Rilke is a very uneven poet. Most of his poems are junk, but there are some gems scattered, mostly in Das Stunden-Buch - not his later more acclaimed works, though.
Pessoa's poems are for normies. A bit similar to Rilke, but with more cute anime-girl vibe. I think his readers are those who like cakes, candies, etc., and are fascinated by catgirls.
Hofmannsthal is a typical fin-de-siecle Viennese poet. He's a cultural poet, so it may seem too manneristic, operatic, but it's understandable. I think to some extent so is Richard Strass' earlier music.
Valery is snobbish. He's one of those "philosophical" poet that is neither poetic nor philosophical, who likes to write superficial aphorism that looks highbrow.
As for Celan's poems I felt the same. They made me sick, but not in the sense of boredom. It reads sick, but not in a good way.

Best: Catullus (the best), Elitis, Trakl, Rimbaud (though VERY flawed it is raw and true), Lautreamont, Hoelderlin (for his violent, stark, epic language, but not for the content, "meaning", of the poems),
Exceptional: Propertius (for his mastery of language), Yeats, Bauderlaire, Lorca, Gerard Manley Hopkins (don't really like it, but his language is special), etc.
Mediocre: Pound, T. S. Eliot (his sense of language is perfect, but I don't like "cultured" poetry), Rilke, Hofmannsthal, Nietzsche (I don't think he's a good poet; his language is clumsy at best). Arguably all "good" romantic English poetry.
I don't understand at all: Pessoa… and I don't recall.
Shit-tier: Valery, Auden… and I don't recall.

I didn't take those medieval poets, and Pindar, Dante, Ovid, Horace, Virgil, etc. into account.

>>135
>Hofmannsthal is a typical fin-de-siecle Viennese poet
AFAIK, mainly followed S. George. George was a noble artist, poets, and traveller, but just being an avid follower of George, like H did, is more or less absurd and ridiculous. Yesterday I came across Chapter 19-20 of Heer's book. I even don't understand why he put Nietzsche, Rilke, Hoff and Hilter together, LMAO.

For Nietzsche, Lautreamont, Hoederlin et al., I mainly treat them like prophets from another world (Lautreamont was cute), farly apart from those world of typical socializing poets. A distinctive feature is that these real poets never obviously followed a particular philosopher or a particular master poet (for Nietzsche this may become highly qustionable), somehow, which makes their work quite timeless. Living a strong life in complete isolation from everything is also one aspect.

Those painful images, words manifested naturally in their poems, like the beautiful describing of seasons in Hoederlin's tower poems, they have been fully absorbed by the poets and treated as a natural object, without even the slightest emotion, sentiment etc. appearing. Maybe in this sense, Rimbaud or Trakl was equally natural, hence, raw.

Tranquility and pain blend harmoniously, which reaches heights no one else has reached in Hoederlin's Tower poems. So, Celan was really failed. He was totally a poet of pain, and to say his poems were boring would be inaccurate. His pain was quite real, but it's absurd to make poetry out of it and not polish it, so to speak, a raw pain, so it makes his poems very bland and actually boring. I can recall that occasionally there was something "hopeful" occuring in his poems, but that was ultimately unnatural for him (considering his hospitalization reality), and made his poems childish-like, or just presenting false and shrinking hope. So, it's really very awkward, and it's fair to say that he failed.
>寂静天蓝色下的孤独，，， - Nietzsche

>Nietzsche's not a good poet
It's fair to say this. But my point laid on the very sense of his rudeness, ridiculousness, perhaps also naivity of his style of writing poems. They're intriguing, including some through-and-through simple aphorisms from The Gay Science. Maybe I'm really deeply moved by this whole Nietzsche phenomenon. Nietzsche still has many facets for me that are really deep, so recently I don't quite understand some of the conclusions Heer summarized about him (Chaper 19-20), and, many decent philosophers now think many of his ideas or behaviours stem from his jealousy (like being jeslous of Wagner and Jesus), I've taken him for a serious philosopher for a long time, which is not the same for you because you think he's a lovable and kind Metalhead.

>>135
>fascinated by catgirls
Have none intuition like it. Really unable to detect catgirls enjoyers. Maybe I never know what that so-called GenZ is (best scenario for one of them would be to like Bladee, Yabujin), and what them actually think about.
Also cannot understand those users who likes catgirls and functional programming at the same time. What the hell.
lolitas like Anna Kushina are my like. Randomly select some pics from their fandom site.

