×

Uh-oh, it looks like your Internet Explorer is out of date.

For a better shopping experience, please upgrade now.

Tropic of Cancer
     

Tropic of Cancer

3.6 68
by Henry Miller, Anais Nin (Preface by)
 

See All Formats & Editions

2015 Reprint of 1961 Edition. Full facsimile of the original edition. Not reproduced with Optical Recognition Software. "Tropic of Cancer" has been described as "notorious for its candid sexuality" and as responsible for the "free speech that we now take for granted in literature". It was first published in 1934 by the Obelisk Press in Paris, France, but this edition

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Post to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews

Tropic of Cancer 3.6 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 68 reviews.
alivalentine More than 1 year ago
Henry Miller's passion for Passion (redundant, yet true) is inspiring. The raw, uncensored, stream-of-consciousness quality to this book is truly fantastic. Having dog-eared certain pages in which I found his writing to be particularly visually brilliant, I noticed that, by the end of the book, nearly half of it was intricately folded, a constant reminder of the brilliance of Miller's writing.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Yes, I agree with the the reviewer above, that Miller basically says whatever it is that comes in to his mind. It's is easier to write a diary rather then sit down and write a novel. Diaries rarely have structures.:) But on so many occasions he says things that are so touching, yet raw and real and that makes parts of the book wonderful and human. Many brilliant remarks and obsevations and views. The thing it lacks most is form. I suppose that's what makes him great, his style and the fact that he didn't care for form and polishing.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
provoking different thoughts on madness. began to think about controlling unconsiousness.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Rambling on and on about everything that came in to the author's mind. Very few coherent paragraphs. Only in the last 50 pages a story started to develop. Terrible book.
Guest More than 1 year ago
I read Tropic of Cancer a couple of months after Hemingway's A Moveable Feast, also a semi-autobiographical novel of its expatriate author in Paris. The time periods are different (AMF set 13 years earlier) but the major difference is in the authors' lives and perceptions. Diametrically opposed to Hemingway's burnished and cerebral Paris, TOC's is as sordid and squalid as imaginable. The story follows its protagonist on a seemingly unending filth ridden bacchnal: decit, disease, whores, purulence, weevils and lice suppurate the novel. Viscerally evocative and initally compeelling, after a while these seemy tales simply become tiresome. The prose is jarring and, while at times elegantly lyric in its depiction of the authors sordid affairs, tedious and diffuse. The narrative is a meandering tale, unintelligble and incoherent at times; and for the majority of the book, I was totally unengaged in any of the characters. However, by the conclusion, the protagonist's actions do coalesce to embody a personality, the events become coherent, and some of the fire and vitality other critics have spoken of is transmitted. Additonally, TOC is fascinating in its coarseness and vulgarity chronologically speaking. That Hemmingway and Miller could participate in the same Paris so differently, intriguingly bespeaks of the disconnect between public writing and private living. Bottom line: TOC is a chaotic and jarring book that for its majority reads like the methamphetamine-induced stream of conscious of a contemporary frat boy. One has long become disenchanted by the time its characters communicate their message.
Guest More than 1 year ago
i can't believe noone has reviewed this book on here yet. the book is great. nobody writes quite like henry. the words just pile up. u start to think, 'my god, how long can he keep this up?' it's like watching a sports player that's 'in the zone.' i think both rabelais and celine have better literary reputations, but i enjoy henry more than either. he seems to combine the best of both.
Author_DB_Pacini More than 1 year ago
