Just started Tropic of Cancer. Couldn't finish it. Reminded me of kerouac , just an opportunity to show off about ironing the wrinkles out of cunts.
What am I missing?
>>7334282
Yes, it was pretty shit and misogynist.
Sure it was "raw," oh so authentic, and important to the sexual revolution, but fuck him and his little book. Also, I find the last point to be worrisome rather than praiseworthy.
>>7334282
You're missing an unselfcensored absolute madman from the 1930s.
It's really something special for its time.
>>7334361
What's the last point? Couldn't endure it to the end.
>>7334370
This. Miller's work was an artsy, exotic prelude to what Bukowski later turned into a cottage industry, naturally dispensing with the uncanny placement and class setting.
>>7334361
>misogynist
>>7334412
I meant that the book was important for the sexual revolution. Since it's pretty misogynist, that's not very swell.
>>7334421
I'm not kidding. Because Miller is so "harsh" and "truthful" to himself (he comes across as a total asshole), some argue that it isn't misogynist. But what about the way he treats women and how women are depicted in his book? I don't think that this argument is convincing at all. What is your take on it? How do you regard his depiction of women and the way he treats women?
>>7334459
>What is your take on it? How do you regard his depiction of women and the way he treats women?
Henry was a bit of a masochist when it came to women. He gave the women in his life the respect, tenderness and affection that they deserved. Which isn't much. He was an asshole. But so were the women in his life. His mother, Anais, June, the Japanese wife and Brenda Venus were not a bunch of sweet little innocents. It wasn't big bad wolf Henry and innocent little lambs. They were a pack of wolves, one and all.
>>7334479
your measured response is too problematic it is triggering me please delete it
>>7334459
He treats men like shit as well. Calling him a misogynist is like calling someone racist for opening fire on a crowd that contains some black people.
When you're a cunt to men you're a cunt, when you're a cunt to women you're suddenly a misogynist, because women immediately want to make it about their cunt.
>>7334504
reported for sexist hate speech
watch yourself next time, shitlord
>>7334479
I think that you are right to a certain extent that they were a pack of wolves, but in my opinion that does not make his depiction okay, also since he does not treat everyone the same way. I also do not think that the depiction of women in his book (which is in my opinion a lot worse than of men) is confined to the particular women in his book, but women in general (which would explain the asymmetry). Sometimes the humiliation and destruction of some women that he tries to realise is based on them being a prostitute. Yes, his male friends were also a bunch of assholes but they were no cunts, and they were definitely not treated the same way as women.
One instance that comes to mind is the (sort of bourgeois) lady, and they try to fuck up her life. How/why did she deserve that?
>>7334520
>but in my opinion that does not make his depiction okay
It's like you've never considered viewing a work that is objectionable as a cautionary tale before. What is this whitewashed nonsense position of yours?
>>7334520
>that does not make his depiction okay,
I couldn't care less about his feelings crimes or thought crimes
>>7334520
You should read Opus Pistorum if you really want your sensitive politically correct vagina rustled. He and his friends gangrape a woman for hours because she was asking for it by dressing slutty. At one point she gets so full of cum they have to drain her out before continuing again.
>>7334557
>snarky passive aggression from a social justice alarmist
is this a fucking parody? tell me it is.
>>7334520
are you really dismissing works of fiction because they might be offensive to women?
you shouldn't read anything from before the 1980s if you don't want to get triggered.
>>7334557
>You sound like a nice person.
well, how worked up am I supposed to get just because Henry Miller just wanted to fuck some whores and didn't come to appreciate what gifts those whores were as a people to the planet. He didn't love the holes he fucked. Who gives a fuck? They probably enjoyed the opium they bought with his money more than the fuck anyway.
>>7334282
>>7334282
I wasn't a huge fan of Tropic of Cancer either, which was disappointing because it sounded right up my alley. Maybe I've become desensitized, but I think you can only use the word "cunt" so many times before it just become uninteresting.
Ultimately his depiction of his own life for all its supposed depravity was lacking some kind of inertia or depth to me. At least his prose is much better than Kerouac's.
>>7334568
>>7334567
I'm not dismissing works of fiction based on these sorts of themes, though of course it does have influence on my judgement (why should it not?). But it is not convincing that books are infallible to critique based on misogyny, which of course has social consequences.
I also thought the book was disagreeable based on other things. However, since sex and women are such an integral part of the book, the misogyny becomes more and more troublesome obviously.
>>7334566
Holy fucking shit.
>>7334586
>Maybe I've become desensitized, but I think you can only use the word "cunt" so many times before it just become uninteresting.
Do you feel the same about 'dog' or 'hand'? It's simply a word for a thing.
>>7334591
Why do you think nearly century old works of art should be critiqued by how well they adhere to 2015 tier political correctness and progressive thought?
Do you dislike Moby Dick for the whaling as well?
>>7334282
>What am I missing?
Balls.
>>7334591
>becomes more and more troublesome
just say problematic you retard you know you want to
>>7334596
So you think sexist narratives back then didn't help marginalise women? Of course if someone would produce a work that reproduces these narratives so overtly it would discredit the author even more.
Wagner for example was a huge asshole. Although his music is (I believe) beautiful, I would have rather seen it wasn't there. And if it wasn't there, I would have even appreciated it more (though I think it is absolutely brilliant).
>>7334613
would produce a work today*
>>7334592
I don't think Miller uses the words dog or hand as much as cunt in the book, so no.
>>7334613
I meant of course the racist, nationalist, etc. themes in Wagner's oeuvre.
>>7334622
My point is that you wouldn't mind or even notice with any other word but you do with cunt because you consider it naughty even when used matter of factly.
How else would he call a cunt though?
>>7334613
I don't care if they help marginalise women, I just don't think a work of art should be dismissed because someone with a political agenda finds it 'problematic'.
Wishing that works that do not serve your agenda didn't exist is the first step towards book burning.
>>7334633
>Although his music is (I believe) beautiful, I would have rather seen it wasn't there.
So you wish you could go through and editorialize art of the past because you are a hyper-politicized SJW dunce. Figures.
>>7334638
>when used matter of factly
That type of reasoning is largely the problem here.
Also, it's not only about the word cunt.
>>7334641
Why don't you care? Can you make a convincing case why we shouldn't care? And as I said earlier, I do not dismiss works entirely based on this (see Wagner, although I do reject those ideas entirely).
>first step towards book burning
Right, so let's just stop thinking altogether? Don't you think there is a little more space between critique and the actual burning of books? Yes, you mentioned "first step," but even mentioning it shows how quickly you link the two, and introducing such fears based on what I suggested is problematic.
I'm not arguing for a ban, but rather prefer writers not using it. Most of the time people don't know what what they say does. Why shouldn't such narratives be criticised and problematised? And why shouldn't writers feel compelled to abstain from using those narratives? Let's at least make people know about the consequences of their actions (not superficially), and then let them decide whether to continue to use it.
>>7334646
No I don't think we have to edit past works - that's a very bad idea. I just said I would have rather seen Wagner not using those narratives in the first place.
What the fuck is OP?
I feel like I'm in a first year lit class full of tumblrdykes that don't know how to read.
>>7334683
Writers shouldn't be urged to compel to any political agenda by interest groups, I think.
It makes for less interesting art if you have to spend your time trying not to offend people. Art loses a lot of its merits if it no longer gets to be the playground of dangerous ideas and is instead turned into a lukewarm safe space echo chamber of pleasant entertainment.
>>7334638
Do you think that he was using it matter-of-factly, though? In America at least, the word is pretty taboo. I'm sure that he was trying to be deliberately transgressive.
There are definitely a whole host of synonyms and metaphors for vagina that he could have used.
I should note that I don't find the word offensive. I agree that it's just a word with a certain meaning. But if a word like cunt or fuck or shit becomes matter-of-fact, then why should they exist at all? The power of a swear word or curse comes from the fact that's taboo.
When I read a book I want to feel the power of the words over me as a reader.
>>7334722
If writers agree with you then they are of course allowed to do so (though I think that if they really knew about the consequences of the narratives that they would be less inclined to 1 on 1 reproducing them). They should expect critique, but what's wrong with that?
In my opinion it is much more interesting if we stop using stereotypical narratives of everyday life, but instead develop new ones or play with these narratives innovatively (e.g. cautionary tale or critique).
And yes, I agree with you that political correctness is also problematic.
>>7334755
I can't imagine a more uninteresting critique of a literary work than "it's not nice enough to girls" though. I don't see what purpose it serves other than a feminist agenda that seeks to remove any sentiment with the mere hint of negativity about anyone with a cunt.
>>7334757
Of course it's only one aspect of critique on a work, but I believe it is an important one. Why should it be interesting?
