Name: Tropic of Cancer
Rating: 3.373134328358209 (67 reviews)

Henry Miller (Schriftsteller, USA)

Tropic of Cancer

ноа

It seems wherever I go there is drama. People are like lice - they get under your skin and bury themselves there. You scratch and scratch until the blood comes, but you can't get permanently deloused. Everywhere I go people are making a mess of their lives. Everyone has his private tragedy. It's in the blood now - misfortune, ennui, grief, suicide. The atmosphere is saturated with disaster, frustration, futility. Scratch and scratch until there's no skin left. However, the effect upon me is exhilarating. Instead of being discouraged, or depressed, I enjoy it. I am crying fo more and more disasters, for bigger calamities, for grander failures. I want the whole world to be out of whack, I want everyone to scratch himself to death.

Alonzo Diaz

   I am trying ineffectually to approach Moldorf. It is like trying to approach God, for Moldor is God--he has never been anything else. I am merely putting down words...

   I have had opinions about him which I have discarded; I have had other opinions which I am revising. I have pinned him down only to find that it was not a dung beetle I had in my hands, but a dragonfly. He has offended my by his coarseness and then overwhelmed me with his delicacy. Has has been voluble to the point of suffocation then quiet as the Jordan. 

   It is no accident that propels people like us to Paris. Paris is simply an artificial stage, a revolving state that permits the spectator to glimpse all phases of the conflict. Of itself Paris initiates no dramas. They are begun elsewhere. Paris is simply an obstetrical instrument that tears the living embryo from the womb and puts it in the incubator. Paris is the cradle of artificial births. Rocking here in the cradle each one slips back into his soil: one dreams back to Berlin, New York, Chicago, Vienna, Minsk. Vienna is never more Vienna than in Paris. Everything is raise to apotheosis. The cradle gives up its babes and new ones take their places... Everyone has lived here some time or other. Nobody dies here

At bottom, Claude was just a good French girl of average breed and intelligence whom life had tricked somehow; something in her there was which was not tough enough to withstand the shock of daily experience. For her were meant those terrible words of Louis-Philippe, "and a night comes when all is over, when so many jaws have closed upon us that we no longer have the strength to stand, and our meat hangs upon our bodies, as though it had been masticated by every mouth." Germaine, on the other hand, was a whore from the cradle; she was thoroughly satisfied with her role, enjoyed it in fact, except when her stomach pinched or her shoes gave out, little surface things of no account, nothing that ate into her soul, nothing that created torment. Ennui! That was the worse she ever felt...

   Germaine was a whore all the way through, even down to her good heart, her whore's heart which is not a really a good heart but a lazy one, an indifferent, flaccid heart that can be touched for a moment, a heart without reference to any fixed point within, a big, flaccid whore's heart that can detach itself for a moment from its true center. However vile and circumscribed was that world which she had created for herself, nevertheless she functioned in it superbly. And that itself is a tonic thing... When she lay there with her legs apart and moaning, even if she did moan that way for any and everybody, it was good, it was a proper show of feeling. She didn't stare up at the ceiling with a vacant look or count the bedbugs on the wallpaper; she kept her mind on her business... Whereas Claude--well, with Claude there was always a certain delicacy, even when she got under the sheets with you. And her delicacy offended. Who wants a delicate whore!... And while it's all very nice to know that a woman has a mind, literature coming from the cold corpse of a whore is the last thing to be served in bed. Germaine had the right idea: she was ignorant and lusty, she put her heart and soul into her work. She was a whore all the way through--and that was her virtue!

Even before the music begins there is that bored look on people's faces. A polite form of self-imposed torture, the concert. For a moment, when the conductor raps with his little wand, there is a tense spasm of concentration followed almost immediately by a general slump, a quiet vegetable sort of repose induced by the steady, uninterrupted drizzle from the orchestra. My mind is curiously alert; it's as though my skull had a thousand mirrors inside it. My nerves are taut, vibrant! the notes are like glass balls dancing on a million jets of water. I've never been to a concert before on such an empty belly. Nothing escapes me, not even the tiniest pin falling. It's as though I had no clothes on and every pore of my body was a window and all the windows open and the light flooding my gizzards. I can feel the light curving under the vault of my ribs and my ribs hang there over a hollow nave trembling with reverberations. How long this lasts I have no idea; I have lost all sense of time and place. After what seems like an eternity there follows an interval of semiconsciousness balanced by such a calm that I feel a great lake inside me, a lake of iridescent sheen, cool as jelly; and over this lake, rising in great swooping spirals, there emerge flocks of birds of passage with long slim legs and brilliant plumage. Flock after flock surge up from the cool, still surface of the lake, and passing under my clavicles, lose themselves in the white sea of space. And then slowly, very slowly as if an old woman in a white cap were going the rounds of my body, slowly the windows are closed and my organs drop back into place. Suddenly the lights flare up and the man in the white box whomI had take for a Turkish officer turns out to be a woman with a flowerpot on her head. 