>>136
>Heer
OK. It seems that you're missing some point.
It should always be kept in mind that Heer was writing in the 1950s, just after Hitler, and he should be treated as an accurate witness of the culture of German speaking countries at that time. There is a polemical tone in his writing, inevitably. At that time the most known of Nietzsche's works is something like Will to Power, which wasn't actually what he wrote, but no one knew that. Cultural influence is a whole difference thing than what a thinker once "actually" thought. Tolkien was a die-hard Christian, but people think his works are pagan, and most of his readers proud themselves as pagans (cringe). Nazi was a seriously reprehensibe phenomena, and Nazi has many things to do with Romanticism. I don't really want to point out again I don't really devilise alt-right thinkers and conservative revolution, but it is equally true that when you write you need to be responsible, and the Romantics, and also Nietzsche, failed to do that.

As for Nietzsche proper. I don't know why you whole such a grudge against metalheads, it's really intriguing. First, He truly was a kind man; a loyal friend, and someone truly loving. Second, when I talked about metalheads it was just one facet of it. Third, there are many sorts of metalheads, and even in a individual metalhead there are many facets of him, so when I mentioned that I was pointing to a specific trait, without any generalization. Last, I never said that he was a bad philosopher or not a serious philosopher, but his language really is clumsy, when he write poems. His aphorisms are much better than his actual poems.
I spent my whole teenage years reading Nietzsche, so it is actually extremely interesting to hear you say things like that. I don't know what's a "serious philosopher", I put sincerity and kindness - a sort of higher kind of kindness - far above some sort of "seriousness". I never thought japanoise is "serious", and actually I thought most of them quite hipster, but I never thought Nietzsche being hipster. I possess an extreme hatred regarding hipsters, that makes metalheads far better than those avant-garde whatever. I suppose that I know well what is serious and what is not, and when someone is serious I won't even use words like "prophet", due to the fact that anyone who wants to be a hipster can use that word. I'm not saying that whomever uses it is a hipster, but that whomever uses it can be a hipster. It's an expression that's meaningless.
For me isolating oneself isn't really anything interesting since, well, I don't put the strive for "individuality" that high; if you as a person is original enough, or is sincere enough, there's no need to strive to be different from others. Actually, I think people don't do that if they are original enough, because they cannot blend into the crowd. Goethe may look sociable, but he isn't: he's way more unsociable than, say, Nietzsche. Goethe was much lonelier than Nietzsche or Hoelderlin, it's a sort of loneliness that is much harder to understand, a sort of loneliness that one never expresses. If you are just different, you'll never really think about being different, and I actually think Nietzsche never really cared about whether he himself was different. There's a higher purpose in his writings that's different from "being himself". But that doesn't make him a good poet at all, since his command of language is below average - his sincerity made that impossible.
But he was somehow self-obsessed, so there are many dimensions of reality that he doesn't see. There are many sorts of loneliness and spiritual toils, and what count as valuable depends on the milieu. In the age of Romanticism, in an age, a society, in which everyone screams being individual and being "mad", I'd rather traverse the opposite way- though not deliberately. In a milieu where average hipster values loneliness and whatever high, I'd just be a sociable person. And this very age and milieu that I'm living in is strange in that while actually society values being sociable, they all want to be seen as individual and unsociable and unique, and by doing some they form gangs, gangs that thinks they themselves are not mediocre but true and authentic and etc., and that makes me sick.

>>138
BTW I never really liked Nietzsche's those well-known terms such as eternal return or uebermensch. I like his more seemingly unphilosophical aphorisms and observations, but as for eternal return or uebermensch I think they're all clumsy or even laughable at best. There's a depth that these superficial terms cannot capture in Nietzsche. His kindness was a manifestation of his true philosophy, rather than those superficial terms that every normie can talk about endlessly.

