Henry Miller Books

What an absolutely terrific biography of lunatic-at-large, the late founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard! Miller exposes Hubbard for the cynical, not to mention grandiose and megalomaniacal fraud that he was. From birth to death, Miller leaves no stone unturned in showing the reader that Hubbard was a disturbed, pathological liar who embellished almost every aspect of his life. From reading the book, I got the impression that every second word out of Hubbard's mouth was a lie. That an entire "religion" has been built on the writings and pronouncements of this man is nothing short of incredible (and worrying). Exactly how did Hubbard come up with the principles of Dianetics? Unfortunately, Miller sheds no light on exactly where Dianetics came from and what kind of "research" Hubbard did for it, but reading between the lines, I gather that Hubbard wrote it off the top of his head, an accusation later levelled at him by one of his sons. Hubbard had always said that the best way to make millions was to found a new religion, and he set out to do just that. I was intrigued by Miller's description of the faux-arcane rigmarole and vocabulary of Scientology, ie. the E-Meter, "auditing", "pre-clears" and "clears", "operating thetans", etc. Hubbard created a whole new cosmology for Scientology that is as fascinating as it is demented. The chapters dealing with Hubbard fleeing mainland USA in the late 60's to spend almost a decade sailing the Meditteranean on a converted ocean liner with a private navy were absolutely fascinating! (Hubbard fled the US as the FBI was closing in on him and his operation). I just could not believe what I was reading!! The whole mega-hierarchical "Sea Org" structure and voyage was sheer lunacy and I just cannot fathom how rational,largely college educated, intelligent people could possibly want to be part of such a harebrained venture. That so many of them stayed on board and robotically obeyed orders for so many years truly defies belief and credulity. Hubbard's personal charisma must have been off the scale, considering the fierce, unquestioning loyalty he inspired in his followers. All in all, this book is gripping from page one and it takes the reader on an incredible journey into the life and times of one of the most controversial figures of our times. Highly, highly recommended!

I normally hate biographies. I found this story when browsing the operation clambake site. This is one of the only "thrilling" and definitely captivating biographies I've ever read about a very unique and fascinating individual. Here's a guy who's got a real talent for telling stories, who uses this talent to build one hell of a fairly large religious cult that has impacted so many lives including my own. My family got sucked into Scientology when I was a child, I sort of saw through some of the bs, they on the other hand did not and were bilked out of quite a large sum of money. Now here is a great time to read about the man who stole Chef from South Park and duped Tom Cruise. L. Ron Hubbard was certainly someone worth reading about, if just for insight into what makes men like him tick.

I guess I've read this three or four times (NOTE: online-- you can find it in its entirety). It's an absolutely riveting look at one of the most compellingly INSANE religious leaders ever-- and the competition is pretty stiff, so that's saying a lot. Miller has done his homework, and knows his subject intimately. That he wrote this masterpiece of popular biography in the face of incredible hostility from the Church of Scientology is a real achievement, and you owe it to yourself to look into this almost unbelievable (but true!) tale of megalomania, paranoia, confabulation, and utterly NUTSOID behavior.

This world, especially the United State is just so sad.
We live in a country where the FBI killed innocent men, women, and children at Waco. We live in a world where people worship Hitler even though we know he killed millions of people. We live in a world where anything new, or helpful is deemed a cult. If it isn't wrapped around Jesus or God then it is evil and wrong. These are the same kind of thoughts that killed thousands and thousands of women during the Salem witch trials. I don't care what you say about L. Ron Hubbard. You can put the man down until the end of time. He was a liar and lived in a fantasy world that I don't believe in. But you can not sit there and put down the book Dianetics if you honestly read it. Because if you honestly read it, then you will know, like I and millions of others know. That it is an amazing and wonderful book. You can not sit there and tell me that if you studied Scientology and applied it's teachings to your life that your life didn't change for the better. I don't believe that Scientology is a religion, I believe it is a guide, a philosophy, and if you stay away from the crooked organization that is the Church of Scientology and study the material it can and will help you in life. I have been studying Diantics and Scientology for years and it has helped me a lot. But this is because I have avoided being sucked into the Church. I am not sure what Russell Miller had against L. Ron Hubbard, but he does have a serious problem with him. He hates him, and will do and say anyhting he can to make sure you do too. Like I said, say what you will about L. Ron Hubbard, but leave Dianetics and the philosophy of Scientology alone. I am not sure how a lazy, lying, weird Science fiction writter was able to come up with the information in both these works but he did and what he found does work. I know it doesn't make sense, but either does the fact that even though there is no proof at all millions of people believe in God and that Jesus was the son of God. Talk about a story that is ficton.