At this very moment, in the quiet dawn of a new day, was not the earth giddy with crime and distress? Had one single element of man's nature been altered, vitally, fundamentally altered, by the incessant march of history? By what he calls the better part of his nature, man has been betrayed, that is all. At the extreme limits of his spiritual being man finds himself again naked as a savage. When he finds God, as it were, he has been picked clean: he is a skeleton. One must burrow into life again in order to put on flesh. The word must become flesh; the soul thirsts. On whatever crumb my eye fastens, I will pounce and devour. If to live is the paramount thing, then I will live, even if I must become a cannibal. Heretofore I have been trying to save my previous hide, trying to preserve the few pieces of meat that hid my bones. I am done with that. I have reached the limits of endurance. My back is to the wall; I can retreat no further. As fas as history goes I am dead. If there is something beyond I hall have to bounce back. I have found God, but he is insufficient. I am only spiritually dead. Physically I am alive. Morally I am free. The world which I have departed is a menagerie. The dawn is breaking on a new world, a jungle world in which the lean spirits roam with sharp claws. If I am a hyena I am a lean and hungry one: I go forth to fatten myself. 

In that moment I lost completely the illusion of time and space: the world unfurled its drama simultaneously along a meridian which had no axis. In this sort of hair-trigger eternity I felt that everything was justified, supremely justified; I felt the wars inside me that had left behind this pulp and wrack; I felt the crimes that were seething here to emerge tomorrow in blatant screamers; I felt the misery that was grinding itself out with pestle and mortar, the long dull misery that dribbles away in dirty handkerchiefs. On the meridian of time there is no injustice: there is only the poetry of motion creating the illusion of truth and drama. If ay any moment anywhere one comes face to face with the absolute, that great sympathy which makes men like Gautama and Jesus seem divine freezes away; the monstrous thing is not that men have created roses out of this dung heap, but that, for some reason or other, they should want roses. For some reason or other man looks for the miracle, and to accomplish it he will wade through blood. He will debauch himself with ideas, he will reduce himself to a shadow if for only one second of his life he can close his eyes to the hideousness of reality. Everything is endured--disgrace, humiliation, poverty, war, crime, ennui--in the belief that overnight something will occur, a miracle, which will render life tolerable. Adn all that while a meter is running inside and there is no hand that can reach in there and shut it off. All the while someone is eating the bread of life and drinking the wine, some dirty fat cockroach of a priest who hides away in the cellar guzzling it up, while up above in the light of the street a phantom host touches the lips and the blood is pale as water. And out of the endless torment and misery no miracle comes forth, no microscopic vestige even of relief. Only ideas, pale, attenuated ideas which have to be fattened by slaughter; ideas which come forth like bile, like the guts of a pig when the carcass is ripped open. 

There are people in this world who cuts such a grotesque figure that even death renders them ridiculous. And the more horrible the death the more ridiculous they seem. It's no use trying to invest the end with a little dignity--you have to be a liar and a hypocrite to discover anything tragic in their going. And since we didn't have to put on a false front we could laugh about the incident to our heart's content. We laughed all night about it, and in between times we vented our scorn and disgusts for the guys upstairs, the fatheads who were trying to persuade themselves, no doubt, that Peckover was fine fellow and that his death was a catastrophe. All sort of funny recollections came to our minds--the semicolons that he overlooks and for which they bawled the piss out of him. They made his life miserable with their fucking little semicolons and the fractions which he always got wrong. They were even going to fire him once because he came to work with a boozy breath. They despised him because he always looked so miserable and because he had eczema and dandruff. He was just a nobody, as far as they were concerned, but, now that he was dead, they would all chip in lustily and buy him a huge wreath and they'd put his name in big type in the obituary column. Anything to throw a little reflection on themselves; they'd make him out to be a big shit if they could. But unfortunately, with Peckover, there was little they could invent about him. He was a zero, and even the fact that he was dead wouldn't add a cipher to his name.

