I have finished reading The Will to Power (by Nietzsche, obviously - tr. Kaufmann and Hollingdale) a few minutes ago. I think a few background observations might be in order:

1) The Will to Power as a canonical book, although was considered as a philosophical project by the author, was abandoned or not completed.
2) The book as it exists today is the previously unpublished notes and drafts of Nietzsche. It is not a coherent book. The publication was certainly not authorized by the author.
3) The notes were edited, selected and sorted by subject by several editors - each editor may have had an agenda not necessarily in agreement with the author. Even sorting many notes into subjects will cause great changes in their interpretation - especially in the style of the authors writing where the resonance between the words and sentences often have a secondary meaning. It this is was said that his writing is pitched somewhere between metaphor and truth; this is a fine balance.
4) The book was used by the Nazi government to justify their ideology. Fallaciously, I might add. (If in doubt, see the chapters “The New Idol” in Zarathustra and “Things the Germans Lack” in Twilight.)
5) The book is often read in a translated version. None of the translations were seen or approved by the author. Again the subtleties of meaning could be lost - or should I say WILL be lost?

So any quotation of the Will to Power should be viewed with some skepticism… even if I quote it! But the topics in the WtP are scattered wide and I could not hope to summarize the book in any sensible way. After all it is not a “book”, it is a collection of notes. I have attempted as few thoughts on the concept of the Will to Power but that is only a small part of the book’s content. The title is there fore misleading.

I agree with the translators view that to understand Nietzsche’s real view, one should turn to Twilight of the Idols, Zarathustra and the other completed books. The Will to Power should only be read in this light as additional thoughts but were never published for one reason or another.

The book is highly repetitious in itself and compared to his other works. There are several drafts that were modified, to a greater or lesser extent, and published in the other works. Usually the previously published versions are superior. There are a few gems, which make the book worth while reading.

Conclusion: this books is for completists and definitely not for a first time reader of the author. Although I have failed in addressing what the book is actually about, I will provide one quotation:

Section 976

Why the philosopher rarely turns out well. His requirements include qualities that usually destroy a man:
1. a tremendous multiplicity of qualities; he must be a brief abstract of man, of all man’s higher and lower desires: danger from antitheses, also from disgust at himself;
2. he must be inquisitive in the most various directions: danger of going to pieces;
3. he must be just and fair in the highest sense, but profound in love, hate (and injustice), too;
4. he must be not only a spectator, but also a legislator: judge and judged (to the extent that he is a brief abstract of the world);
5. extremely multifarious, yet firm and hard. Supple.

Anti Citizen One