>>138
>Heer
Thanks for pointing out. Almost forgot Nietzsche's affairs about Will to Power.
>"serious"
When a philosopher's thought make me to think strongly, I generally consider it as "serious", and this includes, for example, Nietzsche, Novalis, Schelling, Jung, just as Xenakis was a serious composer for me. I consider "seriousness" as philosophers's philosophical depth, and the devastating effect it had on my own thinking process. There may not be the opposite of kindness that you associate with it!
But I clearly sensed the kindness of Novalis, Jung, for example, through Novalis' correspondences and Jung's autobiography as well as his dealings with Freud.
>why you whole such a grudge against metalheads
Nooo, honestly I just can't think Nietzsche as a metalhead.
>japanoise
LMAO. I've been misunderstood as a japanoise enjoyer, this is never true to me. Remember that you objected to my saying that certain japanoisers are better than metalheads, when in fact my focus remains on a very small number of japanoisers (whose music actually doesn't even fall under the japanoise genre) such as, diesel guitar, Aube etc. There are very few of them at all, and as for the Metalheads, to be honest is that their perhaps ancient way of grouping together is not understood by me. Since this is grossly conflicting with the compromises they sometimes show, to this world.
>isolation
I'm not saying isolation is cool or represent a kind of "individuality". Nooo! Take myself as an example. I pretty much have an personality that anyone dislike (obviously this is due to some sort of nature-born-to-be thing that is completely unchangeable, also I don't want to change it at all), and tend to end up being awkward with people. Whereas I'm actually sx/so and have some socialing will (almost only in the past, it occured), especially when I genuinely interested in someone, so that's led to a historical fact that there were a lot of users I've had online interactions with (which has also led them doing idolatry-like things to me), and in "real life" I don't have anyone that can get along with naturally, considering the environment and surrounding I live in. This often ends up leading to disgust in various ways. This explains, at least to me, why I choose isolation or why I only can isolate. It's not a fun thing to do, nor is it about being special, it's that it's the only way for people like me to live. Lmao, I recently wrote a "about" part, there may be something similarly relevant in there.

So this is how I understand Lautreamont et al. Since they can't, or don't want, don't need, so they isolate, and it was just proper for any activities like writing. So I might just saying isolation is crutial for concentrating, do one's own things. And this is the very positive result of one's "unkind" personality.

>>139
>eternal return or uebermensch
After I read more, I didn't think much of that either. At first I toke almost all of them very seriously and that made me autistic that time. So what's funny to me about some metalheads is that they stick to some Nietzsche's concepts and make a big album out of them, which is another reason why I find metalheads suspicious, with Japanoiser a similar one would be substituted for Agamben or Deleuze, but this is more rare.

>>141
There are many sorts of metalheads. I can say that I'm a metalhead, but I don't get along with any -head. I fucking hate gangs. I either don't enjoy being a loner or whatever, it's just irrelevant.

As long as I can tell, most people are hopeless. They need to be, just, educated, or better, enslaved, and they're natural and born serfs. No matter what they read or what they listen to, or more accurately, whatever they do, they'll form gangs, "gangs of unique individuals"; oh my god fuck me. "Gangs of non-mediocre music connoisseurs". That's more than disgusting.
I cannot tolerate catgirl nonsense, I never liked anime, but even catgirl nonsense is better than forming a freaking gang and listening to contemporary classical and talking about "true music" versus "fake music" "fake art". I can ignore catgirl degeneracy, but the latter conjures a lust of destruction in me. Especially when they also read Hoelderlin or whatever, as if they understand anything.
I know they don't. That's without question. They don't, and they cannot. And when they talk as if they understand, I really urge to kill them brutally. Maybe decapitation is a good choice; severe their fucking tongues before that, so they won't be able to talk in hell.
I'd rather see people criticizing Nietzsche than idolizing him. And I'm sure when Nietzsche was writing his works, he didn't want to be seen as a "serious philosopher". He's a man, that's all. He wanted to be sincere, to be kind - truly kind, not that superficial "friendliness", gregarious kindness. He's hypersensitive to deception, self-deception, and dishonesty, and that made him a bad communicator: he knew those cattle-people won't understand, but he just wrote, since he wanted to be understood. Goethe didn't want to be understood. He gave up, and he was living in a largely ironic mode. He knew all too well that most people are just born serfs that need to be enslaved.

>>142
>I fucking hate gangs. I either don't enjoy being a loner or whatever,
Maybe here emerging a key that can unlock some misunderstandings. I definitely also hate gangs, so this leads to me often knowing people in various "opposing" gangs, and I meet people based on very simple reasons, will or I can say a deep attaction, so to speak, let me quote one saying of Deleuze (maybe it's not his, hard to recall):
>友谊是/开始于你在对方身上看到的这个人疯狂过后的痕迹
It fascinates me, and really, it's so rare. I only live in a way that I only know or be-friend with people that always an isolated individual (I swear this is not my starting point but it is the result), and maybe that's not "pure isolation," but that's just how I define it.

>>142
>most people are hopeless
>enslaved
Tbh those "Christians" who I've seen are just as much shit as the leftists or anything that gangs. I'm not a good debater, so I can only intuitively sense that nastiness and mediocrity. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything religious.

