Anyone Read Plexus by Henry Miller?

I just wanted to hear others' impressions and opinions on this book. Or on Henry Miller's stuff in general.

The book is about a young writer, who is still in the struggling phase. He is basically supported by his wife, and a lot of the novel deals with his wife, and his eccentric circle of friends.

One question I have for readers of Miller is if this novel is similar to the rest of his stuff

As for Plexus - I really don't like to criticize books or writers, but a couple of things about this book kept me from enjoying it. For one, there were several passages where Miller was clearly trying to so a Dostoevsky impression. Instead of being a homage, the scenes came across as completely unbelievable. The other thing that bugged me after a while was how Miller threw in scene after scene of sort of disconnected "this is the wild and overtly bohemian artist's life".

I found Miller to be a competent and talented writer - but I suppose his style is what threw me off

I can respond to the 'stuff in general' part of your question. I've read both his tropics (cancer & capricorn) and he modeled them after writing 'everything that's left out in books.' The tone moves from ribald, to vivid, pungently dreamy to frank & stale. He can be funny, particularly articulate or sullied in vulgar drippings. He’s an important writer in that he & William S. Burroughs helped slay the censorship of their time (thus opening the floodgates to being able to print just about anything on paper) & he also was important in deconstructing literature, which to me, also fulfills the ‘anything is possible’ prophecy. Tied down to meter, formulaic prose, plot, characterizations or any set expectations can be limiting to any writer, and the tropics obliterated expectations. There really isn’t any plot, character development, beginning or end. The style is that of a diary, an unimpeded, circumambient journey through an art form, through consciousness and through the sewer side of the urban, of the human.

I enjoy Miller and admire him immensely for these reasons. I also criticize him for these reasons. His strengths are also weakness, and he is certainly a ‘mood’ oriented experience, or a personality-specific expression at that. I can completely appreciate the critique that his rambling nothingness is devoid of substance, meat or focus…that his style makes some of the most attentive readers turn to Ritalin for a misdiagnosis of ADHD…etc. That said, his importance to the American word can’t be undervalued, and I’d also recommend reading him in fragments, his bits and pieces tend to be digested best in different moods, at different times and in different sequences. Once he gets rolling he can become infectious, almost like a fungus ;)

With regards to Dostoevsky, he mentions him often in his works and his appreciation of him is obvious. The tropics were singular pieces and he didn’t seem to emulate him much in either, though I can say that he failed as a writer when he conformed to the conventional standard. Henry & June, a film about Henry Miller’s courtship w/ Anais Nin, had a scene where his wife reproached him for Tropic of Cancer w/ the smarting comment ‘I thought you were going to be the next Dostoevsky,’ so I can sure see his influence sneaking into other works….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brad Coelho

I can respond to the 'stuff in general' part of your question. I've read both his tropics (cancer & capricorn) and he modeled them after writing 'everything that's left out in books.' The tone moves from ribald, to vivid, pungently dreamy to frank & stale. He can be funny, particularly articulate or sullied in vulgar drippings. He’s an important writer in that he & William S. Burroughs helped slay the censorship of their time (thus opening the floodgates to being able to print just about anything on paper) & he also was important in deconstructing literature, which to me, also fulfills the ‘anything is possible’ prophecy. Tied down to meter, formulaic prose, plot, characterizations or any set expectations can be limiting to any writer, and the tropics obliterated expectations. There really isn’t any plot, character development, beginning or end. The style is that of a diary, an unimpeded, circumambient journey through an art form, through consciousness and through the sewer side of the urban, of the human.

I enjoy Miller and admire him immensely for these reasons. I also criticize him for these reasons. His strengths are also weakness, and he is certainly a ‘mood’ oriented experience, or a personality-specific expression at that. I can completely appreciate the critique that his rambling nothingness is devoid of substance, meat or focus…that his style makes some of the most attentive readers turn to Ritalin for a misdiagnosis of ADHD…etc. That said, his importance to the American word can’t be undervalued, and I’d also recommend reading him in fragments, his bits and pieces tend to be digested best in different moods, at different times and in different sequences. Once he gets rolling he can become infectious, almost like a fungus ;)

With regards to Dostoevsky, he mentions him often in his works and his appreciation of him is obvious. The tropics were singular pieces and he didn’t seem to emulate him much in either, though I can say that he failed as a writer when he conformed to the conventional standard. Henry & June, a film about Henry Miller’s courtship w/ Anais Nin, had a scene where his wife reproached him for Tropic of Cancer w/ the smarting comment ‘I thought you were going to be the next Dostoevsky,’ so I can sure see his influence sneaking into other works….

---

Your first 2 paragraphs in particular summarize my thoughts on him pretty well. I can see his talent in his writing, and I also find his "free" style refreshing. I'm glad he helped kick the door open in that area - and I definitely like that he broke down even more of the censorship barrier.

And as you said, it is his "free" and somewhat wandering style that sort of limit my appreciation of him. But in Plexus, I could see a writer that was reaching for something higher - and I think that is a great goal for any writer.

Plexus may not have been the best place to start with Miller, as it's the second part in a series rather than a stand alone book (I've been reading the first part, Sexus, on and off for months and love it).

Personally, I hold Henry Miller in the highest regard, even almost as highly as Dostoevsky. I'm going to have to agree with Bukowski (who I hold in a fairly low regard), though, when he said about Miller "when he was good he was really good, but the same can be said in reverse." I really love his style and worldview, but I can see how his somewhat pretentious "I'M A BOHEMIAN ARTIST!!!!!" attitude could easily put some people off.