Rating: 
Summary: Burroughs's Interzone is Miller's Paris.
Review: "Tropic of Cancer" is a book that needs to be read quickly, not to make an end of the task, but to get the full exuberant effect of the narration. Its pacing is restless and energetic, which is all the more amazing considering that it has no plot. I don't know how much of it is fiction, but it is obviously autobiographical and reads like a memoir, detailing its author's experiences living as an American expatriate in Paris in the 1920's. Henry Miller is a bum (it must be admitted) living among the idle intellectuals in the seedier neighborhoods of Paris (might he have bumped into Hemingway?). He's not always unemployed; he takes temporary jobs like a proofreader at a newspaper and an English instructor at a Lycee in Dijon, and he always has a place to live, albeit filthy. Most of the time he's cavorting with friends, making new ephemeral acquaintances, visiting brothels, and engaging in the kind of promiscuity of which such a life avails itself, despite the fact that he has a wife back in America. He doesn't shy away from any of the disgusting details of living and loving -- in the novel's opening scene, he is shaving his roommate's armpit hair for lice, and believe me, it only gets worse -- but Miller thrives in the squalor and wouldn't have it any other way. Compared to his native New York, which he considers impersonal, cold, and hollow, Paris is warm and intimate, brimming with life and beauty. "Tropic of Cancer" is very similar to two popular books that followed it by a quarter of a century: Jack Kerouac's "On the Road" in content (run-on anecdotes about outrageous activities with his friends, pulsating with waves of existentialist rambling, the main difference being that Miller is a much better writer than Kerouac), and William S. Burroughs's "Naked Lunch" in style (stream-of-consciousness narration using striking imagery in random juxtaposition). Miller possessed the spirit, if not the seed, of the Beat Generation -- his existence can be summarized in his self-description as "spiritually dead, physically alive, morally free." This is also perhaps the book's greatest fault -- its influence outstrips its literary quality. It may not be a great novel, but it at least it's worthy of its reputation, which is more than can be said for a lot of popular books.
Rating: 
Summary: Life...
Review: Out of pure, unapologetic life Miller wrote Cancer. There's not much to say about the book- It says everything it needs to by saying it all. While reading this book one can actually feel Miller ripping all the dead weight from his soul; dont be offended. He says what he says not to surprise or arouse, but because he doesnt care what you think.
Rating:
Summary: I'll never watch MOULIN ROUGE! the same way again!
Review: Tropic of Cancer is often described as an 'erotic masterpiece.' Reading it now, it doesn't seem that erotic to me ' that's not the point. Yeah, there's sex in it, and plenty of 'dirty' words, but the descriptions don't get that graphic. If you read Sexus, there's a lot more of that going on ' if that's what you are interested in. I suppose that Tropic got its reputation for being the first of its kind and the thing that stood out in most people's minds was the sex. Reading it in today's overly-saturated-with-sex culture, the things that stands out the most to me are the bedbugs, lice, feces, etc. Miller is trying to do something radically different in this book ' to create a new art form. It isn't even a book, according to him; it is 'a prolonged insult, a gob of spit in the face of Art'' It is ultimately a song, he says. There is no plot, no linear story'there aren't even chapters ' just anecdotes and opinions of Miller's life in Paris ejaculated all over the pages. He wants to give priority to all the things that other novels pretend don't exist: sex, going to the bathroom, uncleanness ' watching a whore use a bidet before sex. To Miller, these carnal aspects of life are the realities and should be the subject of art ' not love, romance, or war. He tries to give an accurate portrait of what it was like to be a peasant in Paris in the early 20th century ' the cold reality of the fantasy of Moulin Rouge! In the end, Miller's works are a triumph of style over substance. For him, the style IS the substance. It's difficult for me to remember anything that actually HAPPENED in the book ' what I remember is the 'piece of lead with wings on it.'
Rating:
Summary: An exuberant novel!