>>144
>Christians
True. And actually I think Nietzsche was a true Christian, and if one reads him but cannot sense that he was a true, pure, ardent Christian, the most condensed form of a Christian, than he won't understand a sentence that Nietzsche wrote. He was a true Christian, a Lutheran, and a Pietist at that. Heer knew that. Nietzsche is a truly religious person. Those "Christians", no. Oh love! Kind! Be good! Morality! Fuck me I mean.

Whatever. The point is that in my current condition I can sense more value and meaningfulness in those seemingly terse and non-spiritual philosophies and things like that. I've always been an ardent reader of Nietzsche, but now I can see many flaws and many not-that-briliant thing in him. That doesn't make me devaluate him, but I need to be direct regarding his writings. For me he's not that deep. Maybe more humane, more "from heart to heart", but he doesn't seem like a great philosopher to me. It is his sincere kindness as a human being that moves me, more than his philosophies - it his philosophy is not his kindness and purity of heart.
I value philosophers like Duns Scotus much more nowadays. He's a so-called technical philosopher, but honestly I sense more pureness of heart and more "madness" in his seemingly terse and emotionless writings than any poet. There's more toil and pain in those cold logics than in a poem. I hated Mozart, I thought he was gregarious and superficial, but now I sense that I was mistaken, but equally well I know those who worship him don't really know what's so deep in his works. They paraphrase; I can see it, it's obvious. And now I sympathize with people like Tolstoy and Goethe more than anyone else. But I suppose someone like Nietzsche needs sympathy - even if he won't say so - but these two won't need any of that. They're already complete and are already godlike.
One thing that makes me really like Heer's writings is that, if you look more closely, you'll find that he actually understands all. It must be the case that he was one of those passionate "romantic" guys, he has an uncanny understanding of art, and in his scattered remarks he has some hidden sympathies for those who he criticizes, but he went for rationality and the Apollonian. There's a certain true spiritual transcendence, not that of the genius, but that of a monk, of a true pilgrim of this world. Now I value this kind of things more than art and poetry in their Romantic form.

>>145
These words really should be read in context.

>>145
Let me be honest. Nietzsche was so unique (maybe this 'unique' word doesn't carry much weight anymore, but I just mean this.) Kierkegaard's diary was also unique, then I knew Kierkegaard developed his ideas discursively. That's a far cry from the ridiculous pseudonymous imitators like Pessoa. What the hell, even not want to mention.
Well I think I'm still in an active teenaging phase, sort of "romantic" period might be.
>Heer
Currently I'm reading Chapters 19-20 over and over again. I really think Mann's comments are a good transition for this, for me, they all paint some of it in a way that makes sense of everything.

>>151
I'm absolutely not devaluing Nietzsche, or Kierkegaard, but the point simply is there's no accurate word to "praise" these two. I'd rather criticize them than praise them, since their "positions" - if existent - are so subtle and vague that I know instinctively what they'd agree and what they mean when they contradict themselves (and they contradict a lot), but this just doesn't work when you really need to clarify, to actually do something. Of course no deed is eternal, every deed will be surpassed, but at least the deed can be surpassed by a future deed when it is done.
Every single position or single sentence that the two wrote, when taken out of the context, is more or less bullshit, but at the same time everybody with at least a functioning brain knows that they don't actually mean that. When we're criticizing Nietzsche or Kierkegaard, it is not they themselves that we're criticizing, but what stems from - the misunderstanding of - their writings.
Cattle shouldn't read Nietzsche, but they read, and they misunderstand. These two philosophers are successors of Martin Luther, and the consequence of their thoughts and writings are exactly like the consequences of Luther's activity. Luther very much hated his followers and had gone cynical before his death. This, I think, is very much due to the fact that in Lutheranism there's a sort of insurmountable paradox regarding what counts as genuine faith and that's a tormenting one. In Hegel, dialectic is subdued, but in these two it is contradictions and the dynamical tension arising from the contradictions per se that is essential, not any "position" or "thought", but the tension itself. It is similar to how in Lutheranism articles of faith aren't essential, but faith per se - but what is faith per se? So in a sense these two philosophers are just questioning, torturing, trying to expose the inwardness, but they don't solve anything and they do not want to solve anything. They are edifying, but they do not build.
BTW, the chapters that you're mentioning, I really recommend to read through the 1st to the 11th chapter, and then go to 19th chapter, otherwise some of Heer's judgements won't really make sense.

