I haven't actually read the book. I remember reading reviews and such a few years ago however. I think it sounds like a bloody terrible idea. anyway, I think Nietzsche suffered from a bit more than depression at the end of his life(syphilis comes to mind). hmm...I'm sure this isn't really what you were looking for. sorry. I'll not rant further.

Have you read it? if so, what did you think?

I read this book about two years ago. My mother offered it to me because I often ruined too many of our conversations by steering them toward a point Nietzsche had made. So she found it at a book fair and threw it my way. It was awful awful awful. Don't read it. Looking back now, the title alone communicates how pathetic a book it is... Of course, back then the title interested me because I wanted to know about Nietzsche weeping. His voice in so many of his books drills into me, a very stern, towering above type voice that is however balanced with a sensitivity that makes him all the more appealing. So, I was interested to read about Nietzsche crying to let myself off the hook, pretty much. If he cried about his problems, then I shouldn't berate myself with a conscience built on many thoughts formulated in his books. Well, thankfully the book was so horrible that I was able to, instead of learning more about Nietzsche's weak side, read into Yalome's own psychology which seems to be unintentionally written all over the book. ( of course a book is always a testament or confession of the author, but one would think in a book about Nietzsche, Breuer, and Freud, Yalome would try and censor himself a bit and be a little more discreet.) He of course seems to have had the same impulse as I did, to draw out a weaker side of Nietzsche in order that he not feel guilty for "going into his own solitude," or what have you. Further, he just about admits at the end of the book that he would get erections while going for walks with his female patients during an analysis. The whole waste of a book is an attempt to once again bring Nietzsche out of context to justify something, in this case the social, professional, family life that Nietzsche shunned for himself and Yalome seems to wish he had to. And this comes to what you all were saying about vanity. Naturally, "why I am so wise" strikes us immediately as vain, or self-indulgent, or idiotic, etc. but it is doing a disservice to thought to just leave it at that, as though, "yeah, Nietzsche's just vain," is an end point to a discussion. As always, he is challenging his readers to meet him at his remark and either demonstrate that he is wrong or what deficencies there are in his arguement. I guess you could say "vanity is not wise", but really, his vanity is a separate discussion than WHY he is or is not so wise. Still though, it would have been much more approachable if he had left out the "so" and had it, "why I am wise." And also, keep in mind that this was the last book he authored before he went crazy. And it seems he even sensed the oncoming danger to his psyche in that he rewrote prefaces for all the books he had written since the Birth of Tragedy. Ecce Homo does seem very much to be written as a final book, as a last statement before he goes away. We can call that vain, but so what? What point is being made by saying that? Especially if "all is vanity." Sorry to write so much.

Actually the book is about a fictionalized account of Freud's treatment of Nietzsche through the mediation of a woman who knew both men, Lou Salome, a fascinating woman in her own right. I loved the book and found it a very profound meditation on the possiblities of psychotherapy with philosophers. Was Nietzsche's insights based on suffering and loneliness or did these things grant him access to human wisdom. Yalom does not decide for us and presents what would have been a very frustrating case for Dr. Freud. I came away respecting both men and seeing the dilemma of whether psychoanalysis can actually interfere with the stirrings of creativity and genius.