Zarathustra Must Die

Each week Drew Wade will attempt to read and review a book by an author who’s new to him, and then he’ll tell you if it’s worth your time or not.

This week in my alphabetical quest to read all kinds of books I haven’t gotten around to yet, I’m reviewing Zarathustra Must Die, by Dorian Alexander (more on Mr. Alexander later). To get from Edwin Abbot (who I reviewed last week) to Mr. Alexander, I had to pass through a few authors I’ve already read. The first of these was Chinua Achebe. I read Things Fall Apart four years ago and loved it; it has everything I want in a good book—mainly brevity and scenes where people eat locusts. I’ve since collected a few more of his novels, and I will read them someday, but since this column isn’t about authors I’ve already read, that day will not be today.

I also passed by my handy Douglas Adams omnibus, which includes every book in the Hitchhiker’s series except for Mostly Harmless. But don’t worry—I’ve read that one, too. Probably too many times. In fact, most of my time in junior high and high school was taken up with reading his books.

Finally, I passed by a weird book called Alternative Alcott, which is a collection of some of the pulpier stuff that Louisa May Alcott published just for the cash under the pseudonym A.M. Barnard. And you can tell why she published them under a pseudonym—they aren’t very good. “Behind the Mask,” a novella in the collection, is the kind of book that seems like a lot of fun to write, but not that much fun to read.

After those books, I came to Mr. Alexander. Speaking of pseudonyms, Dorian Alexander most definitely is one—the pen name of a “prominent academic,” according to the back jacket of the book. I’ve been told that the pen name is a mix of Dorian Gray and Alexander the Great. With influences like that, I’m guessing that whoever is behind Mr. Alexander is the type of person who would think of himself as a prominent academic.

Zarathustra Must Die (henceforth shortened to ZMD, because “Zarathustra” is a mouthful) takes on as its subject Friedrich Nietzsche, who “…intended to supplant Christ as the central figure of Western culture” (2). With someone as hubristic as Nietzsche for a subject, my question to Mr. Alexander is, “Why didn’t you go bigger with your pen name? Why not Elvis Apollo? Why not Sid Vishnu?” (Sid, of course, being short for Siddhartha.)

To understand this book, we have to go in a non-intuitive direction. Let’s take a quote at random: “Inspired by hash and sex, I stood erect and danced naked as their withered eyes became transfixed with longing by my vermicular writhing” (6). My first response to this is a whoop of joy—I mean, with sentences like that, we could be in line for the next Fifty Shades of Grey. Unfortunately, the book does not live up to the promise of this sentence. Sure, it may be about a doctoral student’s adventures while researching his dissertation (sounds fun to me!), but half of the time, the text is so cloudy that I can’t even tell what’s happening. Reading ZMD is not an enjoyable, picaresque romp. It isn’t even a guilty pleasure, because none of the action in the book is coherent or concrete enough to make me feel guilty, and there’s no pleasure in reading what amounts mostly to an undergraduate-level paper about nineteenth-century philosophers.

The people who blurb on the back jacket of ZMD try to convince you that it is genuinely funny. I disagree, though I do detect what I think are attempts at humor throughout. I might be wrong in my disagreement, though. You might find this book funny if you enjoy penis jokes that aren’t actually jokes, but just mentions of the word penis. A particularly awful example of Mr. Alexander’s “humor” is the therapy session on pages 78-80, where Dorian regresses to baby talk and says vulgar things to his therapist. Really hilarious. (Sarcasm.) But if you do like that kind of humor, this book is certainly for you.

Part of the book’s problem is that Alexander never sticks with one subject. The book is about everything and nothing, and it never stays in one place long enough to support any one point. ZMD is at its best when it tries to syncretize old philosophers’ ideas and make them new and real. It never succeeds in that endeavor, however, because of its thick, stew-like prose. At times it sounds like an essay (one wonders if Mr. Alexander needed new material quickly, so he raided his college philosophy notebooks and old journals), at times it sounds like a Joycean stream-of-consciousness rant, and at times it sounds like an attempt at poetry. Looking for any kind of unity in the prose, then, is a waste of time.

Mr. Alexander probably expected that criticism, however, because his book seems to offer a counter to it. While talking about Dorian’s doctoral defense, the prose takes on metanarrative-type qualities. In speaking about the dissertation, Alexander writes, “On the one hand, the work revealed philosophical talent. On the other, the bizarre inclusions suggested at best a maverick and at worst an unstable mind. Revision was initially proposed as an option, but he would not hear of it. ‘The work is an indivisible whole’ he urged…” (96) Coming very near the end of the book as that segment does (yes, ZMD is blessedly short), I am forced to admit the possibility that Mr. Alexander may have been trolling me the whole time. The ultimate joke is that I stuck with it.

