If you are genuinely interested in reading what you hope is a good, informative biography of Richard Wagner, then I advise that you do one thing before picking this one up: have a look at some of the reviews Köhler's earlier books have generated here on Amazon. Read, for instance, what Laon has to say about this German journalist's screed on "Wagner and Hitler." And if you think Amazon's reviewers are not to be trusted (as in some cases they clearly aren't), then have a look at the response Köhler has been met with in the academic press: derision and dismissal. The man is a mountebank, lacking a conscience. His first 'controversial' book sought to 'prove' that Nietzsche was gay, in the absence of all concrete evidence. Nietzsche scholars just shook their heads with a bemused smile on their faces. He then went on to portray the problematic, but at least for a while undoubtedly genuine friendship between Nietzsche and Wagner, seeing in it nothing more than a base exercise in subjugation and sadism. Again, scholars wondered what was up with this crackpot, who seemed to present his harebrained theories without the slightest compunction about all the evidence that contradicted him. After this, there was the Hitler-Wagner book, which exposed Hitler as doing nothing more than following the orders of his 'Master.' Historians couldn't have cared less, and nobody took this by now thoroughly discredited hack seriously. You will even see this sordid background referred to by some of the other reviewers of the book currently under discussion: Joseph Kimsey begins by noting that 'Kohler has made a career out of writing intellectually dishonest, crass books on both Richard Wagner and Friedrich Nietzsche.' Kimsey then goes on to offer some reserved praise for this biography, awarding it three stars, and apparently thinking it considerably better than Köhler's earlier efforts. But how many strikes does a writer have before he is finally out? If the verdict is in that all of Köhler's previous books are 'intellectually dishonest' - and the verdict *is* in - then what trust can we possibly have in whatever else he feels the inclination to write after that? 'Intellectually dishonest' - that's pretty much a death sentence for a would-be writer of history. And with so many other biographies of Wagner around, many of which have received favorable reactions from laymen and professional scholars alike, do you really want this tome to be the first extended treatment of Wagner's life you encounter?
Köhler's main trick for fooling his readers into taking him seriously is to give the impression that he is the first writer to deal extensively, or even critically, with Wagner's anti-Semitism, which he consequently dwells on with an obsession that matches the composer's own. But anyone familiar with the secondary literature on Wagner will know full well that this is in fact a topic that has been debated endlessly by now. In the preface, Köhler accuses a number of more reputable scholars of being too close to the alleged power center of Bayreuth to be able to speak freely about this; pretty much insinuating that they have been bought off by Wolfgang Wagner (who was at that time still in charge of the festival). But while there are some German authors who may still try to soft-pedal Wagner's anti-Semitism, there is also a large group of scholars who have no hesitation whatsoever in exposing the composer's bigotry. The most judicious account remains "The Darker Side of Genius" by the eminent Jewish historian Jacob Katz, whom to accuse of 'apology' would border on obscenity. Köhler, let there be no doubt about it, has absolutely no claim whatsoever to novelty on this score. He is a late-comer who has tried to compensate for his belatedness by going even farther with some of his accusations. In all of this he is wildly inaccurate and unfair, and impossible to take seriously.
Ernest Newman, probably the greatest of Wagner's many biographers, notes at one point that Wagner's tender love for his stepfather Ludwig Geyer, which he expressed on many, many occasions, is one of the most appealing traits in his character. That certainly wouldn't do for Köhler, according to whom there was nothing appealing whatsoever in Wagner's character. Instead, he portrays Wagner's relationship with Geyer as one that was steeped in fear and loathing - something he needs for his preposterous theory that Wagner's anti-Semitism was based in large part on his 'hatred' for this man, whom Köhler suggests Wagner thought was Jewish. All of this has been thoroughly discredited elsewhere, but Köhler serves it up yet again.
Though the title of Köhler's book is rather catchy, the reader should note that it is meant ironically. As Professor John Louis DiGaetani points out in one scathing review: "Köhler likes to embarrass Wagner any chance he gets - for example, pointing out Wagner's recurrent complaints about stomach problems so that he can present the composer as farting a lot." Köhler's Wagner is no titan, but a repugnant clown. Indeed, reading Köhler it is rather difficult to see why we even bother about Wagner's music any longer, which this biographer mostly portrays as derivative, bombastic, and generally mediocre.
It is certainly true, however, that Wagner was in many respects not a particularly likable man. Yet one of the most unpleasant aspects of Köhler's cynical approach is that virtually all of the many people the composer came into contact with are automatically reduced to pawns in the author's struggle to drag Wagner in the mud. Almost all of them appear only as victims, devoid of their own personality and will. There is no genuine sympathy, for instance, for men like Carl Tausig or Joseph Rubinstein, who were both artists of the highest order - all their value for Köhler is as 'self-hating Jews,' a highly problematic characterization that itself smacks of anti-Semitism. For Köhler, these figures are only means to an end, never ends in themselves.
In the scholarly community, the name Joachim Köhler already belongs to the past. Let us hope that the relatively large section of the general reading public that has an interest in Richard Wagner will soon have forgotten his name as well.