I really appreciate Herzog as an artist. I think Grizzly Man is a unique piece of art, and Herzog's commentary is an integral part of it - original, and very worth listening to.

Tonight I was planning to watch either Fitzcarraldo or Aguirre after having listened to Herzog on the Freakonomics podcast earlier this week. But after hearing about the book there, I was really put off by some of the things he said and concluded that the book would be a hard pass for me. Nothing persuaded me that he had anything interesting to add - neither rationally, nor aesthetically - about a topic which has been extensively covered by very diverse thinkers throughout the millennia.

Herzog wagers that if his colleague produces "Gates of Heaven," Werner would eat his leather boot.

https://letterboxd.com/film/land-of-silence-and-darkness/

He has some extreme takes on things, many of which I don't agree with, but I love that humans like him exist. He's one of the rare humans who has truly "sucked out all the marrow of life".

That sounds more like an emotionally charge reaction than some calm assessment on the merits of the book for what it stands.

Especially when the idea here is that he presents his idiosyncratic vision of the concept of “truth" - not some claim that he solves the problem of truth "which has been covered by philosophers throughout the millennia", and which could very well be inherently unsolvable anyway.

A writer (even more so, an artist with a unique viewpoints) can add lots of very interesting observations and new ways of seeing the concept of truth or our approaches to it, even when they do it "in the small", without taking on or pretending to tackling the philosophical / ontological core issue.

It's even more useful if an author says some things that rub you off the wrong way, or challenge your core tenets. Else, I guess one cal always just resort to some echo bubble friendly comfort reading.

What are some of those things? I am not trying to be snarky, I like Herzog and I am curious.

One thing to keep in mind is he views documentaries are fiction almost. They are not supposed to be taken in as pure information or facts. Treat it like you’d treat any movie.

You said you liked Grizzly Man. Well there you can tell the reason he put in the coroner in there and he told him to “act” and the extra long pauses after the scenes are there to add awkwardness. It should be obvious what is going on.