So, should you read this book? Do you appreciate difficult, unenjoyable books that offer very little in the way of payoff at the end? Do you like reading books that hide their insecurity and lack of content in convoluted phrasing and impenetrable jargon? If you do, then I highly recommend this book. For everyone else, find something better to do with your time.

Alexander, Dorian. Zarathustra Must Die. Etruscan Press, 2012. 106 pages.


Flatland by Edwin A. AbbotEach week Drew Wade will attempt to read and review a book by an author who’s new to him, and then he’ll tell you if it’s worth your time or not.

For my first review, I’m reading Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbot. Fun fact: my friend Jody told me the middle “A” in Abbot’s name stands for Abbot, too. Is it stereotyping to think that with a name like Edwin Abbot Abbot this guy is probably A.) British, and B.) upper class? Maybe, but it turns out to be true. (I just checked Wikipedia on that, so you know it’s right.) Abbot’s also a Victorian, if that influences your opinions one way or the other.

Flatland is a book containing a lot of geometry and other types of math, and as such, I’m approaching it with a slight sense of dread. (Is geometry a type of math? I seem to recall it vaguely from my high school days. As I recall, I didn’t like that class, so I’m guessing it is indeed a type of math.) According to the book’s introduction, a reviewer in the late 1800s called it “mortally tedious,” and if I know one thing about Victorian critics, it’s that if they call something boring, then I’m in trouble. So basically, this book already seems to have a couple of strikes against it.

But wait! Apparently Abbot was an Anglican minister—“Boring as hell,” I hear you saying—who viewed himself as a kind of prophet! So this book must be a kind of allegory, like the pieces that Jonathan Swift and William Blake write. A math allegory. A weird, spiritually suspect, math allegory. So, kind of fun? I don’t know what you want me to say here; I can’t stop reading it at this point—one of my biggest rules for this column is that I have to actually read every book. And yes, I know that I made up that rule and this is the first column and I could go back and retroactively change it, but that would make me feel like a cheater. Essentially, what I’m trying to say about Flatland is, it’s going to be that kind of book.

With books like this, tone carries the day when excitement fails. I’ve found that by switching my internal reading voice to a jovial-yet-scholarly old British man, this kind of book flies past. The book stays reader-friendly even when Abbot is writing about the finer points of how Flatland’s society operates. Imagine it this way: you are drinking brandy and smoking pipes with C.S. Lewis in a pub, by a fire, on a rainy afternoon. Lewis decides to tell you about his latest etymological research into the nuances of some Greek and Latin words. Sure, the talk may not be the most exciting thing in the world, but his pleasant voice and the warm surroundings are more than enough to keep you there. Reading this book is similar to that. Now I want a pipe.

Let’s get straight into it. The plot, whatever there is of it, revolves around a Mr. A. Square (get it?) who is completely two dimensional, and everyone else (ranging from triangles to hexagons to near-circles) in his world is completely flat, too. Square is visited by a sphere from Spaceland, who comes only once every millennium to reveal the gospel of the third dimension. The rest of the book is an account of how Square is completely unsuccessful in his attempts to convert the other shapes, and ends up in prison. Sad, right? Well, it would be, if the characters weren’t so…two dimensional. Rim shot!

Okay, so the book is seriously lacking in plot, which a novel doesn’t necessarily need, as long as it has ideas. And does this book have ideas! Chief among these, I would claim, is, don’t be an arrogant jerk. See, in the course of the rest of the book, Square travels to both Pointland and Lineland (the lands of no dimensions or just one) and laughs at the ignorance of their inhabitants. He has a conversation with the king of Lineland, and the upshot of this is, “It seemed that the poor ignorant Monarch—as he called himself—was persuaded that the straight line which he called his Kingdom, and in which he passed his existence, constituted the whole of the world, and indeed the whole of space” (101). Do you see where this is going? For a major part of the book, Square can’t even fathom the existence of a third dimension. Now, expand that progression a little further, to the inhabitants of the third dimension (us), who can’t fathom the existence of a fourth dimension, and you start to grasp the power of this idea. The argument that we are small and limited in our knowledge is a convincing one, and Abbot makes a great case for there being something more out there.

At the same time, this is a good book for our new modern age, because it doesn’t give us easy answers; while it makes the argument for something bigger than us being out there, it neglects to tell us what that something more is. This might be a weakness of the book—the incompleteness of Abbot’s arguments and metaphors—but the base idea is a hard one to refute.

So, angles! Points! Lines! Progressions! If I keep using exclamation points, it will all sound exciting. The fact that Abbot makes the book even a little entertaining is a testament to his skill. This is a guy who knows how to make a point. And a line. And an angle…

All that said, I recommend this book. After all, it’s only about 160 pages sopping wet, so what do you have to lose? And if it hits you at the right point in your life, it could be very influential, though hopefully not in the bad way, which of course I mean as the way that makes you want to become a mathematician.