I only recently became curious about Scientology after seeing Tom Cruise's much-lampooned, looney interview about it. (And I can never look at him, or other Co$ celebs the same way again.) Based on what I had already seen and heard, I wanted to hate this book's protagonist from the beginning. But through all the lies and deceit of this snake oil salesman, I DID see a charismatic and fascinating character. That is, up until his seafaring adventures and beyond. His penchant for dictatorship came to full fruition from then on, culminating in selling out his own wife and children. Truth is, in this case, truly stranger than fiction. I can't help but think that, done well, a biopic based on this book alone would be a spectacular train wreck - something with the same look and feel of "The People vs. Larry Flynt". Bob Hoskins would be a superb LRH!

It's sad to read reviews here that say this book is "Buddhism" or "great for depressives." This book does not fit into any category. I read it when it came out in the 1990s and have re-read it many times. I've highlighted favorite parts.

This book is such a turnabout from the way most Americans think that it will boggle your mind. Once you understand Desire and its impact on your life, you rapidly learn (and best of all, believe) that your desires are causing you more harm than good--putting you on a rat-race track that no one can win.

It's hard to "be satisfied with what you have" until you read this book. It's not just psychological and spiritual principles, either. Some of it is bald-faced fact. For instance, Americans and Western Europeans are some of the richest people who have ever lived. Mostly free of disease, the scramble to find food, with time for leisure and pleasure--these are gifts our forebears couldn't dream of, and many people in the world today can't even conceive of such a life.

I'd never thought of it that way. This book is revelation after revelation. Everyone I know who has read it has had their life turned around completely.

this is some very basic insight to living a simple, content, fullfilling life -- Miller points out, in humorous, interesting ways, the things we already know to be true, but in our haste to live up to marketing hype that surrounds us, we forget.
A book that you will want to reread after a while, to imprint the lessons again .... reviewed in Time magazine, this is a book about how to be cheerfull and balanced in all aspects of your life.

Loved it! A thoughtful, wise, and uplifting modern reiteration of the best of Buddism, IMO. I read it years ago, and still treasure it today.

I first read How to Want What You Have many years ago, and I remember being incredibly excited by it. Miller's advice for practicing compassion, attention, and gratitude has stuck with me since. Upon re-reading it, however, I noticed a subtle dogmatic preference for Cognitive Therapy that turned me off just a little. Don't get me wrong, I have loved and used Cognitive Therapy in my own life ever since I discovered it in David D. Burns' Feeling Good. But I've also found other methodologies like Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Behavior Therapy, and Positive Psychology to be scientifically rigorous and just as effective. Whether a function of bias or simply the fact that a lot of progress has been made in these other areas in the 10 years since its publication, Miller's book seems to rely too strongly on Cognitive Therapy-at the seeming exclusion of other strategies.

That said, How to Want What You Have is an excellent book, and very effective in helping this reader want what he has. The idea that the secret to happiness is to want what you have is not new and may seem a bit trite. Miller acknowledges right in the preface that "this idea, by itself, is useless." The book is his attempt to make this idea of wanting what we have livable in our modern society.

The book is broken into three parts. Part one is an explanation of Miller's basic premise: first, that it is our natural instinct to always want a little more wealth, status, and love; second, that this insatiable desire for more is "the fundamental cause of needless suffering"; and, third, that the continuous practice of compassion, attention, and gratitude is the antidote to wanting more, and the equivalent of wanting what you have. The second part of the book describes in detail exactly how use Cognitive Therapy to practice compassion, attention, and gratitude. This section requires desire and commitment from the reader. If you've never used Cognitive Therapy techniques before, you may be skeptical of their effectiveness given their apparent simplicity. Don't be fooled. Make a genuine effort and you will see positive results very quickly. The third part of the book ties everything together, illustrating how the three practices of compassion, attention, and gratitude feed each other, and offering real world examples of how to apply these principles in difficult situations. Included is a section on reconciling ambition with the practice of wanting what you have, and a section addressing modern moral dilemmas and guidelines consistent with the principles of compassion, attention, and gratitude.

