Trópico de Cáncer

This book wasn't too shabby.

Some books grab your attention and you love them straight away and some you hate straight away, this book kicks the crap out of you and makes you want to respect it.

The language is course and women are treated....well like objects, I would be surprised if it had been banned because of that.

It did feel like it was written by two authors, one writing about what was currently happening, taking a recording of the events and the second author writes and the "heroes" dreams and what he is thinking. The latter is great, everything flows so well and as you read the tempo picks up and the voices in your head get louder and louder (maybe that is just me though)

The type of writing is very similar to Bukowski, all observational, but I prefer Bukowski out of the two, probably because he is gentler.

Blog review of my second reading of this book: felcherman.wordpress.com/2022/03/17/tropic-of-cancer-by-henry-miller/

Tropic of Cancer is probably best known for being about sex, a book that was banned for over thirty years. An autobiographical novel of a struggling writer living in Paris in a community of bohemians. A fictionalised account of Miller’s life living underground, with prostitutes, painters and other writers.

This is an odd novel, not necessarily good but a literary landmark. Without Henry Miller we may never have books like Lolita, Naked Lunch, A Sport and a Pastime and even Tampa. On the plus side, we may never have Fifty Shades of Grey. This novel pushed the boundaries of literature in the 1930’s and found itself being banned, which developed a cult following that helped influence the future of literature. I tend to think, much like Lady’s Chatterley’s Lover, if it wasn’t for the banning of the book, this novel wouldn’t be a classic; it would have just faded away into obscurity.

There are some advantages to reading this book, there are the autobiographical elements but then Miller focuses on his friends and colleagues. Almost off topic, like he is commentating on what is happening in their lives. Then it gets a little more complex because there is a stream of consciousness reflecting on the occasional epiphany. The whole narrative gets really confusing with its non-linear approach, the tangents and reflections. It makes the whole book hard to read and in the end not really enjoyable.

I can’t help but compare this novel to The Dud Avocado, the sexual adventures in Paris is similar but Tropic of Cancer wasn’t as interesting and a female lead makes for a less sex obsessed narrative and tends to focus on life abroad as well. I can’t help thinking just how narcissistic Henry Miller must have been with all those autobiographical novels of his life; do people still do that? Or is this just a thing of the past, pushing the boundaries.

I have to give Henry Miller one thing; he doesn’t hold back, he will expose the good, the bad and the disturbing parts of his life. If I ever wrote a book like this (which I have no interest in doing anyway) I would be more inclined to hold back, to paint myself in a more favourable light; Miller doesn’t do that at all. There isn’t much I can say about this book, it’s about sex and that is about it. The stream of consciousness part was interesting but I still find that difficult to read. I would probably tell people to skip this and read The Dud Avocado or something similar but for the book snobs (like myself) if you do read this book I hope you get something out of it apart from the historical significance of a book like Tropic of Cancer.

This review originally appeared on my blog; literary-exploration.com/2013/08/24/book-review-tropic-of-cancer/

"After everything had quietly sifted through my head a great peace came over me. Here, where the river gently winds through the girdle of hills, lies a soil so saturated with the past that however far back the mind roams one can never detach it from its human background."

I first read this book while in my 20s when I wasn't such a close reader and the romanticism of Henry Miller overshadowed anything he actually wrote. I wanted to be young and free and sexed in Paris. This used to be one of my favorite books to recommend not that I really cared if anyone read it, I was just so cool for recommending it. So I read this book now, in my thirties, to see if there was anything worth keeping beyond the personality of the book.

Certainly the appeal of being hungover in a flea bag motel without any money has worn off the most. Probably because once you've been hungover in a flea bag motel without any money you realize how distinctly uncool any of it actually is. Miller's prose flows on like the Seine and at times he merely seems to be rambling but at others, when he has caught certain elements of an actual narrative, the writing is transcendent.

I'm a little pickier now about what I consider to be good fiction and this book doesn't cut it for me. However, that isn't to say it isn't wonderful on it's own terms. If you've never read anything by Miller this is worth the read. The particular timbre of an American stream-of-conscious: it's doubt, it's passion, and it's vulgarity, is an important voice for anyone to hear. We suffer apart from our European or Asian contemporaries and I think Tropic of Cancer captures that suffering very well.

The lines on this book typically mention just how honest it is. It is an honest book, they say. I don't understand that (sign of the times?) but perhaps they mean this is an emotionally appealing book. From my 10 years ago to today that is what has remained when all else has dropped away. Tropic of Cancer begs its readers to drop all conceit and examine, emotionally, what shapes we are.