   "There's only one good aspect to it," says Joe. "You may get his job. And if you have any luck maybe you'll fall down the elevator shaft and break your neck too. We'll buy you a nice wreath, I promise you that."

But there's the fifteen francs and something has to be done about it. It's like a state of war: the moment the condition is precipitated nobody thinks about anything but peace, about getting it over with. And yet nobody has the courage to lay down his arms, to say, " I'm fed up with it...I'm through." No, there's fifteen francs somewhere, which nobody gives a damn about any more and which nobody is going to get in the end anyhow, but the fifteen francs is like the primal cause of things and rather than listen to one's own voice, rather than walk out on the primal cause, one surrenders to the situation, one goes on butchering and butchering and the more cowardly one feels the more heroically does he behave, until a day when the bottom drops out and suddenly all the guns are silence and the stretcher-bearer pick up the maimed and bleeding heroes and pin medals on their chest. Then one has the rest of his life to think about the fifteen francs. One hasn't any eyes or arms or legs, but he has the consolation of dreaming for the rest of his days about the fifteen francs which everybody has forgotten. 

He's like a hero come back from the war, a poor maimed bastard living out the reality of his dreams. Wherever he sits himself the chair collapses; whatever door he enters the room is empty; whatever he puts in his mouth leaves a bad taste. Everything is just the same as it was before; the elements are unchanged, the dream is no different than the reality. Only, between the time he went to sleep and the time he woke up, his body was stolen. He's like a machine throwing out newspapers, millions and billions of them every day, and the front page is loaded with catastrophes, with riots, murders, explosions, collisions, but he doesn't feel anything. If somebody doesn't turn the switch off he'll never know what it means to die; you can't die if your own proper body has been stolen. You can get over a cunt and work away like a billy goat until eternity; you can go to the trenches and be blown to bits; nothing will create that spark of passion if there isn't the intervention of a human hand. Somebody has to put his hand into the machine and let it be wrenched off if the cogs are to mesh again. Somebody has to do this without hope of reward, without concern over the fifteen francs; somebody whose chest is so thin that a medal would make him hunchbacked. And somebody has to throw feed into a starving cunt without fear of pushing it out again. Otherwise this show'll go on forever. There's no way out of them mess...

Henry Miller

Mateo Wright

There's a lot about Henry Miller that's problematic when viewed through a 21st Century lens. Misogynistic doesn't quite cover it. I don't excuse his depictions of women, but for me anyway his prose somehow overcomes that. His prose overcomes the crass and ugly world he often writes about. It was clearly a different time to be a woman. I just have to remind myself that this was a world where women had only had the right to vote for a decade or so.

Now that we have that out of the way.

This remains a unique novel even by today's standards. I've read it, must be, five times over the years. It's fiction and it's not. There's a story there, but it's really more about the author's voice and the struggle to both find it and stay true to it. There may be books written before 1934 that provide such an unfiltered display of the writer's mind, but I hadn't encountered them in 1994 when I read it for the first time. There are plenty written after this novel, and I have to give Miller credit for some of that.