This "not really a book" plot-less, stream-of-consciousness, anti-everything, self-indulgent, crudely-rudely-gimme-some-boody, was one of the novels in the 1960s that tested USA laws about pornography. It is also regarded as a masterpiece of 20th century literature. Time magazine lists it in their 100 Best English-language novels from 1923-2005. The preface is supposed to have been written by Anais Nin, but many believe Miller wrote it. I've never been as impressed with Henry Miller and Henry Miller is impressed with Henry Miller, but I do appreciate his staggering (specifically chosen word) literary talent, his abrupt/curt one-liners, and some of his intoxicated poetic rantings/ramblings. I first read Tropic of Cancer in a teen reading club. One boy in our group insisted that it is "an awesome read" if you are falling down drunk. One girl said she got a sexually transmitted disease from reading it---and she announced that she was going to stop engaging in one night stands, even with cute guys. One girl reviewed the book with her own curt one-liner, saying that "Tropic of Cancer was confetti of seediness" in her opinion. Three of us became even more determined to become "real" writers. Jerry Seinfeld had a successful TV show about nothing. Maybe Jerry got his "nothing" idea from Miller. In a Seinfeld episode Jerry is accused of not returning Tropic of Cancer to the library after checking it out when he was in high school. I admit, I'm no Miller scholar, but I think I can say anything I damn well please about this novel---Henry Miller couldn't care less.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Miller's look at life in Paris in the thirties is stories and insight fused together with a vivid and poetic style. This work truly did restore a sense of wonder in me about the world around us. At a time when we are surrounded by fear, Miller's words bring an acceptance of the natural flow of the universe and puts emphasis on the importance of living in the instant...because it's all we have.
Guest More than 1 year ago
The rich, undiluted candor of Miller's writing fills me with a hunger for life. This, to me, is the highest measure of any writer. That said, he probably isn't for everyone. It took me a while to warm up to him (his language can be a bit shocking at times). Well worth it!
Guest More than 1 year ago
The miracle of life explored in Depression era Paris. If this book doesn't want to make you get up and live, I fear you are dead already--best check the pulse.
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book is all of these and more. A carnival of ideas and a new way of looking of life introduced almost 70 years ago. Still, most people haven't caught on. This writer opened more doors than any other American writer and let loose all that was contraband in a land that preached freedom but practiced much of the opposite. Get this book in your hands right now and while you're at it, grab Tropic of Capricorn and The Rosy Crucifixion Trilogy.
MargoH More than 1 year ago
Probably worth reading if you’ve got the stomach for it This novel was on the “no-no” list when I was in school, so now that I’m grown up, I decided to read this book to see what I missed.  There is a weak story line to the novel, but that story line is nearly lost among Miller’s frequent, extended, seemingly-unrelated, almost psychedelic rants on different aspects – mostly negative - of life and society in general.  These interludes reminded me in a way of abstract modern art that features splotches of color with little apparent meaning or that depicts, Picasso-like, the bizarre -  arms protruding from heads, etc. The story is set among the lowest dregs of early 20th-century Paris life as experienced by a group of expatriated American writers.  To me, the tone of the novel expresses a point of view that was common in the existentialist, nihilistic literary culture of the 1960’s, i.e., that life is largely sordid, meaningless, hopeless, and absurd.  Although that ship has largely sailed, vis-à-vis today’s literary culture, this novel does represent a mindset that today’s students of American literature would be expected to know about. Much of the dialogue is coarse.  Sexual references are plentiful and graphic, although they are most often so crude as to be largely non-erotic.  Frequent use of the “c-word” is bound to offend many readers. It is apparent that the author is (was) intellectually brilliant and a highly talented writer.  He frequently soars from the crudest of the crude in his commentaries on life and society, to something approaching the noble and poetic.  On the basis of one of his statements in the novel, I suspect that he regarded his writing as accomplishing what that of Proust and Matisse accomplished:  “transforming the negative reality of life into the substantial and significant outlines of art.”
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
He knew, we knew. This was THE book we all wanted to get our hands on, & I graduated high school in 1994, so it was rather easy. But my friends & I, who dreamt of becoming writers (& only I achieved that goal) still felt oddly dirty, like maybe we were doing something wrong when one of us finally did attain Tropic of Cancer & we sat in my basement behind my parent's pool table ooo'ing & aah'ing over Miller's amazing words. One of the Top 5 Best Written Works ever.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Henry Miller is one of the best American writers, fresh and honest, a good person and a real person, unafraid to be and say so.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago