Zoey Heath's Reviews > Tropic of Capricorn

Miller was an genius. I guess your blind to historical context and great art.

This is art not politics! This novel is a work of literary genius, keep that PC nonsense away.

Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "This is art not politics! This novel is a work of literary genius, keep that PC nonsense away."

This novel is not a work of literary genius. It is overrated and outdated. It is ra..."

Matthew your comprehension and analysis is woefully deficient. Overlooking the irrelevance of politics and humanism in art, your understanding of Miller's attitude to race and sex is poor. Allow me to quote from the book to illustrate:
"a darkie came along driving a team; when he gets alongside of me he stands up in his seat and doffs his hat most respectfully. He had snow-white hair and a face of great dignity. That made me feel horrible: it made me realise that there still are slaves. This man had to tip his hat to me - because I was of the white race. Whereas I should have tipped my hat to him! I should have saluted him as a survivor of all the vile tortures the white men have inflicted on the black. I should have tipped my hat first, to let him know that I am not a part of this system, and that I am begging forgiveness for all my white brethren who are too ignorant and cruel to make an honest overt gesture."

Irrelevance aside, does that sound like the declaration of an avid racist? Please!

Don't capitulate to superficialities and knee-jerk reactions to usage of 'ni**er' etc. but look for the deeper meaning conveyed by the artist. Read more deeply Matthew!

Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "This is art not politics! This novel is a work of literary genius, keep that PC nonsense away."

I notice you didn't quote the entire passage. If y..."
I omitted the section you quoted for the purposes of brevity and because the quote I provided makes it painfully obvious what Miller’s stance is. (If you’ve ever seen interview footage of Miller, you’d realise that his personal ideology is entirely in keeping with that quote, and that you’d have to look elsewhere for your dreaded racist villain.)

You’re conflating two issues here which are entirely exclusive. I’ll indulge the former artistic faux pas for the moment, and address the extended quote. There is nothing racist about this at all. If you substitute the politically correct term of the moment ( 'African American’?) for ‘ni**er’ then you’ll find that 99% of the sting is removed from the quote. Now let’s analyse what Miller is saying here. He is saying that there is a sense of menace in the South (which is entirely justified as shown by the prior admission of white guilt) and that this negative energy is almost tangible. He’s not placing blame, he’s stating a fact, which, as we’ve seen still holds true to some degree to this day in the USA, particularly in the South. Note once again that Miller is not apportioning blame here, he is stating a causal fact. His statement “The ni**er is giving off a poison, whether he means to or not” shows that there is no intent here, but merely an outflowing of the karmic inevitability of the South’s past. He laments that “THE ni**er IS KILLING THE WHITE MAN OFF!” but this is a metaphorical statement as well as a literal one. Here Miller brilliantly unveils the double entendre, with the ‘ni**er’ both as the physical embodiment of the white man’s guilt, as well as the literal mistreated people projecting a desire for revenge. When he says “The South is coked and doped with ni**er poison." he is saying that the “South is coked and doped with negativity, with a tainted past; a negativity which he himself says is entirely THE FAULT OF THE WHITE MAN in the preceding passage! He is saying that the 'ni**er’ is justified in his vengeful aspirations. Don’t be hamstrung by simplistic chronology, the overall sentiment of the quote has to be taken into account before passing judgment. If you fail to account for the entire exposition, you are no better than the hack journalist who cherry-picks quotes out of context to affirm his own agenda.

Now, on to the REAL issue here, the aesthetic integrity of art and why things like ‘humanism’ are irrelevant. Humanism is a philosophical stance, and whilst it may be a stance that you personally adhere to, nobody else is required to believe, follow, adhere, or acquiesce to that philosophy. Henry Miller is producing an artistic work based on his own perceptions and ideas, and you are judging it through the filter of your own philosophical lens, a lens which I might add is entirely culturally and temporally based. The aesthetic quality of Miller’s work is the only thing that is relevant. The inherent beauty of the thing is its measure, not its placement on some arbitrary scale of political correctness or whether it makes you warm and fuzzy inside.

To address your prior strawman ‘cat abuse’ argument (which frankly is so ridiculous that it doesn’t merit a response) Miller is not advocating any action in this novel. It’s not a directive, or a instruction manual or a ideological manifesto. The novel contains elements that many in today’s Western world might consider ‘degenerate’, but it is no more advocating degeneracy or promiscuity (both which are entirely subjective mind you) than Caravaggio’s ‘Beheading of St John the Baptist’ is advocating the viewer to go chop somebody’s head off. Carvaggios’ painting is a sublimely beautiful work of art, as is Miller’s ‘Tropic of Capricorn’. Lolita is a beautiful work of art, not a pedophilic call to arms. McCarthy’s 'Blood Meridian' is an aesthetic masterpiece, not a clarion call to go murder Indians. etc. etc.

Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "This is art not politics! This novel is a work of literary genius, keep that PC nonsense away."

