'My Sister and I'/Nietzsche update

I haven't posted my thoughts on my re-read of My Sister and I yet because I've agreed to present a paper on it, thus expanding the scope of my project and focusing my energy regarding the subject elsewhere. I suppose after that ordeal is completed I'll post a more complete capitulation of my thoughts here.

For the time being, suffice it to say that after a more careful read it really, really does not seem to me that Nietzsche wrote the darn thing. A quick cross-referencing of the "Index" thrown together in the back of the text is revelatory (beyond its sloppy and frequently incorrect composition.) Compare the selected anecdotes on (say) Kant within the text to those of Voltaire, or the oft-noted Stendhal references. The former are unconfident, simply biographical and/or poorly constructed rewrites of the thinker in question's most famous doctrines, while the author of My Sister and I is a lot more comfortable digging into literary figures. This to me is in keeping with Walter Kaufmann's claim that a literary author (David George Plotkin - or was it George David?) is responsible for the forged work.

The sum of the Kantian references in My Sister and I are as follows: Eleven references altogether - two simple name-checks, two biographical anecdotes (both surrounding his lack of travel), five vague references to his philosophy (one simply calling Kant "untidy", two mentioning his refutation via Schopenhauer, and two brief mentions of his moral philosophy, the "Kantian ought" and what the author calls his defeat at the bite of the "tarantula of morality" - essentially just glorified name-drops.) Two entire aphoristic "chapters" (i.e., paragraphs) are dedicated to Kant - Chapter 6: Section 56 and Chapter 8: Section 13. The former attacks the Kantian "common good" without seeming to understand Nietzsche's critique of it - i.e., his rejection of Kant's ontological ethics and the categorical imperative. "Kant has in mind what he thinks is the common good of the community?" the text awkwardly asks. "But what is the common good? And was Kant the man best qualified to perceive it for us?" While it is at least arguable that this paragraph was an absent-minded knock-off not intended to dive deep into Kantian critique, it is instead clear to me that the author of the text is working with a limited grasp of Kant and therefore can't quite put his finger on the Nietzschean objection and is therefore skirting the issue with a vague and not quite characteristic response. The second aphoristic "chapter" (again, paragraph) on Kant insists that the philosopher in question should have spent "ten years teaching philology" to better understand morality, but again sounds weakly informed and more impressed by biography (Kant's immobility dislike of travel is again referenced) than philosophy.

Anyway, it goes on and on folks - this is just a taste of my thoughts. We'll talk about this some more shortly down the road, although with my workload back up to full and the gas gauge pushing empty, I apologize for any delays we may incur.