you think that Mr. Is Cavalo Dinheiro in your view worse than O Sangue? Is there the still same fire? Michael: Thank you for defending your opinion with such passion. And I will purposefully ignore your mentioning Young Mr. Lincoln , because it would take us too far into a dangerous territory Young Mr.
Lincoln is a film I find difficult to digest, together with another film in which Henry Fonda plays a sneaky, mephistophelic manipulator who bullies the crowd into being good, 12 Angry Men. But then, to connect to your last one-in-three triune? Costa actually trying to find a filmmaking daily routine, to find some solid — possibly boring, white- or even blue-collar — basis in such an erratic profession, so that doubt, pressions, paranoia, deadlines, artsy bullshit, me, you, the festivals can be cast aside? O Sangue , too, was an attempt to make a movie with a bunch of friends….
Is Mr. Costa making friends and develops a desire to work with them, or does he have a desire for working with someone and in the process befriends the person? I think it is the former, but somewhere he had to start. I am not entirely sure that he really tries to find this quiet place you talk about. Costa is searching for fame or anything like that… no… but he likes his films to be shown. The Munich Filmmuseum was screening a Fontainhas retrospective.
That is a perfectly suitable place for Mr. Costa to show his films. Not because it is a museum, but because it was programmed there with passion, with an idea of cinema, it was a cinema-experience. Costa accepted their invitation without hesitation. Is that because of duty or survival? I completely understand Mr.
Costa, of course, his films should be shown everywhere because they enrich the life of everyone who sees them, and it is the only way for him to keep on. It is also a way to fight for cinema. He was complaining in Munich that he is weaker than Straub in this regard, but I think he is just different. I think a part of the doubt I can still sense in his work is due to the bitterness of this contact with reality. It is a contact with friends, places but also with the industry of cinema… and he has to be part of it to fight it.
It is just speculation and I feel a bit bad about it but these are just my thoughts. And we can be grateful for it. What do you think? Costa would stay in his native Lisbon and shoot his stuff, haunting the rooms he loves like Pessoa did with his imaginary friends. But you were talking about cinema and friendship. Patrick: Many of the greatest worked, and are working, with their friends and relatives. Just a few random names to underscore my argument, and to stimulate our thoughts in a tender way in the midst of all this heat I still feel burning inside my fingertips concerning John Ford: Jean Renoir another one of those who, for my taste, found their language too easily in his late works , Andrey Tarkovsky may be fired after one or two drinks , Ingmar Bergman too close , Tsai Ming-liang Lee and melons at least , Fassbinder a bit like Bergman, only without control or Cassavettes did not go to Fontainhas to find friends though … But then there is something I also feel with Mr.
Costa about this kind of friendship. Are things mediated by cinema meant to last, or are they just ephemeral illusions, mechanical ghosts, memories?