You omitted the s..."
Actually I did omit it for brevity, it’s your prerogative if you wish to disbelieve that.

You’re continuing your straw man antics. Miller isn’t saying I love cats/I hate cats. As I’ve clearly demonstrated the conclusive section isn’t a refutation of the former section but a continuation of an overall sentiment. You haven’t addressed my points in any meaningful way except to say that you disagree. Either you lack the requisite comprehension or are unwilling to concede that your analysis has been thoroughly debunked and denounced for the balderdash it is.

Your philosophical rebuttal demonstrates that you have failed to grasp the salient point of aesthetic appreciation. The whole purpose of artistic appreciation is NOT to run things through a philosophical or political lens at all! Nil, nada, zilch! Rather we are to look for the inherent aesthetic beauty in the piece, or as Poe would say whether it meets the “Human Aspiration for Supernal Beauty”, something that is “independent of that Truth which is the satisfaction of the Reason”.

You state: “I don't think you're in a position to say what Miller is or isn't advocating in this novel. You're not Miller.” which shows you’ve missed my point entirely. This is art, you can interpret it how you will. There is no advocation of ANYTHING, this is not some didactic nonsense, this is about aesthetics.

You state: “I take issue with someone reading the quoted passage and adopting these racist attitudes (whether or not Miller intended for that to happen). By presenting these attitudes (whether Miller intended them to be literal or metaphorical) Miller ran the risk of inciting racism.” Frankly, this is one of the most preposterous things I’ve ever heard. So in your world Matthew, artists are to tip toe around on eggshells in case they could create something that 'runs the risk’ of inciting some passion? Let alone in a deficient audience? Absurdity! You may as well throw out the entirety of the Western Canon (and the Eastern for that matter) and we can sit around and congratulate ourselves in a festivity of ‘safe’ pre-Adamite barbarism. King Lear? Our men might decide to conjugate with their daughters, OUT! Macbeth? Regicide, suicide, OUT! Crime and punishment? Tenants might start axing their landladies, OUT! Ad infinitum…

Finally, you conclude your treatise of inanity with the comment: “It is not Miller's place (as a white man) to decide whether or not racism should be exploited aesthetically” and thereby bequeath that racism be the sole prerogative and jurisdiction of the ‘white man’ which is, in itself, racist. Can a black man not call a white man ‘cr*cker!’ or ‘white bre*d’ and himself be racist? An asian call a Jew a ‘k*ke’, or an eskimo an Italian a ‘w*p’? Are we to deny the great cornucopia of humanity the fundamental right to exert prejudice and antagonism toward his fellow man?

This conversation has already gone on far too long Matthew. You’ve brought no incisive thought to the discussion, and are perpetuating the kind of tepid, pseudo-intellectual piffle that has been the nemesis of art for over a century. Greater men then I (Bloom, Mencken, Poe) have railed against this kind of barbarism till their very deathbed, and frankly, even after a short engagement I am already weary.

Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "This is art not politics! This novel is a work of literary genius, keep that PC n..."

Matthew allow me to clarify the chronology:

1) I stated an opinion.
2) You stated an opinion plus straw man argument.
3) I stated an opinion backed up by a quote from the text.
4) You reply to my quote by saying that it’s not long enough, after you yourself have provided no supporting evidence to date. You then introduce a quotation.
5) I reply to your quote, dissecting it piecemeal and providing a cogent argument for why I believe it supports my position and not yours, whilst reminding you that this is tangential to the real issue at hand, which is aesthetic appreciation.
6) You remain fixated on the initial length of my supporting quote, provide zero analysis of any of the stated text, and stubbornly argue that I’m providing an opinion with no substantiation.

From there you state: “You resort to petty insults about my inability to comprehend that which you consider fact. You consider it fact because it originated from your brain. Perhaps if I had the same insight into your brain I could ascribe to your insular thinking.”
Which is a classic case of circular reasoning. You make a false assumption: “you consider it fact because it originated in your brain”, and then make an argument based on that prior false assumption “perhaps if I had the same insight into your brain I could ascribe to your circular thinking.”
I’m the only one so far to cite supporting evidence (quotations from Poe, references to Mencken, Bloom Poe) which shows that it is NOT an insight purely ‘cooked’ in my own brain, but in fact a position held by many of the most esteemed literary critics in human history. Within the limitations of a ‘chat argument’ on Goodreads I propose that this is the closest thing you will ever get to a supported exegesis and not merely two butting opinions.

You then persist in misquoting me, as well as Miller, thereby falling to that meanest of aforementioned journalistic cunnings. I’d like to believe this is due to a bounded comprehension and not mere belligerence?
The actual Miller quote is: “The nigger is giving off a poison, whether he means to or not. The South is coked and doped with ni**er poison."
You then reframe it as: “the ni**er is poison”
Now take a deep breath and focus. There is a subtle but important difference between these two statements, particularly when taken in the context of the whole text. I’m sure if you apply yourself, you can see it.
You rendered a judgement on the quality of Miller’s work based on your ‘humanistic agenda’ to which I replied that one should refrain from applying philosophical or political lenses when evaluating art. You then said that Miller was advocating this and that, and I responded that Miller wasn’t advocating anything, that YOU, the reader, interpret art as you will, and the artist shouldn’t be censored based on someone’s random interpretation.
You then mashed these two separate dialogues together and said: “How can you tell me I can interpret it how I will after this lengthy dispute over my interpretation?”
Do you see what you did there? I am talking about evaluating art based on its intrinsic aesthetic qualities rather than how the text can be construed, BECAUSE of the very fact that it can (and will be) construed in every conceivable way. I am talking about separating aesthetic from meaning (or as Poe calls it “that Truth which is the satisfaction of Reason”).
I am cautioning you against judging the quality of the art based on the meaning you think it’s conveying.

I clearly stated up thread that you are conflating two issues. I indulged your racist obsession with my own interpretation of Miller’s work (that it’s not racist) but that was a mere sideline and not the central thrust of the argument. (Check the thread, I even capitalised the word REAL to drive the point home.)
In essence, I have been proposing a bare awareness of artistic appreciation. A recognition of that inner spring that responds to the transcendent in literature, that intangible quality that briefly elevates the reader above the low vulgarity of the human condition. I believe that is what all proponents of the aesthetic have argued for many years. Note that this is not something INTENDED by the artist, it's a natural outflowing of the innate beauty within that which has been created. Attempts to imitate this beauty, ultimately fail, and represent the distinction between true art and faux.

You stated: “If the author doesn't care how their work will be received (as I suspect Miller didn't), then they can write as haphazardly as they see fit.”, to which I say that no author worth his salt should EVER care about how his/her work will be received. That is the mark of the contrived hack, writing for an audience, ego or the dollar. The true artist (like Miller) cares not a whit how it will be received as they are merely the conduit for the muse, and, if there be anybody that they’re writing for, it be themselves. With that in mind, I strenuously disagree with your idea that art is: “a humanitarian effort because it bridges the gap between one consciousness and another”. No, no, no! It can have that result, but that should never be the motivation.

You said: I'm not trying to throw out any canon of literature (West or East), and I'm not trying to silence anyone.
But that's exactly what you are trying to do Matthew. You said earlier: "Yes, it is my stance that art should adhere to a humanist agenda."
and therefore art which doesn't conform to your humanist agenda is discarded?! Good lord man, contradiction after bogus argument after contradiction!

You say: “Racism belongs to the oppressed. If a white man wants to write about racism, he'd better be Scottish or Irish writing about the oppression of the British. I don't expect anyone who hasn't suffered oppression knows anything about it. Miller demonstrates that by writing glibly about the oppression of black people in the United States.”
Once again, patently wrong. Racism doesn’t ‘belong’ to anybody. The Oxford dictionary describes racism as: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior”, which basically describes the innate feeling of every race in human history toward every other race. It is not the possession of one race or another, it is a state of mind equally available to all.

I am weary, but it’s amazing how nescient argumentation, and weak dialectic from one's 'opponents' can be re-invigorating.
We can go around and around forever, but ultimately, if somebody slaps a 1/5 rating on a novel purely because they perceive it as ‘racist and sexist’, well, that’s just lazy scholarship.

I'll conclude with a quote from the great Oscar Wilde:

“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”

Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Daniella wrote: "This is art not politics! This novel is a work o..."

You stated: “You have only stated that these authors agree with you, without providing any evidence supporting your claim that they agree with you.” My ‘lack of supporting evidence' was a concession to an assumed baseline of knowledge in the subject matter. I now see that I was amiss in that assumption. Do your own research and get up to speed Matthew.

Similarly if you lack the background knowledge (although some degree of vision would’ve sufficed) to see the relevance of Poe’s ‘The Poetic Principle’ to the broader topic at hand, then I’m afraid I cannot help you. Poe’s lectures on literary theory (which form the foundation of the essay) are based on the final premise that art’s goal is an aesthetic one. Your statement: “A quick reading of Poe's essay has confirmed that Poe was referring to poetry specifically, not aesthetic appreciation generally. If we were discussing a poem or collection or poetry, I would concede that the quote is relevant. But as we are discussing a novel, I must dismiss the quote as irrelevant.” is embarrassing Matthew, and alongside your declaration of philosophical superiority over the Victorian greats, concludes this little tirade for me.

The discussion is preserved for those interested in the subject matter. I’m sure those of discernment will see through your contentious babble (as muddled as it was) as well as note the great many decisive points I’ve raised, which unfortunately, remain unaddressed.

All the best, may you become…better?

Fecund

This is why he moved to Europe: the close-mindedness and feeling responsible to put everything in a good-or-evil bucket.