Unfortunately, How to Want What You Have is no longer in print. What does that say about our consumer-driven society, I wonder. Fortunately, the internet makes it relatively easy to find used copies for sale. I urge anyone who wants a greater feeling of fulfillment to read this book and practice the techniques within every day.

©2005 Curtis G. Schmitt / TurnOnToLife.com

This is a funny sort of book. It is an incredible masterpiece disguised as a gimmecky self-help book. The presentation is clear, and demonstrative, yet the effectiveness is so subtle that you might not notice at first that your outlook on the world is changing, and that you actually feel quite better.

Don't get me wrong. By no means is this a feel-good, spirit-lifting, rah-rah kind of book. The tone of the author is almost pessimistic, and yet (and perhaps as a result), the benefit is undeniably powerful.

Timothy Miller provides such a copious number of examples, that it almost seems a joke at first. In truth, the examples are each vivid in their own way, and the force of the combined examples shows why this book isn't on the best seller list: it will require constant effort on your part. But that effort isn't so challenging, it's just almost completely unnatural.

Our instincts make us unhappy, because they cause us to always want more than we have, and so we almost guaranteed to be unhappy with what we currently have, regardless of how much that is. A perfect example that Mr. Miller points out is when an acquaintance of his said she knew what he meant when he said that people don't usually show gratitude for what they have. "It's like how the rich are never happy with what they have because there is always someone richer," she said. The woman was surprised by his response. "It's exactly like that," he replied, "just as you are are not happy with what you have, even though by almost any standard around the world, you are fabulously wealthy, but there are still people with more money than you."

But the steps to achieving happiness with what we have are deceptively simple. They are basically, (1) notice that others want basically the same things you do for the same reasons, (2) be aware of what you are doing and feeling, and do it and feel it completely, and (3) practice being thankful for the incredible gifts you currently have. Again, Miller's perfect examples provide a good working basis to allow you to get started doing this yourself.

One final comment. At first I was quite annoyed by the tone of the book (I'm listening to an audio version). Dr. Miller appears to be almost depressingly pessimistic. At about a third of the way through the tape, I found it almost funny. Later, I thought the tone actually helped make the book very profound and accessible. If these practices can work for Dr. Miller, they can work for anyone.

I've been a major HM fiend for 35 years, and this is one that I keep pulling off the shelf just to read for pleasure. Most of his books you can open at will anywhere and find some gems even in the middle of stream of consciousness paragraphs, but he was at the top of his game here. As a teen I used the list in the back of the book as a recommended reading guide, so I have HM to thank for my love of Dostoevsky, Rimbaud, Hamsun, and Lawrence.

I loved him so much I hitch-hiked down to his funeral, and of course have his "Notice to Visitors" posted in my office. In the old game of "If you could have dinner with anyone from history, who would it be?" I'd have Henry Miller, Dostoevsky, Sir Richard Burton, and Rimbaud. I remember stopping off at the HM Library in Big Sur and seeing Emil White sitting in the yard. I was so in awe of course I didn't say a word to him.

Everyone should read Miller, and this is a good start. For New Yorkers, his "Rosy Crucifixion" can't be beat. I actually prefer those to the Tropics.

As a bibliophile I like to read books that remind me of the value of reading. It reinforces what I already believe. This is representative of that genre.

In talking about the books in his personal library, Miller mentions that his habit was to mark extensively in the margins of the books he likes. That's a habit I possess too and find it to enrich my reading experience by reinforcing key ideas, and providing a source of reference when I go back to that book later.

He equates reading well to writing effectively and sees both as part of the same creative process in a sense. Miller sees the Creator as being the source of good ideas whether communicated through a writer's pen or through the thoughts of a perceptive reader. He says the best readers are writers. In terms of content selection, he notes, "The good reader will gravitate to the good books."

Consider what he says about the process of reading when he writes, "Is it not strange to understand and enjoy what is incommunicable? Man is not communicating with man through words, he is communicating with his fellow man and with his Maker." However, as a Christian, I cannot accept Miller's theology because elsewhere in the book he writes, "Long before I had accepted Jesus Christ, I had embraced Lao-tse and Gautama the Buddha."

I do agree with him on the value of reading,however. He celebrates other readers and presents them as people of action. He says reading adds a dimension to life that would not be there otherwise, a depth of understanding that is acquired only when that portion of the brain is exercised properly.

