Unfashionable Observations: Volume 2 (The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche)

Well, basically it's very pedestrian. Hardly worthy of Nietzsche.Gray tries to be 'correct' at the expense of intelligibility.

I felt compelled to write something here because the only review of the translation--which is, frankly, the only relevant aspect of this text for an Amazon review--doesn't give us much to go on other than "take my word for it".The older generation of Nietzsche translators (especially those such as Kaufmann and Hollingdale) did us a great service. As with many authors, however, as scholarship grows, so too does the need for revised critical translations, which in Nietzsche's case is long overdue. Both Stanford and Cambridge U.P. (in the latter's newer editions) should be commended for their attempts to allow the English translation of the acclaimed Colli-Montinari edition finally to see the light of day long after the German, Italian, French, and even Japanese versions have been published.Among the strengths of this edition is the extensive critical apparatus. Previous editions have been helpful in providing references to some of Nietzsche's more obscure allusions but this is the first edition to provide annotations concerning textual variations across various manuscripts and subsequent emendations to published copies found in Nietzsche's library. That said, however, while annotations are given by page and line number, all notes are given as endnotes *without* indications in the text. Aside from being among those who find endnotes (instead of footnotes) annoying, one never knows when to turn to them because the text never indicates when there is a note to be read. On the one hand, one can understand why the editors made this decision: there are simply too many notes so marking them all would severely clutter the page (see what happened, for example, to Pluhar's edition of Kant's first Critique). On the other hand, it's not much use having an extensive critical apparatus when it's not easy to know when to consult it. (This particular problem, however, is not the case with all of the Stanford volumes. Human, All Too Human I also has this problem but Dawn does not, one assumes because of the change in editorship.)There is no clear winner among the translations themselves. As a random example from the second essay:Nietzsche: "Die Geschichte als reine Wissenschaft gedacht und souverän geworden, wäre eine Art von Lebens-Abschluß und Abrechnung für die Menschheit. Die historische Bildung ist [vielmehr] nur im Gefolge einer mächtigen neuen Lebensströmung, einer werdenden Kultur zum Beispiel, etwas Heilsames und Zukunft-Berheißendes, also nur dann, wenn sie von einer höheren Kraft beherrscht und geführt wird und niche selber herrscht und führt."Hollingdale: "History become pure, sovereign science would be for mankind a sort of conclusion of life and a settling of accounts with it. The study of history is something salutary and fruitful for the future only as the attendant of a mighty new current of life, of an evolving culture for example, that is to say only when it is dominated and directed by a higher force and does not itself dominate and direct."Gray: "History, conceived as a pure science and accorded sovereignty, would be for humanity a kind of conclusion to life and a settling of accounts. But historical cultivation is beneficial and holds out promise for the future only when it follows in the wake of a powerful new torrent of life, for example, an evolving culture; that is, only when it is governed and guided by a superior power, instead of governing and guiding itself."On the whole, Hollingdale's language tends to be a little more dated and even a little stiff at times. The Stanford translators tend to read a little more smoothly by comparison and tend also stay closer to Nietzsche's language. In the passage above, Gray is more sensitive to certain nuances (for example, Nietzsche's different uses of Kultur and Bildung) and his "historical cultivation" is preferable to Hollingdale's "study of history"; on the other hand, Hollingdale gets "force" right for "Kraft" and "current of life" for "Lebensströmung". In the end, I don't know if I would say that Gray's translation is *clearly* superior on its own as a translation but, when combined with the added benefit of working from more extensive source material, one could make the case that it is worth switching to the Stanford editions. (Incidentally, Gray makes a good case for why "Unfashionable Observations" is a better translation for "Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen" than "Untimely Meditations", even if at first it hits the ear strangely.)Among the disadvantages to switching to the Stanford editions are the fact that the series is incomplete (with a bizarre publication order) and that the paperbacks are tiny with little room in the margins for annotations (unlike the nearly 1-inch margins in, say, the Cambridge editions). When the entire 20-volume series is published (with the major works and related Nachlaß), it will likely be the definitive English edition of Nietzsche's works. But the virtues of these editions are collective and not in any single volume alone.I don't really know how to conclude here since I'm myself ambivalent about these new translations. While it's a good thing a complete English edition of Colli's and Montinari's Sämtliche Werke is finally appearing, at the same time, I feel like anyone who would care enough about those benefits will probably be working from the German anyway. So while newer translations are generally preferable, I just can't bring myself to say that, at least for this particular text, the choice between Gray and Hollingdale is all that significant.

Acquaintance with Nietzsche’s thought can be an excellent spur, stimulant, intoxicant, catalyst for anyone with ambitions of the creative sort.And for that, it’s probably helpful to keep in mind something Nietzsche wrote (somewhere, a better scholar perhaps will locate the exact quote) about Goethe: that Goethe knew very little about the ancient Greeks, and what little he knew he misunderstood — but he made great use of it.Determined scholars will dispute endlessly about translations and interpretations, and that’s excellent for those who want to dedicate themselves to serious scholarship. But for others: creative spur and use may be more vital than scholarly standards, may even violate such standards. Invigorating misunderstandings, and dastardly errors too, can be more productive and life-enhancing than endless scholarly nitpicking, which can be paralyzing for the former.Nietzsche himself said something of that sort, somewhere. Nietzsche did something of that sort continuously: his works were not respectable by the most serious scholarly standards of the day.So, if you want the spur: ignore much of the quibbling of the august nitpicking reviewers. Go ahead, dive in, read what tickles your whim. And fancy the Heraclitean truth: you can’t read the same sentence twice. Not even Nietzsche knew precisely what the sentence he just wrote meant, but he went on.Another item to keep in mind: N. wrote that Plato in his youth was an idle dreamer, dreaming of writing dramatic poetry some day. Then he met Socrates, a skeptical rationalist. Soc. had such an impact on Plato, that Plato internalized that skeptical rationalist; and from then, dreamer and skeptical rationalist were engaged in a perpetual agon within. And that struggle produced perhaps our greatest wide-awake dreamer of rationality's quest. N. himself seems to have had such a situation inside. Another way of putting it: pesky, analytical scholarship vs. inspired intuition, don't lose either.