This is a good book on the philosophical underpinnings of Wagner's operas, from his start as a socialist revolutionary to his end as a disengaged Schopenhauerian. Along the way, he influences Nietzsche, who was his acolyte as a young man.
The ideas are indeed very fun. At first, Wagner was a kind of utopist anarchist and took part in the revolutions of 1848. He believed that art could fundamentally change society for the better, and that human life was perfectable through politics. Free love and the destruction of convention were the rule here. It was at this time that he conceived the Ring and wrote its entire libretto. His revolutionary involvement led directly to his exile in Switzerland, where he met Nietzsche and the two began long talks on art and life. This was when Wagner discovered Schopenhauer and disengaged from his earlier activism in favor of an almost buddhist detachment. While he never changed this attitude, he did decisively influence Nietzsche, whose later philosophy is largely a rebellion against Wagner and Schopenhauer. This is a lot of meaty fare to cover and I greatly enjoyed it while getting a wonderful perspective on the work of this truly unique artist. While he kept the first two operas of the Ring, his philosophical shift influenced his artistic conceptions so deeply that he wrote the music to the last two parts of the Ring with far greater emphasis on the music. He saw the myth in a new way, and (unconsciously) consistent with his early intention on another level, while contradicating his earlier writings on what it meant. That is what a genius does.
Unfortunately, in spite of this great illumination into the development of one of the greatest artists of all time, I grew very tired of Magee's pretentions at being a philosophical writer. In my reading, his work simply reeks of a kind of intellectual snobbism to show off his erudition. I know too many guys who speak like he writes, so this is perhaps just a personal bugaboo of mine. Nonetheless, Magee's reasoning should become a must-read amoungst Wagernian devotees, and he is recognised as a very good scholar on Schopenhauer.
Alas, there is also the "rigor" of Magee's reasoning, which I found equally tedious (as a non-philosopher). There is a massive section on why Nietzsche turned against Wagner in later life, in which he finally concludes that Nietzsche was insulted by Wager's inquiries in his masturbatory practices (!) and also how Wagner destroyed a career path (in music!) that Nietzsche might have taken. Then, there is a long appendix on Wagner's anti-semitism, which I could barely skim. Only an over-the-top intellectual could think he needs to logically reconcile all the stuff he tries to, such as how a genius like Nietzsche could fail to grasp the genius of Wagner's later operas. I think that humans are illogical hypocrites too busy to lead their live and reconcile thier every utterance and judgment with total logical cogency. I mean, contrary to several anguished British academics that I know, I have never found it "shocking" that Nazis liked high culture and yet could be sadistic savages.
So I feel ambivalent about this book. I did learn a lot, the prose could certainly be worse, but it is way too stuffy for my taste.