Just as we can talk about an American Nietzsche (Arthur Danto, Tracy B. Strong, Richard Schacht, Alexander Nehamas, Kathleen Higgins, and Gary Shapiro) so we can talk about Klossowski's Nietzsche and Deleuze's Nietzsche.

The latter work off Nietzsche's biological metaphysics of a multiplicity of conflicting forces of bodies, yet both move away from Nietzsche.

Klossowski ignores the processes of valuation whilst his conception of interpretation through the everyday codes in consciousness gives us a pre-social body.

Deleuze downplays the will to power as the stronger force that is commanding and ruling. What Deleuze stresses is that a stronger force does not exercise its power for the sake of negating a weaker force but only for the sake of affirming its difference. The differential of power between weaker and stronger is what Nietzsche, in Deleuze's reading, calls the will. The stronger the power of a force, the stronger the will, the stronger the desire to impose itself as pure difference.

This is quite different from Nietzsche who places the emphasis on power: on the stronger directing the weaker. Valuation is the will to power: a willing to be stronger, to grow----will as power.

Maybe we can contrast these kinds of readings of Nietzsche with those of Heidegger, even though the judgments of Heidegger's Nietzsche interpretation are mostly negative. That reading interprets Nietzsche as the prophet of nihilism, as an advocate of human subjectivity or self-insurrection (as lord of the earth, seeking a destined technological dominion over the earth), and diagnosed Nietzsche as embroiled in the same metaphysics he identifies and tracks.

Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche is dismissed as getting Nietzsche wrong--(misinterpretation) whilst the (mis) interpretations of Klossowski and Deleuze are celebrated as innovative and insightful. Heidegger's Nietzsche is what needs to be put to one side.