While I strongly oppose his religious stance, I agree with his advocacy of reading. It is with that qualification that I recommend this book. Read it and enjoy it, but disregard the attacts on the Christian faith.

I read this book after not having read Miller for about five years and I was pleasantly surprised. I think that it is better than most of his fictional novels. It really gives you a feel for what shaped his whole outlook on life. And it isn't nearly as vitriolic as the Tropics, rather, it's more of a celebration of his craft. If you are curious about his literary influences (and I was), you will love this book. In fact, after reading it once, I immediatley read it a second time and I was inspired by it to the point where I purchased some of the books he makes mention of. Parts of the book also made me laugh out loud. I highly recommend it.

When Miller was good he was great. When he was bad, he was terrible. "Books of My Life" is in the former category. As with much of Miller's writing, it's difficult for Henry to stay on topic. But his discursions are entertaining, thoughtful, and illuminating. What begins as a book about Miller's literary influences goes in a thousand different directions. But it's more consistent and interesting than "Tropic of Capricorn" or "Plexus," books that are ambitious but also a mess. Written in 1950, in "Books," Miller recounts his favorite works from the first 60 years of his life (which had 30 more years to go). Most of the authors he cites I am not familiar with, and many are the kind of books few people read today (does anyone still read Robinson Crusoe or the Arabian Knights?). Miller was an author whose life was so long that he straddled the Victorian and modern age. And his writing has elements of both. But rather than an exercise in style (which "Cancer" was), or a venue for recounting his own experiences, Mill er gives us much insight into his intellectual makeup. Although Miller was incapable of taking the spotlight off himself for very long, he gives many good recommendations to his readers. He is also often funny--Miller humorously concludes that it's not a good idea to read on the toilet. Some people will not like his tastes--he likes Nietzsche but not Shakespeare, he defends de Sade but cares little for Voltaire. I found some of his comparisons odd, yet interesting (linking the democratic tendencies of Dostoyevsky and Walt Whitman, for example). Miller gives some good advice to young writers, but "Books," as its title suggests, is more about reading than writing. What I found most annoying about the book was Miller's weakness for quoting or writing long French phrases. Do I wish I spoke and read French? Sure. Is it necessary that Miller sprinkle French throughout? No. He's merely showing off. As annoying as this tendency of the learned is, Miller was a genius and a great influence on many writers. I would put this book with "Sexus" and "Tropic of Cancer" as examples of Miller's best writing. As the cliche goes, great writers should be great readers. Miller was both, and anyone who aspires to the literary world should read this book.

There are many books that have held enormous influence over me. Different books come along at different times and when the timing is right, there is magic. My literary education is an ongoing process. But there is one unique book that stands out among all these books. I couldn't call it the best book I ever read. I wouldn't call it my favorite book. It is simply a book that has provided a guiding hand for close to two decades.

The book in question is The Books In My Life by Henry Miller. This is a book that I originally purchased back in my high school years. I had already begun reading many literary figures. I had discovered the Beats like Kerouac and Ginsberg. I found the French Symbolists like Rimbaud. I was tuned in to Whitman, Blake and Nietzche.

As I continued to seek out new literary heroes, I stumbled upon Henry Miller. I immediately sought out Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn. I was struck by the sheer force and passion of Miller's writing. I was willing to overlook his many flaws because he was so exuberant. It also intrigued me that he was so open about his influences. Karl Shapiro wrote a coda to Tropic of Cancer with all kinds of strange names of people I had never read. I learned of a book by Miller that reveals his reading habit.

So that led me to The Books In My Life. This is a book where Miller attempts to provide the reader with his evolution as a reader. He runs through many of the great writers that held enormous influence over him. He also discusses some of the people in his life that impacted his reading and literary development. In his preface, he writes that he wants to round out his life story and includes books as vital experience. He quickly states that this is not criticism and shouldn't be used as a program for self education.

The book includes 14 chapters and an all important appendix of 100 influential books and "books he still intends to read." The chapter order is not really all that important. This is not a book that needs to be read from page one to conclusion. I vaguely remember actually reading it from start to finish about 18 years ago. I have referred to it hundreds of times since then. In fact, I think it is more beneficial to use this book as a reference book.