Review: I read Tropic of Cancer the first time when I was twenty years old. I began it in the morning and didn't put it down until the early hours of the following morning. It was the first time I had read a book in one sitting. What an experience it was for me. Up to that time most books I had read might have been good but they took work to get through. This book was different. I realized after reading it that literature could be fun, just sheer fun to read. Miller wrote with such exuberance, such a passion for life. It made me want to suck the juices out of life, to really live fully. Miller was extremely critical of the shallowness and money-grubbing nature of American life. He also criticized the hypocricy and unhealthiness of America's puritanical views on sex. The sexual passages in the book were courageous and liberating at the time the book was originally published in 1934. This part of the book may offend some readers - mainly women - yet Miller wrote honestly and humorously about things many men think about but are too afraid to reveal. I have read the book two or three times since and each time I find it invigorating. When I get caught up in the rat-race I am reminded by Miller to live with gusto and passion and humor. A great book!
Rating: 
Summary: misogynistic romp
Review: This book often made me very angry, and i would put it down for a month because i would feel too disgusted with what i had read. On the other hand, some pasages, chapters even, are beautifully written. Nonetheless, the overly brutish sexual adventures of Miller described in the book are often too much to bear.
Rating:
Summary: I kept wanting to hate this book
Review: But I couldn't. There is something very charming about such blunt, spare-no-feelings honesty. Tropic of Cancer is a brave, moving book that sweeps you in and carries you along through numerous ghoulish, unpleasent and ultimately hilarious episodes of wayward life in France in the late 1920s/early 1930s. These are experiences you would generally never have (regardless of futile efforts to try and recreate them). Here is a story of promiscuous sex, over-indulgence, vice, sin, love, hatred, art and any other obsession that temporarily occupies Miller's mind. It's really a great deal of fun. The writing is sometimes stunning, although at times it seems a bit too self-consciously hard-boiled and the usual monologue quality of the narrative scatters a little, becoming overly literary and therefore undermining to the otherwise spectacular consistancy of the confession.
Four and a half stars, rounded down because once upon a time I wanted to hate it . . .
Rating:
Summary: Underated book
Review: Although the book does contain much .... and somewhat ignorant remarks all throughout the book. With Millers extensive vocabulary, great detail, and incredable honesty, I feel makes it one of the most underated and underappriciated books of all time. A must read book, told by a writter who clearly deserves more credit then is been presented to him.
Rating:
Summary: landmark
Review: I think that every literate person has a personal collection of landmark books -- books that profoundly changed the way you look at the world. The first for me was *Catcher in the Rye*, and one of the more recent is *Tropic of Cancer*. Catcher was the first book that made me want to be a reader, and Cancer is one of a few that has reaffirmed my impetus to be a writer. I have recommended this book several times, and I don't know if anyone that I suggested it to has actually finished reading it. I find this surprising, as this is a relatively easy read. There are certainly passages of Miller's life philosophy that are made dense with metaphor and literary references, but these are the medicine that you take with heaps of sugar: colorful tales of life in the greatest city; details of Miller's bohemian support network; and of course, countless examples of Henry's sexual exploits. This is definately the place to start if you're interested in Henry Miller -- it is the definitive work of the definitave anti-American writer.
Rating:
Summary: Honesty
Review: A 5 rating borders on the realm of pretension, and this is not a pretenious book. There's little smutty, arogant, or roughly anarchistic about it unless you fail to notice that Miller is explaining honestly every five seconds why things happen. This isn't entertainment, it's a man telling about life. He may be a rather course adventurer at his roots, but never so without us understanding. This is a good book to flip open and start reading, there's always a morose, yet trying to live, bit of philosophy staring you in the face. I imagine if you don't have that traveler's spirit and try to eat the whole thing from page 1 that you'll just be too full too quick. Leave it around, jump in on a passage from time to time. You'll be hard-pressed to find such a human miserable (...), who is, as he admits, happy.
Rating: 
Summary: Over-rated machismo-ridden mumbo-jumbo
Review: I think my title about says it all. As over-rated as "On the Road" this is one of the most disappointing books I have ever wasted money on. Self-centred, boorish and chauvenistic, this book is crushingly boring. Yawn!
|