>>7334683
Cultivating and enforcing an Orthodoxy is always anti-intellectual and anti-aesthetic, regardless of the nature of the Orthodoxy. The human experience is heterogeneous and art should reflect this, even (or especially) when it comes to Unorthodox experiences. When I read fiction I'm not thinking "Is this narrator a good person or a bad person?" and judging them, I'm just appreciating how artfully their convey their experience. Reading is basically an exercise of empathy.
>>7334755
If we grant that Henry Miller is a misogynist, what is a more edifying way to interact with his work: to merely point out the "problematic" elements of his work and condemn them, or to temporarily immerse yourself in his viewpoint - without condemning or condoning it - and thereby enlarge your experience of humanity?
>>7334767
I personally enjoy interesting things and do not enjoy dull social justice whining.
The irony of it is that this type of behaviour tends to backfire and actually fuels misogynistic sentiment, kind of how constantly playing the race cards makes people feel more badly about minorities.
>>7334787
Sounds like you've got it all figured out. Only you and others like you are able to see the bigger picture. Well done.
>>7334591
>Not dismissing works of fiction based on these themes
>has influenced on your judgement
Pick one (essentially). You may not outright be in favor of banning it but when you conceive as of a book's merit being connected to its message you're opening that door.
You're no better than the people responsible for taking Twain of off study syllabuses for being "racist"
>infallible to critique based on misogyny
Infallible? No, not really. Its a perfectly valid observation or criticism, but to base a critique around it or to factor it as a characteristic anywhere near as important as the writing style, intent, settings and other details is idiotic.
>which of course has social consequences
*Citation needed*
If TV, Movies and Videogames have all had little to no effect on people's attitudes on peoples perceptions than so does books. Unless you're a full-retard social-constructivist then you have nothing to stand on.
The protagonist of Tropic of Cancer is no a person that's supposed to be some incredible paragon of virtue. Like has already been established, he's a drunken, mad-man from the 1930s.
If anything, the so-called depictions of his misogyny are examples of its implicit wrongfulness because of its association.
If you're seriously concerned with how a book depicts certain groups of people when reading I suggest you get a new hobby because you'll never be satisfied.
>hurr durr To the Lighthouse is so problematic because Mrs. Ramsay likes a domestic life
>hurr durr Ahab has toxic masculinity
>hurr durr The Sun Also Rises is just about a man's lack of a DICK
>>7334613
>helped marginalize* women
>>7334683
>problematic
>>>/out/
The center of the issue is that your "critique" offers essentially nothing of substance to the novel itself, its merely a circle-jerk of contemporary politics.
Does thinking a literary character or author as a "misogynist" enhance our understanding of his work, or the depths of his themes/characterization?
No, its almost purely an act of self-flagellation for the purpose of trying to uphold the narrative of women's CURRENT status as "second-class"
>>7334361
When you say its "shit" in the same sentence as it's "misogynist" you associate the two when they have nothing to do with one another.
Misogyny is an observable trait, not an inherently negative quality, when you attribute things such as that with artistic merit you lose all credibility
>>7334811
This anon gets it.
Miller, like many authors, aggrandized his persona in books, where IRL he was a relatively gentle man, well into his 80 lovings nothing more than a nice dinner with wine and a beautiful woman to talk to.
>>7334800
Constructive critique my axe wounded friend.
>>7334811
sound post
Am I a big ol retard if I think that sex isn't really that big a part of tropic of cancer?
I've never hated this board so much, jesus.
>>7334520
>One instance that comes to mind is the (sort of bourgeois) lady, and they try to fuck up her life. How/why did she deserve that?
What do you mean by "deserve?" No character in any work of art "deserves" anything. You're reading the wrong way.
>>7336411
No, but primarily because ToC is a sorta slice-of-life where everything is equally emphasized.
It's irrelevant cultural critique. Cultural norms are often in wild and violent flux and to critique based on said cultural norms is to date yourself. It's no different when old people find it objectionable when you wear your fucking fedora indoors.
Art on the other hand is timeless and when you read the odyssey it's the relatable human drama of it that resonates. Just cause we don't slaughter cattle to the gods these days doesn't ruin the fucking odyssey for us. Yet if for some reason the sacrifices were omitted it would be a catastrophic cultural loss.