I use it to seek out names of writers that I have yet to discover. The list of writers I discovered through Henry Miller and this book is staggering: Blaise Cendrars, John Cowper Powys, Knut Hamsum, Jean Giono, Madame Blavatsky, Maurice Maeterlinck, Marie Corelli. This is just a few of the names that I sought out because of this book.

Miller discusses early reading such as Rider Haggard, G.K. Chesterton, and G.A. Henty. He grew up on many of these adventure writers. He retained an affection for Haggard's novel She throughout his life. Haggard is one of four writers to have an entire chapter dedicated to him. Giono, Cendrars and Krishnamurti are the others. He reveled in a book like Alice In Wonderland. He writes of the joy of reading Mark Twain as a youth. He also writes of the overwhelming excitement of reading books like Hamsun's Mysteries or Nietzche's The Birth of Tragedy for the first time.

What I like is that he reveals how certain authors maintained their magic over him while others were dramatic disappointments when he reread them. He clearly disavows any intention of "ever tackling Spenser's Faerie Queen anew." He writes of having few pleasant memories of Dickens. He wrote that he wouldn't care if never read Jack London or Kipling again. He is also honest about many classics that he never managed to read. How many learned individuals would admit that they never read Homer or Aristotle or Robert Browning.

There is a chapter devoted to what he dubs as living books. This includes personal friends as well as writers he met. Lou Jacobs was a friend who provided him with books. He met such luminaries as W.E.B. Dubois, Emma Goldman John Cowper Powys and Blaise Cendrars. This includes some good autobiographical passages. He maintained an intellectual curiosity throughout his life.

The Books In My Life is a unique book. I can think of no other book I have read that is solely about all the different literary influences of a lifetime. Many writers try to hide their influences to make it appear as if they have fallen from space or something. Miller applies his legendary enthusiasm and frankness to the task of recounting his literary development. I have discovered more literature through this book than any other resource I have encountered. And I remain certain that I will probably discover even more in the coming years.

This is an invaluable reference guide to anyone who wants to explore great literature as well as philosophy and spiritual development. (Miller writes of Ramakrishna, Lao-Tse, Jacob Boehme, St Francis of Assisi among other religious giants.) Most readers will discover treasures they never heard of before. They may also find inspiration to seek out famous names like Dostoevsky and Boccaccio if they read this book. Miller's ebullience comes shining through in the prose of this book. And contrary to Miller's insistence, it has been an invaluable tool in literary self-education. Pick up a copy! Another book I need to recommend -- completely unrelated to Miller, but very much on my mind since I purchased it off Amazon is "The Losers' Club" by Richard Perez, an exceptional, highly entertaining little novel I can't stop thinking about.

A few months ago I had the misfortune of watching Jens Jørgen Thorsen 1970 filmic version of Henry Miller's Quiet Days in Clichy. The film was so bad in fact that I made myself watch it again the next day to be sure that it was in fact that bad. It was. However, I do owe it to the film and the recommendations of a friend to read some of the works of Henry Miller, and because I am busy with my graduate school studies and teaching, I decided to read Quiet Days in Clichy because of its count of 154 pages instead of reading one of Miller's longer works. Of course while reading the novel the voices of the actors flooded in my head--Wayne Rodda, as Carl, probably gave the worst performance in film with this train wreck--but as I got into it, I was drawn into Miller's sleazy depiction of the Parisian nightlife during the prewar period.

Supposedly a fictionalized autobiography, Miller depicts himself as "Joey" an American expatriate in Paris whose main concerns, besides the writing of his novels, is to enjoy the creature comforts of good food and loose women. Alongside his roommate Carl, another writer, Joey spends his nights in Parisian haunts hobnobbing with [...], married women, and girls who are just looking for a good time. Unfortunately for Carl and Joey, their lack of money keeps them from enjoying every night to the fullest, but through such things as theft and having an underage dim border, even the lack of money can be overlooked.

Quiet Days in Clichy reads like a stream of consciousness put down on paper. There are no chapters, just two long sections without breaks which make the book quite difficult to put down. Miller's depiction of women, food imagery plays a large role in this, might leave a few unsettled, but it might also be viewed as an honest writing of the id. While not lauded as one of his better books, Quiet Days in Clichy makes for an enjoyable, brief read.