Tim Pendry

This novel is one part silly rant, one part acute psychology and one part documentary of expatriate life in Paris between the wars. Let us take each in turn before judging it to be great literature or not. We are supposed to admire the silly rants as ‘literary’. No doubt college professors will get off on some of it but it is mostly self-indulgent, sub-standard and incoherent surrealism. You really have to get past Miller's determination to be 'literary' to enjoy this book. But it is worth it. The psychology is what matters here. Even the rants show a mind screaming to be free in a world of apes and of material limitations but it is no accident that this is an American mind seeking freedom in Europe. Only Americans at that time (we see the same phenomenon a decade or so later in Jack Parsons and then later still in Kerouac) could even contemplate the possibility of freedom in the sense of following one's own instincts and desires and taking personal responsibility for them. America is the supreme paradox. A sense of liberty is its glory but it is a culture that may laud freedom and encourage the libertarian in its rhetoric but it is also one which is riddled with conventionalism, ‘normality’ and traditional beliefs. This is the sad world of Rick Santorum. For a man like Miller, the promise of freedom is to be expressed not as a rhetoric based on the nonsense of eighteenth century theoreticians but as a lived reality. The imperative is to get out of America and lose oneself in a big foreign city – Paris was the most obvious choice. The book is an extended exploration of how to be free in an alien environment, one where no one is watching (though he clearly wants us to look). He thought the sexual aspect of his writing was exaggerated and he is right – sex is not the issue in this book. It is a book about freedom. The most fundamental freedom is to have sex. All societies tend to try to contain sexual energy, the United States more than most. It tells you more about the culture of the critics that they seize on the sexual explicitness with shock or awe. To Miller, sex is simply like eating. What Miller is trying to get across is the sheer energy and normality (to him) of sexuality and of the struggle for survival under conditions of extreme poverty. He struggles for food more than he worries about sex. He cannot see why either consensual sex or food should be scarce. He is right. There are occasions (in this fictionalized account of reality) of him being very underhand and self-centred. This honesty is to be applauded. Being energetic in life is likely to drive one to the socio-pathic boundary of humanity, even if one is not a psychopath, under conditions of scarcity. It is the clash of his normality with social normality that is at the core of this book. It might as easily have been Kerouac in Mexico. The conditions of his liberation are confined by his poverty and it is this third aspect of his book that has been most neglected. It seems that you must either have freedom in abject poverty or slavery in wealth as part of a murderous normality that builds war machines and conscripts its suckers for the killing fields. The mark of 1914-1918 is on this book. There are shades of Chaplin’s critique in ‘M. Verdoux’. His silly rants seems affectedly surrealist but they also remind one of the hysteria of Artaud whose Heliogabulus speaks of blood and violence as catharsis. This is the raging rhetoric of frustrated masculinity and it fuelled the fascist male rage of the period. But Miller is no fascist – he is a frustrated liberal and anarchist. He is struggling to tell us about a world that Orwell wrote about with more discipline in his ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’. Orwell made the leap to socialism but Miller cannot – perhaps with wisdom in retrospect. The book is about what it is to be without money in a cold-hearted and small-minded world. This is where his literary genius shines through. His account of his time as unpaid school master in Dijon captures the deprivation of the time so that you can feel the cold, the hunger and the humiliation. His infamous but misunderstood treatment of women has to be seen in this documentary context rather than that of his sexual drives. Far from being misogynistic, he treats women as sexual equals at all times. They are not ‘owned’ by convention but equal players in a trading game. Men and women are both objects of the system and subjects to themselves. Both men and women struggle to survive, seeking life. Both want love but both, in order to survive, are capable of extreme sociopathic behavior. He may call them ‘cunts’ and treat them as sexual objects but the women, bluntly, behave like ‘cunts', treating the males as objects of survival, sources of scarce cash and scarce food. There is competition and camaraderie in such a relationship between persons. It has its integrity. Miller could have taken a socialist line as Orwell was to do, but his instinct was probably correct that the sacrifice of individual free choices in how to engage in the struggle for existence would be at too great a price in the long run. Perhaps behavior would change if scarcity was replaced by abundance but he is puzzled, as many of us are puzzled in theory though less in practice, by the fact that abundant societies seem to permit less freedom in areas that matter most to people like Miller – good solid sexual pleasure. Contemporary liberal culture is more sexually free now on the basis of abundance but there is a constant rearguard action against authoritarian traditionalists and the State, while the majority of the population still self censors its own behavior and language out of fear and anxiety. The difference between a socialist like Orwell and a libertarian like Miller is probably this – the socialist wants to change the world in order to change the species whereas the anarchist wants to change the species in order to change the world. Neither is going to get very far so, perhaps, you have to choose the balance of your misery according to your aesthetic. The socialist effort to improve the lot of man through controlling the world merely results in the control of persons who cannot change their core nature. Conforming to external demands was the basis of the very sort of society that Miller was seeking escape from. But our species is always likely to remain a herd one, a conformist one. Failure to conform is always likely to end in some form of want. Miller simply prefers poverty to slavery. Men and women who choose freedom are either going to have to be so talented that they can acquire the means to live freely above the herd or they are going to be living on the margins of the herd. If they are on the margins of the herd, they will be competing for scraps. The rants and the documentary account of deprivation still came down to this – Miller had chosen the risks of freedom. Few of those around him made the same choice so consciously. The mutual exploitation and struggle for existence was not of one sex over another but of all against all. If we still find ourselves rooting for Miller, despite his bad writing, his self-destructiveness and his skewed analysis of his situation, it is because, despite all these flaws, he is authentically greater than most of the rest of our species. He is satanic perhaps. Promethean. He does not want freedom just for himself. He wants us all to be free. He is the best of men in that sense. He is a hero if only for not going mad at the sight of a beaten horse like Nietzsche or being beaten into submission by a manipulative ‘cunt’ as his friend Fillmore was. We look at our short time on this planet and at the even shorter period during which we are capable of an independent physical existence and of intense pleasure and we ask how we ever allowed ourselves to become drudges to the conventional in the first place. But we do nevertheless. Miller is naïve but there is something great in the man despite that naivete. Unfortunately, the book is not as great as the man. We have confused our fascination with his blind surge towards the light with literary prowess. The book, though culturally important, is not great.

