If you are thinking about reading that book, consider the audio book that's read by Werner Herzog himself. I really enjoyed that one, not necessarily because I agree with everything but because I enjoy listening to his voice.
The article is hard to read, paywall notwithstanding, and tells us very little about Herzog's book other than that the critic didn't like it.
I really appreciate Herzog as an artist. I think Grizzly Man is a unique piece of art, and Herzog's commentary is an integral part of it - original, and very worth listening to.
Tonight I was planning to watch either Fitzcarraldo or Aguirre after having listened to Herzog on the Freakonomics podcast earlier this week. But after hearing about the book there, I was really put off by some of the things he said and concluded that the book would be a hard pass for me. Nothing persuaded me that he had anything interesting to add - neither rationally, nor aesthetically - about a topic which has been extensively covered by very diverse thinkers throughout the millennia.
He has some extreme takes on things, many of which I don't agree with, but I love that humans like him exist. He's one of the rare humans who has truly "sucked out all the marrow of life".
>Nothing persuaded me that he had anything interesting to add - neither rationally, nor aesthetically - about a topic which has been covered by philosophers throughout the millennia.
That sounds more like an emotionally charge reaction than some calm assessment on the merits of the book for what it stands.
Especially when the idea here is that he presents his idiosyncratic vision of the concept of “truth" - not some claim that he solves the problem of truth "which has been covered by philosophers throughout the millennia", and which could very well be inherently unsolvable anyway.
A writer (even more so, an artist with a unique viewpoints) can add lots of very interesting observations and new ways of seeing the concept of truth or our approaches to it, even when they do it "in the small", without taking on or pretending to tackling the philosophical / ontological core issue.
It's even more useful if an author says some things that rub you off the wrong way, or challenge your core tenets. Else, I guess one cal always just resort to some echo bubble friendly comfort reading.
> But after hearing about the book there, I was really put off by some of the things he said and concluded that the book would be a hard pass for me.
What are some of those things? I am not trying to be snarky, I like Herzog and I am curious.
One thing to keep in mind is he views documentaries are fiction almost. They are not supposed to be taken in as pure information or facts. Treat it like you’d treat any movie.
You said you liked Grizzly Man. Well there you can tell the reason he put in the coroner in there and he told him to “act” and the extra long pauses after the scenes are there to add awkwardness. It should be obvious what is going on.
If you are thinking about reading that book, consider the audio book that's read by Werner Herzog himself. I really enjoyed that one, not necessarily because I agree with everything but because I enjoy listening to his voice.
Thank you, it's not on audible, where did you buy it?
It doesn't appear to be there yet, but keep an eye on Libby, where you can borrow it using a library card, from your local library.
For example, here's another Werner Herzog book: https://share.libbyapp.com/title/9611895
I bought it via https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9798217163595-the-future-of-trut..., I could select a local participating bookstore there and it went through them somehow. I choose them because it was DRM free.
https://archive.is/uLxYi
I can no longer hear Werner Herzog’s name without thinking of Sad Beige Clothes for Sad Beige Children.
The article is hard to read, paywall notwithstanding, and tells us very little about Herzog's book other than that the critic didn't like it.
I really appreciate Herzog as an artist. I think Grizzly Man is a unique piece of art, and Herzog's commentary is an integral part of it - original, and very worth listening to.
Tonight I was planning to watch either Fitzcarraldo or Aguirre after having listened to Herzog on the Freakonomics podcast earlier this week. But after hearing about the book there, I was really put off by some of the things he said and concluded that the book would be a hard pass for me. Nothing persuaded me that he had anything interesting to add - neither rationally, nor aesthetically - about a topic which has been extensively covered by very diverse thinkers throughout the millennia.
Which things put you off?
He has some extreme takes on things, many of which I don't agree with, but I love that humans like him exist. He's one of the rare humans who has truly "sucked out all the marrow of life".
>Nothing persuaded me that he had anything interesting to add - neither rationally, nor aesthetically - about a topic which has been covered by philosophers throughout the millennia.
That sounds more like an emotionally charge reaction than some calm assessment on the merits of the book for what it stands.
Especially when the idea here is that he presents his idiosyncratic vision of the concept of “truth" - not some claim that he solves the problem of truth "which has been covered by philosophers throughout the millennia", and which could very well be inherently unsolvable anyway.
A writer (even more so, an artist with a unique viewpoints) can add lots of very interesting observations and new ways of seeing the concept of truth or our approaches to it, even when they do it "in the small", without taking on or pretending to tackling the philosophical / ontological core issue.
It's even more useful if an author says some things that rub you off the wrong way, or challenge your core tenets. Else, I guess one cal always just resort to some echo bubble friendly comfort reading.
> But after hearing about the book there, I was really put off by some of the things he said and concluded that the book would be a hard pass for me.
What are some of those things? I am not trying to be snarky, I like Herzog and I am curious.
One thing to keep in mind is he views documentaries are fiction almost. They are not supposed to be taken in as pure information or facts. Treat it like you’d treat any movie.
You said you liked Grizzly Man. Well there you can tell the reason he put in the coroner in there and he told him to “act” and the extra long pauses after the scenes are there to add awkwardness. It should be obvious what is going on.