Miller, in his masterful way, gives us an account of Paris like it was...and is. Far from our clichés of a saccharine city as portrayed in fairy tales like "Amelie", "Quiet Days at Clichy" mingles the picturesque with the down-and-out for a portrait that would have pleased Emile Zola. Whores and cafes, venereal disease and breakfasts of Roquefort and white wine, poetry and squalid prose, Miller dissects Paris in the brilliant way Roman Payne writes about Paris in the novel Crepuscule, the way Zola writes in Therese Raquin... presenting a city that is a filthy beast deserving not less than all our love and praise.

I've been a huge Henry Miller fan since I was a teenager in the late 50s, but his infamous and banned books (the Cancer and Capricorn ones) are not my favorites. I far prefer this one, along with The Colossus of Maroussi and Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch.
Quiet Days in Clichy is a memoir, a nostalgic love story of life in Paris before WW II, a celebration of the Bohemian life Miller lived when he was a poor unknown writer. It's wonderful, rollicking, hilarious, and introduces fans to a whole cast of characters who became Miller's lifelong friends, people who influenced his writing and his art forever.

"When I think about this period, when we lived together in Clichy, it seems like a stretch in Paradise. There was only one real problem, and that was food. All other ills were imaginary. I used to tell him so now and then, when he complained about being a slave. He used to say I was an incurable optimist, but it wasn't optimism, it was the deep realisation that, even though the world was busy digging its grave, there was still time to enjoy life, to be merry, carefree, to work or not to work."

This quote was enough to inspire me to quit my awful job and start living my life. Since then I moved overseas myself and I haven't looked back.

Quiet Days in Clichy, amazing as it sounds after reading the book, was written originally in 1940. At that time, Henry Miller was 49 years old. He rewrote it 16 years laters. At 65 years old, Miller, was able to recapture with mastery the magic of his youthful adventures with his hilarious and memorable sidekick, Carl, during the Paris years. Even now, some 60 years later, the book is still as relevant and inspiring as it ever could have been.

For anyone remotely interested in Miller but have been put off by the intense tangent-rambling in the Tropic books, I would suggest picking up this lesser-known edition. It's straightforward, hilarious, and at times shocking, but undoubtedly it will continue to be an inspiration to those who long to live life to the fullest.

In Quiet Days, we have a re-written "Paris Days" story which reads smoother and faster (it's also very short) than many of Miller's other novels. It's also hilarious and full of the expected (infective) Miller exhilaration. Parts are deliberately "erotic" and those part (for me) often seem like pandering. Parts almost read like a literary version of Porkies or American Pie. Still, I enjoyed the polished writing and would recommend this short, funny, lively novel to anyone. I also agree with the other reviewer who recommended, The Losers' Club by Richard Perez. These two novels Quiet Days and The Losers' Club are my favorite Amazon picks of the last month.

This was a wonderful course, the book is easy to understand and presented well. Nice size print and good photos of lots of works. I realy enjoyed each page of the book.

It's a text book in its fifth edition. When I start my own publishing co. I'll be sure to be involved in text books so I can cut students such a great deal by only charging $60 instead of $90 and I'll only print new editions every 3 years instead of 2 at the risk of things like math, art, and history changing so dramatically.

The book covers an extensive array of facts about art in general as well as about specific works of art. By introducing artists and exploring their intentions, the student can better understand and perhaps come to appreciate a wider variety of all forms of art.
The CD holds some of the works that appear in the book, but not all, plus others that are not in the book which I thought was a little disconnected. But the CD also includes verbal pronunciation of artists' names, which cooresponds exactly to the Pronunciation Guide and is helpful. Overall, the book offers very thorough instruction for art appreciation.

wow...this book I founded 40 dollars cheaper that in my college. I am really glad I did not had to pay that exagerated amount. Thanx.

Delivery in a great amount of time. Everything was ok with the pages where all there and the book was in great shape

My first glimpse into the world of Henry Miller has brought me a new highly admired author to read. Though 'Big Sur' is reputed to be one of his more 'tame works'...Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn having been banned works for years due to their highly sexual content, the mind of Miller is indeed a wonderous place to explore.

I came across this title while searching online for info about Kerouac's novel 'Big Sur', and decided to indulge in this one as well. And a happy treat awaited me.

