This is the Thomas Common translation.

It's easy to access.

This is a Wikipedia introduction:

Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None is a book written during the 1880s by the German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Hard to categorise, the work is a treatise on philosophy, a masterly work of literature, in parts a collection of poetry and in others a parody of and amendment to the Bible. Consisting largely of speeches by the book's hero, prophet Zarathustra, the work's content extends across a mass of styles and subject matter. Nietzsche himself described the work as "the deepest ever written".

If you are keen to discuss the work, perhaps you could start with the beginning passages and give your impressions.
Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum. I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large.

I have a couple of translations and I can't get through this book. I don't know that I would call it 'unreadable' as the critic Harold Bloom did, but I did find the work's grandiose parodic style tedious and unappealing. I think I got about 1/4 of the way through. I'd be interested to read other people's reactions to it and find out why they like it.

I like it because it calls out what I too reject.:

I know these godlike men all too well: they want one to have faith in them, and doubt to be sin. All too well I also know which they have most faith. Verily, it is not in afterworlds and redemptive drops of blood, but in the body, that they too have most faith; and their body is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them their thing-in-itself. But a sick thing it is to them, and gladly would they shed their skins. Therefore, they listen to the preachers of death and themselves preach afterworlds.
Listen rather, my brothers, to the voice of the healthy body; that is a more honest and pure voice: More honestly and purely speaks the healthy body that is perfect and perpendicular: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth. — On Otherworldly, Thus Spoke Zarathrrusta, translated by Walter Kaufmann

I recently found it and haven't looked at it closely, but this contemporary translation seems to be pretty good: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf[/url]

But yes, he is difficult to read, intentionally so. It has something to do with his hatred of idle readers:

Of all that is written I love only that which one writes with his blood.
Write with blood, and you will experience that blood is spirit.
It is not easily possible to understand the blood of another: I hate the
reading idlers.
Whoever knows the reader will do nothing more for the reader. One
more century of readers – and the spirit itself will stink.
That everyone is allowed to learn to read ruins not only writing in the
long run, but thinking too.
Once the spirit was God, then it became human and now it is even
becoming rabble.
Whoever writes in blood and proverbs does not want to be read, but to
be learned by heart.
[Zarathustra, "Reading and Writing"]

.

And something to do with hiding:

Everything that is profound loves the mask [Beyond Good and Evil, 40]

His prose is Lutherian. Maybe it was a dig at Luther, but maybe he thought such prose was a way to appeal to the masses.

I like what he says about the State in this one.

Ubermensches and eternal returns oh my.

I can't access that website. Which translator is it?

I like what he says about the State in this one. — NOS4A2

Wa ha ha haaaa!

I can't access that website. Which translator is it? — Tate

That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin

That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin — Fooloso4

Is that the translator you prefer?

I can't access that website. Which translator is it?
— Tate
That's odd. Translated by Adrian Del Caro, edited by Del Caro and Robert Pippin — Fooloso4

I accessed the pdf without a problem, ignoring the warning triangle ( !) and the 'Not Secure'.
Some scrolling down, through the Intro and Further Reading, before you can dive into the book at p49/318 pdf pages.

Given that I've tried and failed to read this monster, I would follow any discussion with interest.
As @Paine pointed out:

Book discussions are difficult to carry out in this forum. — Paine

Is it necessary to read the Intro first?

All the best :cool:

Is that the translator you prefer? — Tate

Hi there - a suggestion for choice of translator.
Why not pick a passage in each of the online versions to compare.
Readability and pleasing aesthetics?

1. Thomas Common - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm

When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:

Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!

For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.

But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.

I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.

Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.


2. Adrian Del Caro - http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf


When Zarathustra was thirty years old he left his home and the lake of
his home and went into the mountains. Here he enjoyed his spirit and
his solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his heart
transformed, – one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
“You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it.
Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.
I want to bestow and distribute until the wise among human beings
have once again enjoyed their folly, and the poor once again their wealth.
For this I must descend into the depths, as you do evenings when you
go behind the sea and bring light even to the underworld, you super-rich
star!
Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend.

1.

Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. — Amity

Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend. — Amity

2.

Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out. — Amity

Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to
descend. — Amity

In 2. there is a footnote for 'I must go down'.
Starts: 'German uses untergehen, literally “to go under” for the expression the sun “goes down.” Nietzsche throughout Zarathustra uses wordplay to signify that Zarathustra’s “going under” is a “going over” or transition, ubergehen ¨ , from human to superhuman, from man to overman...'

So far, I prefer 2. less archaic and flows better. Less blank spaces to jump over...
The translation recommended by @Fooloso4 :up:

I have a couple of translations and I can't get through this book. I don't know that I would call it 'unreadable' as the critic Harold Bloom did, but I did find the work's grandiose parodic style tedious and unappealing. I think I got about 1/4 of the way through. I'd be interested to read other people's reactions to it and find out why they like it. — Tom Storm

I have similar problems with its readability. I've given all my copies away!
A book discussion might be helpful if well organised and roughly scheduled.
There is so much of it to get through - it's quite a project.
See Contents pp7-9 of http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/LoserLit/zarathustra.pdf

I've been looking at how it can be broken down into segments.
I could only find this:
https://www.litcharts.com/lit/thus-spoke-zarathustra/zarathustra-s-prologue *
But that's only a couple of pages at a time. It would take forever...
How many pages can a person chew through, in what interval of time,without experiencing indigestion?
It depends on the reader but for a discussion involving more than one...any suggestions for pacing?

* It might be seen as a bit of a cheat and not everyone approves of using secondary sources.
For various reasons. @Fooloso4 can reel them off!
However, if it gives newbies a heads-up, then all to the good...I think.

I agree that it is probably best not to refer to them in-discussion.
I've been guilty of that previously and it just muddies the waters. Terribly.
Also can make you lazy and not think for yourself!

I suggest looking at other attempts to get a bearing on what you want to discuss. The difference between responding generally to a group of ideas and closely reading texts is large. — Paine

Excellent advice!

I've had a look at other book/paper discussions.
The OP is important to set out the aims and the way forward.
Here is a pretty formal example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3617/book-club-being-time-by-martin-heidegger/p1
and then there's this more laid back:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/922/sellars-empiricism-the-philosophy-of-mind/p1

So, @Tate - over to you.
How do you want to proceed?

I'd just like to take an appropriate chunk at a time and discuss, ask questions, cross reference, etc. I don't see a problem with using multiple translations.

You already posted the first chunk, so:. questions:

Why is he talking to the sun?

Why does he think the sun needs him, his eagle, and his serpent?

I'd just like to take an appropriate chunk at a time and discuss, ask questions, cross reference, etc. I don't see a problem with using multiple translations. — Tate

:up:

You already posted the first chunk, so:. questions: — Tate

I wasn't intending to take over. In fact, I'm not even a Nietzsche fan :yikes:
Not sure I will follow through. Just a few suggestions, as requested in OP.
Sorry I only posted part of: Z's Prologue 1 (p49 pdf) for reasons of comparison.
Didn't realise how much was left.

The remainder:

So bless me now, you quiet eye that can look upon even an all too great
happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that wants to flow over, such that water flows golden from
it and everywhere carries the reflection of your bliss!
Behold! This cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants
to become human again.”
– Thus began Zarathustra’s going under. — TSZ

Wow. Right in there with the questions! I haven't read it properly, so haven't a clue.
(I've been out and about...not on here all the time, even if it seems like that :wink: )

No first impressions...?

I'm not sure about copy and pasting the whole book in chunks.
Probably copyright issues...
Perhaps just refer to bits of the chunks, meaningful to the reader?

It might be seen as a bit of a cheat and not everyone approves of using secondary sources.
For various reasons. Fooloso4 can reel them off! — Amity

To clarify, I do not think that using secondary sources is a cheat. They can be helpful. The problem, as I see it, is using only secondary sources. It is as if one were to read the tour guide without touring the places described.

:up:

Your thoughts so far?

Your thoughts so far? — Amity

You asked:

Is it necessary to read the Intro first? — Amity

It is not necessary, but depending on who wrote it, it might be helpful or not. I have not read Pippin's introduction but have read other things by him. I think he is a reliable source, which is not to say that his is the final word. I think you cited him in the Hegel discussion group.

