Talk:My Sister and I (Nietzsche)

I first encountered this book at the Fondren Library of Rice University in 1956 or 1957. Today I did not find it listed in their card catalog.

When I saw it I read the preface, puportedly by Oscar Levy, but no more of the book. He says the German manuscript, along with a copy of 'Ulysses' were confiscated and destroyed by US Customs when he was entering the country.

I see that Levy died in 1946, but this article says the book was published first in 1951. Who first published it? Do newer editions include the preface supposedly written by Oscar Levy? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not only was Levy five years dead when the book was published, but Nietzsche was 51 years dead. Publisher Samuel Roth of Boar's Head Books/Seven Sires Press claims that the book was so thoroughly delayed because of his fear of a backlash from living parties, hence his waiting until Levy's death to release the material. (I seek neither to attack nor defend Roth's claim, but interestingly enough, advertisements from his publishing endeavors prove that he had been planning to publish this or something similar on Nietzsche since the mid-1920s, making his claim look at least a little more legitimate.) Also, I think you have confused the two introductions attached to the book – the first is anonymous, which is attributed to Roth by all sides of the debate regarding the book's legitimacy. This is the section that contains the bit about the confiscation and Ulysses that you referenced. The second introduction is the section attributed to Levy. Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I should correct myself and add the book was supposedly delayed not only by Roth's fear of a backlash from living parties, but also by the confiscation that you point out. Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found answers to my questions in the references given in the article. I added in the information. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Scott, thanks for some helpful adds to the article. I went ahead and removed the line about the original German manuscript - I think that the way the sentence was previously phrased (something like "There is no known German manuscript....") was deceptive and that you were right to change it, but I think that mentioning Roth's claim of the manuscript's destruction slants the historical account of the book a bit to his side. My goal with the article is to keep it neutral and keep historical points relegated to that which both sides can agree on, including the objectively true points that scholarship has mostly sided with Kaufmann and that Roth was a controversial figure. Ultimately, I think it's best to keep the article silent on the debated question of an original German manuscript since the two sides cannot agree. Maybe I'm overthinking all of this, but please let me know if you disagree or have any thoughts on the subject. I think My Sister and I is a fun and fascinating subject and I appreciate your rekindling my interest in it! Best, Colinclarksmith (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I like including mention of the supposed disappearance of the German manuscript. I would be careful to say supposedly. It was something that has always interested me - history being inadvertently erased by censorship. I had not previously given serious consideration that this book was a fraud. I think the tale of the disappearance adds to the mystery.

btw I think that one of the most convincing arguments for fraudulance is that the book has Nietzsche speaking of Detroit as an important American city, which it was not at the time Nietzsche was writing. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When I first encountered the book, one of the first questions that came to my mind was about the German original. When I first read this article I wondered again. The German manuscript would be valuble in judging authenticity, if it existed. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the existence of an original German manuscript would completely change the nature of the mystery and validate much of what Roth (and Walter Stewart) claim, but the problem is that no evidence actually exists regarding the manuscript, only Roth's claims. I'll take a stab at a neutral mention of the possibility in the article. I also agree that the mention of Detroit is a good clue against the book's legitimacy, as Kaufmann picked up on in his 1952 article and Dennis Dutton thoroughly used against the book in a 1990's-era article. (By the way, Walter Stewart, who wrote the piece claiming the book to be legitimate, tries to argue that Nietzsche had taken an interest in obscure American cities, and that evidence exists that Nietzsche had referenced Baltimore multiple times, an equally unknown American city in turn-of-the-century Germany as was Detroit, suggesting the strong possibility that Nietzsche could have Detroit on the brain as well despite the lack of evidence for that. Whether or not you buy any of it, it's fascinating stuff - I recommend picking up Stewart's monograph on the subject on Amazon.) Colinclarksmith (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I moved the word 'supposedly' to the beginning of the sentence. Also I briefly cited the problem with the mention of Detroit. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)