>>153
Actually I've found that my thinking has always strayed away from a kind of histo-philosophical thinking process, which can be very annoying to a sincere philosopher who engages in a dialogue with me. A prime possible clue of this perhaps was my decision to go into poetry rather than religion, after reading Nietzsche for the first time I think (that was literally only 2-3 years ago).
In fact I was referring to the very intensity, or like you said, the tension, of their thoughts, but not the concrete points of their thoughts. Which is especially evident and perceptible in their obscure fragmentary aphorisms. Taking romantist as a comparison, the fragments of Novalis are more systematic than theirs, also gained its influencing source more on a society-age flood, and it was a big difference. Novalis and the Schlegel brothers were in a strong and friendly social relationship with the German aristocracy, which included an extremely wide range of intellectuals such as Goethe, Fichte, Schelling et al., and at the end of his life, poets and philosophers lovingly wrote farewell poems for him.
This would have been almost impossible with the doomer Nietzsche. What I see as the peculiarity or depth of Nietzsche and K, is their isolation from the outside world of thought. I could say they were really more like poets for me. My guess is that - considering what Heer and you said - they were actually practicing some of the deepest, most difficult and painful doctrines of Christianity, perfectly. Unfortunately, it actually ended tragically for both of them.
And another thing is, for Nietzsche, that were Wagner, Pascal and perhaps Jesus, they became his direct sources and materials, for K (I actually didn't read them all), Mozart et al. I think. And K's life also showed the striking consequences of this extreme isolation (although forced by his fathers in the beginning). He was not allowed to go out, so this also made me thinking that, this might led to the very reason why he chose to write under many pseudonyms. He was literally talking to himself.
>unique
The language style, so to speak, the way of flowing-becoming of language, of both of them was the most unique one for me. Cynical, extreme loneliness, neurosis. They molded their ideas into this "small world" and honed them to amazing depths, and readers now can see this dynamic leaping process throughout their entire life, and it's with this totality that they inspired me, rather than memorizing any of the words they said.
>Heer
I'm afraid before my reading of the whole Heer book I may not have a clear judgement on their concrete religious identify. Btw, your patience really helped for me.

>>154
A disclaimer: I might be focus too much on that "deep feeling". For histo-religious, it's definitely an aspect I need to rethink for any thinker I've met.

>>154
Both of them are very Platonic thinkers. Yes, Platonic. So some dimwits might say that no Nietzsche hated Plato, and Kierkegaard was referring to Socrates rather than Plato, but they're dimwits, as simple as that. To really know Nietzsche and Kierkegaard as philosophers, reading a summary, or a introduction to etc. is of no help, you really need to read their works and avoid stupid cliches. The same is true of Plato. These philosophers are edifying, dynamic, they're in their core not philosophers of doctrines. A same essence may have many different manifestations depending on the cultural milieu, a true Platonist, when he's living in 19th century, is unlikely to be a superficial Platonist.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard when seen in the lense of history are really the successors of Tertullian, Augustine, Ockham, Martin Luther, etc. at least superficially - but not that superficially. And actually, for me, it seems plain that Nietzsche in his personality and his essence was a much more Christian person than Kierkegaard. It is conceivable that Kierkegaard actually had no religion, but Nietzsche, he might have not believed in a God, but he's an extreme type of religious person who just cannot breathe without thinking religiously. Kierkegaard was cerebral, complex, and quick-minded, Nietzsche was emotional, feeling-oriented and deep - in direct opposition to dimwits' perception of them.
Anyway, it's easy to perceive - for those who can perceive - that these two philosophers are very different, but it's quite hard to really accurately chart their position in history. But as far as I can see to sense more concrete content in their writings a deep understanding of Christianity and Western Civilization - doctrinal, intellectual, historical, etc. etc. - is essential. And Christianity is a very misunderstood and distorted religion, both by its believers and its critics - it's extremely annoying when I say to someone that to understand X you need to understand Christianity then this person think that's because I'm a Christian and I'm selling the religion but no I care not actually since a sold religion with no genuine understanding is of no value whatsoever; Wittgenstein wanted to believe but he couldn't, that's a thing that really needs to be pondered upon.
I too wasn't interested in religion at all. I entered the realm of religion only after I've gone through several volumes of (Vienna school and Warburg school) art history, before that I was only interested in German Romanticism, due to my interest in music. But the point is still that when I read Nietzsche before all these I knew he wasn't an atheist. He's too religious to be an atheist, too religious to hold the positions that people think he holds.