I just took a quick look at his introduction to TSZ:

Nietzsche himself provides no preface or introduction, although the section on TSZ in
his late book, Ecce Homo, and especially its last section, “Why I am a Destiny,” are invaluable guides to what he might have been up to.

I see that in his recommendations for further reading, under contemporary commentaries he begins with:

Laurence Lampert’s Nietzsche’s Teaching: An Interpretation of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (Yale
University Press,1986, establishes the need for a new teaching, the nature of the teaching, and the foundational role it plays in the history of philosophy. Lampert’s Nietzsche and Modern Times: A Study of Bacon, Descartes, and Nietzsche (Yale University Press, 1993), much broader in scope, goes
further in the direction of specifying the ecological, earth-affirming properties of Nietzsche’s teaching via Zarathustra.

I have read and recommend both. (See, I am not against secondary sources) You might recognize his name from his commentaries on Plato.

My relationship to Nietzsche isn't entirely intellectual. I had nightmares the first time I read TSZ. Something about him crosses the boundary between conscious and unconscious for me.

When he starts talking about the sun's night journey, this is immediately pinged for me. The Egyptians posited a night journey of the sun through the belly of a snake.

Why is he talking to the sun? — Tate

You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake ...
Like you, I must go down as the human beings say, to whom I want to descend.

Some things here to note: the connection between sun and man, Z likening himself to the sun - bringing illumination to those for whom he shines, separating himself from and once again joining man, going up and going down.

But he is also unlike the sun:

... Zarathustra wants to become human again.

Yes. But he's talking about a mutually dependent relationship between the source of life and light, and his own being, divided by high and low: the eagle and the snake.

No need to go into the symbolism super deeply, though. The point is: Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, has withdrawn from the world, become full, and now wants to shine his light upon mankind. So he goes down the mountain.

Here he enjoyed his spirit andhis solitude and for ten years he did not tire of it. But at last his hearttransformed, – one morning he arose with the dawn, stepped before the
sun and spoke thus to it:
“You great star! What would your happiness be if you had not those
for whom you shine?
For ten years you have come up here to my cave: you would have tired
of your light and of this route without me, my eagle and my snake.
But we awaited you every morning, took your overflow from you and
blessed you for it. — Amity

When I read this, I wondered why he had first sought solitude...it seemed to me that he was like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment.
Then having had his fill, his heart moved again to find some purpose.

He sees the sun as having a sense of purpose; to bring meaning to him, his eagle and snake.
What would the sun do without them?
Probably just shine on...no matter.
Z wants to share light, like the sun, with those human beings he had left behind...
Let them be enlightened by him, a sage? and the sun, nature.

Behold! I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too
much honey. I need hands that reach out.

He wants to reach out and share with those whose hands reach out? The needy?
Or does he need to have human hands so that he can reach out? To give.

Nature again. From the spiritual to the mundane.

Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, — Tate

I didn't read that anywhere. What ancient religion?

I didn't read that anywhere. What ancient religion? — Amity

He's also called Zoroaster. He's the founder of Zoroastrianism. According to N's sister, he had a peculiar relationship with Zarathustra since childhood.

a mutually dependent relationship between the source of life and light — Tate

In what way is the sun dependent on that on which it shines?

... his own being, divided by high and low: the eagle and the snake. — Tate

Not divided but both high and low.

The point is: Zarathustra, the creator of an ancient religion, has withdrawn from the world, become full, and now wants to shine his light upon mankind. So he goes down the mountain. — Tate

Why Zarathustra? Or perhaps the better question is, why the return of Zarathustra?

Thank you :up:

a mutually dependent relationship between the source of life and light
— Tate

In what way is the sun dependent on that on which it shines? — Fooloso4

Are you asking me? Or saying that it's not dependent?

... his own being, divided by high and low: the eagle and the snake.
— Tate

Not divided but both high and low. — Fooloso4

There's obviously a distinction between high and low. It's a division.

Why Zarathustra? Or perhaps the better question is, why the return of Zarathustra? — Fooloso4

What are your thoughts?

like any other world-weary hermit and seeker of peace and enlightenment. — Amity

He is, however, different than the hermit saint he meets. Both profess to love mankind, but the saint loves mankind "too much" and thus turns away from man to God.