my reservations, I think I like him more than I dislike him, even if I may prefer some of his progeny (Mahler, Bruckner, etc.) to Wagner himself. I have reservations about them at times as well, but their best moments can be very fine, and I'm willing to admit this is true of Wagner as well. It's perfectly possible to find both Wagner and Brahms acceptable, just as it is to find both Wagner and Nietzsche acceptable. After all, Michael Tanner has written books on both of them, and come out on both their sides. (Interestingly, he finds Nietzsche's later anti-Wagner comments more instructive than his earlier pro-Wagner ones.) I think Nietzsche was more profoundly ambivalent towards Wagner than he was actually against him, though. His last book may have been called Nietzsche Contra Wagner, but let's not forget the first section of that is called "Where I Admire". He recognised what Wagner was good at, even if he did not find Wagner's art terribly healthy. My own ambivalence towards Wagner is rather less profound than Nietzsche's was, but it's still there. I don't deny those moments when Wagner really does it for me, but I find him somewhat problematic nonetheless. In short, I am neither particularly pro nor contra Wagner. I am neither wholly for nor wholly against. And this is why Matthew wonders about me, because Wagner is an artist that you're supposed to be either wholly for or wholly against; I don't feel a need to submit absolutely in raptures nor to hurl masses of invective against him. He's not supposed to inspire people to occupy a relative middle ground in relation to him as I do, hence Matthew has difficulty understanding my position. Wagner's personality was seemingly such that it virtually demanded you make that one-or-the-other-no-compromise-possible decision. Wagner took a particular view of art (especially his own) and its possibilities which I've seen described elsewhere as "messianic", which seems a fairly good word so I'll...