>>156
And maybe I need to clarify something. I can understand that there can be a revulsion towards history since historico-social perspective always seems to diminish the individualities of those individuals, and that by doing so you always seem to be tagging the philosophers. I wasn't interested in history at all, either, and dimwits are genuinely engaging in the act of tagging philosophers with labels. But my points are, first, if this "thisness" can really be cancelled by a mere change of perspective then it worths nothing, and second, if not viewed under the lens of history some crucial points are invisible, and third, tagging is merely a convenient device, the precise meaning of the labels that are attached to someone should really be read in context. In the cultural milieu of early 20th century Nietzsche and Rilke really didn't look that different, and it is this Nietzsche that is well-known and it is this Nietzsche that exerted influence upon the culture of the 20th century. It is unfortunate, but it is true that before 60s people only had a distorted image of Nietzsche, and even if it was not distorted his writings were dangerous in that dimwits can read whatever they wish from them; it is better to just reject "his" "thoughts", than trying to combat dimwits.
There really are important and "eternal" stuff that can only be seen through the lens of history and society. I'm always frustrated when someone just brutally attacks a position, without really comprehending the context.
For example, normies' understanding of inquisition is based simply on a simple rejection of authority and dimwitted celebration of whatever liberty, but things are always much more subtle, i.e.:
>When the old-fashioned guardians of orthodoxy burned a heretic, they knew what they were doing and why. They realized that the spirit is explosive and treated it far more realistically from their point of view than the pseudo-liberal babblers and advocates of tolerance in the nineteenth century. We cannot condemn the inquisitors' concern about the right spirit and the consequences of movements without that spirit but only the means and methods which they applied to oppose them.
This is not a mere "balanced" judgement, but a sober one. It is not out of the fear of losing stability that one wants to be sober: we just want to be sober and precise when they are needed. For that reason I hold that if one doesn't want to be rigorous and structured like scholastic philosophers, adopting a historical perspective when needed is extremely important.

>>157
>it is true that before 60s people only had a distorted image of Nietzsche
Btw I wonder how this happened? I don't read much sources related to Nietzsche's acception history.

>>169
You don't need to read much sources. I've never read and I doubt whether there is any. It is never the case that to know about something you need to read something since this something that you read is another work written by a human being, and the narrative is brewed by this person, and the "source" itself is written. It surprises me when people claim that they don't know about this sort of topics simply because they didn't read.
You just need to know how the majority of influential thinkers thought about Nietzsche. And how Nazi utilized his philosophy. And from the shape of the general reception of Nietzsche you just know it. For example, you just need to read, say, Heidegger, and the debates between the so-called existential philosophers regarding the position of Nietzsche. Maybe also introductions in some good editions of Nietzsche's works.
But nevertheless,
>While researching materials for the Italian translation of Nietzsche's complete works in the 1960s, the philologists Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari decided to go to the Archives in Leipzig to work with the original documents. From their work emerged the first complete and chronological edition of Nietzsche's writings, including the posthumous fragments from which Förster-Nietzsche had assembled The Will To Power. The complete works comprise 5,000 pages, compared to the 3,500 pages of the Großoktavausgabe. In 1964, during the International Colloquium on Nietzsche in Paris, Colli and Montinari met Karl Löwith, who would put them in contact with Heinz Wenzel, editor for Walter de Gruyter's publishing house. Heinz Wenzel would buy the rights of the complete works of Colli and Montinari (33 volumes in German) after the French Gallimard edition and the Italian Adelphi editions.
>Before Colli and Montinari's philological work, the previous editions led readers to believe that Nietzsche had organized all his work toward a final structured opus called The Will to Power. In fact, if Nietzsche did consider producing such a book, he had abandoned such plans in the months before his collapse. The title of The Will to Power, which appears for the first time at the end of the summer of 1885, was replaced by another plan at the end of August 1888. This new plan was titled "Attempt at a revaluation of all values" [Versuch einer Umwerthung aller Werthe],[2] and ordered the multiple fragments in a completely different way than the one chosen by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche.

>>170
When I read literally anything there are always constant debates and inferences taking place in my mind: What's the authors position, and does what he claim make sense? What if I am, say, Nietzsche, what will be the opinion of Nietzsche towards the authors position? In what sense does the two thinkers diverge, and what makes them diverge, etc. etc.
It is fully automatic and it simply makes tons of hypotheses which I'll forget about and confirm/reject months or years later when I encounter a certain passage in a wholly different book. It is very hard - or very tedious - for me to assemble those facts that leads to the conclusion that I stated, but in general I think my observations are pretty trivial and only when an observation is trivial I'll say it out without further explanations.