That's a bit irrelevant to the meat of Henry Miller though, as what's timeless about him the aesthetics of it. He knew exactly what he was doing and how to write to invoke the atmosphere he intended to portray so again, the modern cultural based critique of it is moot and so far removed from the point of the work.
>>7336457
>I've never hated this board so much, jesus.
Really? From this thread I've never been more proud. This agenda-driven SJW dullard had it all coming. I don't even know how these Catholic League tier morality police call themselves readers.
Can't believe I'm replying.
>>7334811
>Pick one
Why is it so hard to understand that there are multiple ways by which you can judge a book? As I said, I do not dismiss the work based on that. For example, Lovecraft uses racist terms. Surely you can think: "Wow his stuff is really great based on prose, settings, signifcance, originality, etc. But what's the deal with the names of his pet, etc.?"
>opening that door
Would you stop it already?
>You're no better than...
...
>If TV, Movies... so does books
Not necessarily. But that's not the point. If you really think the narratives that are produced in media, books, everyday life, etc. do not at all influence or reproduce narratives that perpetuate inequality then you should really start reading social theory. Only conclusion I can draw from this is that you have absolutely no clue about how this works and the consequences in everyday life. They are not fairy tales or especially constructed to make you feel uncomfortable about it. Listen to them for a change.
>anywhere near as important as the writing style
Again something which I haven't said or meant. As I said, you can judge a book in different ways. It's not magic. Also, the fact that I am inclined to discredit Miller based on his sexism does not mean that I think everyone else should. Though the critique based on sexism is, I believe and as you said, sound.
>seriously concerned with how a book depicts certain groups of people when reading
Yes, I am critical towards people using those narratives, precisely because they help marginalise people. Why is that such a bad thing? Do you really dismiss the idea of narratives being harmful to groups of people? Because that stance would be far worse than the way you wrongly categorise me. Also, it does not mean that I do not enjoy reading or appreciating other aspects of the book, neglect or discredit analysis based on writing style, intent, settings, etc. (as I said earlier).
>enhance our understanding of his work, or the depths of his themes/characterization?
Did I say that? You are so worked up about this. Sure, being critical about harmful narratives isn't popular, especially not here on 4chan, but maybe you should not discard it a priori. Those people have important things to say. >>7334787
Like this anon about abusing the race card. Yes, there are people who do that, which is of course bad. But using those examples to discredit legitimate critique is problematic. The link to what I said is very strange. Everyone is so fucking worked up about any type of critique based on this that they quickly assume the worst, like you thinking I am pro banning of books, or not far removed from being that.
>CURRENT
>Misogyny is an observable trait, not an inherently negative quality, when you attribute things such as that with artistic merit you lose all credibility
Did I conflate the two?
Shit and misogynist wasn't meant to overlap so completely as you suggested.
>>7336495
Has it ever occured to you that what you say is so fucking ignorant and mundane?
>>7337808
You are of course free to appraise art according to its proximity to your personal ideology, I just happen to think that's an asinine and self-limiting thing to do. Henry Miller may have been somewhat sexist? Oh well.
>>7334282
Read Miller's "Colossus of Maroussi" instead
>>7337808
how is it that was able to read and enjoy tropic of cancer without suddenly turning into a misogynist then? it's almost as if i have control over my own thoughts and actions
>>7337808
The idea that a narrative can be "harmful" is in no way substantiated in either fact or logic, it is nothing more than ideology. Yelling "but it is harmful" does not make it so. Not to mention as literary interpretation goes it's absolutely worthless. If you were to compare dissecting a book to dissecting a body, than this kind of analysis would be picking out the lint stuck in the body's toenails. There is nothing we can learn about the work from it. The reason it's so popular with the kids is it takes zero intellectual lifting while giving them the smug self satisfaction of having done something they perceive as good. The true mark of immaturity is the assertion that you can decide what should and shouldn't be.
>>7337888
This, best part was with the Indian guy taking a shit in the bidet in a brothel.
>>7334520
>I am beta anf proud of it.
>>7337817
I am literally advocating the opposite of ignorance here you woeful clown. So are most of the other anon ITT.
>>7334566
>At one point she gets so full of cum they have to drain her out before continuing again.
kind of based tBhFam
>>7338171
>The idea that a narrative can be "harmful" is in no way substantiated in either fact or logic, it is nothing more than ideology.
>What is social science?
>>7338394
>>What is social science?
pure ideology? the death of art?
>>7338394
>What is social science
academic cancer, a pseudoscience