Miller's groundbreaking first novel, banned in Britain for almost thirty years. A penniless and as yet unpublished writer, Henry Miller arrived in Paris in 1930. Leaving behind a disintegrating marriage and an unhappy career in America, he threw himself into the low-life of bohemian Paris with unwavering gusto. A fictional account of Miller's adventures amongst the prostitutes and pimps, the penniless painters and writers of Montparnasse, Tropic of Cancer is an extravagant and rhapsodic hymn to a world of unrivalled eroticism and freedom. Tropic of Cancer's 1934 publication in France was hailed by Samuel Beckett as 'a momentous event in the history of modern writing'. The novel was subsequently banned in the UK and the USA and not released for publication for a further thirty years.

It’s like if Bel-Ami didn’t make his way up the ranks by sleeping with women and probably more realistic a story of a writer who tries to make a name for himself after moving to Paris.

Jeff Dlouhy

Tropic of cancer

Jeremy Boyd

Got to page 262 of my Modern Library copy only to discover that page 263 was really page 233, and they had just reprinted 30 of the same pages up to about 293, and yet I have a feeling I didn't miss all too much...

Shocking, banned and the subject of obscenity trials, Henry Miller's first novel Tropic of Cancer is one of the most scandalous and influential books of the twentieth century Tropic of Cancer redefined the novel. Set in Paris in the 1930s, it features a starving American writer who lives a bohemian life among prostitutes, pimps, and artists. Banned in the US and the UK for more than thirty years because it was considered pornographic, Tropic of Cancer continued to be distributed in France and smuggled into other countries. When it was first published in the US in 1961, it led to more than 60 obscenity trials until a historic ruling by the Supreme Court defined it as a work of literature. Long hailed as a truly liberating book, daring and uncompromising, Tropic of Cancer is a cornerstone of modern literature that asks us to reconsider everything we know about art, freedom, and morality. 'At last an unprintable book that is fit to read' Ezra Pound 'A momentous event in the history of modern writing' Samuel Beckett 'The book that forever changed the way American literature would be written' Erica Jong Henry Miller (1891-1980) is one of the most important American writers of the 20th century. His best-known novels include Tropic of Cancer (1934), Tropic of Capricorn (1939), and the Rosy Crucifixion trilogy (Sexus, 1949, Plexus, 1953, and Nexus, 1959), all published in France and banned in the US and the UK until 1964. He is widely recognised as an irreverent, risk-taking writer who redefined the novel and made the link between the European avant-garde and the American Beat generation.

Marielle de Geest

2.5 stars - problematic parts aside this was a fairly boring book with occasional strokes of genius. Guess you had to be there.

Henry Miller’s famously banned book is “a matter-of-fact celebration of chucking one’s dreary life and following your heart to Paris” (Richard Price). Now hailed as an American classic, Tropic of Cancer, Henry Miller’s masterpiece, was banned as obscene in this country for twenty-seven years after its first publication in Paris in 1934. Only a historic court ruling that changed American censorship standards, ushering in a new era of freedom and frankness in modern literature, permitted the publication of this first volume of Miller’s famed mixture of memoir and fiction, which chronicles with unapologetic gusto the bawdy adventures of a young expatriate writer, his friends, and the characters they meet in Paris in the 1930s. Tropic of Cancer is now considered, as Norman Mailer said, “one of the ten or twenty great novels of our century.”

Tropic of Cancer

Reviews

Highlights