Having only recent begun to enjoy 'biography as fiction' works, it takes a rare author to put one at peace with their words, when they are simply a recounting of thier own life and adventures. Miller wrote 'Big Sur' not so much as a 'novel', since there is not a conventional thread to follow, other than the location and himself as protagonist, but more as a memoir of the 15 years spent in this California 'paradise' of artists, bohemians, and eclectic characters. Through describing his tranquil, ambling days spent walking back and forth with supplies from town, meeting the thrice-per-week mail delivery, or simply writing, the reader gets to experience the serenity that Miller enjoyed throughout most of his time there. Being a Virgo I look for structure, order, sense, etc., in most things, especially literature. Little of that is to be found here, really, but Miller's style is so captivating that you can't help but read on. His serenity at Big Sur easily becomes your own.

But be warned, that serenity is interrupted by the arrival of an oversees acquaintance, Conrad Moricand, who turns Miller's idyllic home upside down during his stay there. Moricand, an ailing, miserable, curmudgeonly man comes to Big Sur upon Miller's request, and had the term 'houseguest from hell' been utilized in the days this novel was written, it's easy to say that Moricand would have received this title.

For anyone thinking of exploring the works of Henry Miller for the first time, perhaps avoiding his more famous works until gaining a bit of insight into something a little more 'platonic' such as this book might be well-advised. It will pave the way of interest into this fascinating author, and hopefully spark further investigation, as it has with me.

Highly recommended.

This one is slightly different for Miller, more laid back, but as usual he is the most brilliant and intensely unique writer ever to come from America (at least to my knowledge). He's a Walt Whitman and a Mark Twain and a William Blake rolled into one genius. I say read ALL of Henry Miller you can get your hands on, and be glad!

This book, and a couple of others by Miller and L. Durrell, was responsible for my husband and me quitting our jobs in LA and going to Greece for a year. And several times in the past decades, I've made pilgrimages to Partington Ridge/cove/trail/creek down the coast of Big Sur to revisit the place Miller lived and to pay homage to a great writer, a great spirit, and a great human being. Each time I stop and look up the trail toward the ridge, I swear I can see stringy, rangy Miller, sweating as he pulls a goat-cart laden with mail and groceries from the drop-off spot by the highway back up to his convict shack near the top.
The book has no real plot; it?s just a rambling and random collection of philosophy, character studies, literary/artistic commentary, and journaling - all delivered with Miller's completely unique and quirky mind. I don't believe a more open-minded, curious, brilliant writer has ever lived, and for me, this is his best book, written perhaps during some of his best and most peaceful years of his long and joyful life. At its core, it's a recipe for Life.

After writing The Air Conditioned Nightmare, Henry Miller had almost given up hope on America. This book, Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch, recounts how he feel in love with the country all over again. Set in Northern California, Big Sur is portraitized as being no less than a paradise to this influencial writer. He was seeking to eke out some peaceful lifestyle in the mountains, and for a while he found it. But it did not take long for groupies, love children, and any other manner of lost souls to begin knocking on his door. They were looking for the "cult of anarchy and sex!" and they thought Miller, who had already published and gained notoriety with The Tropic of Cancer, would be the one to lead the way. This book has a definite buoyancy that the reader thrives off. His descriptions of writers, artists,children,and vagabongs is top notch. I would also advise anyone who is seriously interested in the subject, to pick up a copy of Hunter S. Thompson's The Proud Highway. It includes an excellent essay on his take on Miller's "sudden" fame. So pick up this book! Other quick Amazon picks would be Tropic of Cancer, The Losers' Club by Richard Perez

I first read this book exactly ten years ago when I was struggling through a profound period of depression. I don't want to say that the book cured me, because that would be too facile and too drastic a declaration, but I will say that Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch was the first real beacon, the first glimmer of light to lead me out of a suffocating psychological cave. I don't know why, exactly, but when I began reading the book, a deep sense of peace came over me for the first time in several months. The book seemed to open up my eyes and my ears and my throat and even my lungs; I found myself sucking in big sweet gulps of air, and I started to detect a freedom and a limitlessness in the world that I had previously failed to recognize. Of course, there is no way that I can promise that you will have the same reaction. Over the years I have passed the book along to various friends: Some of them have fallen in love with it and some of them have been utterly bored. That is understandable. The book has no plot; in fact, it doesn't really pretend to have any forward momentum. The narrative just floats. As other reviewers have noted (both enthusiastically and bitterly), Henry Miller delivers in this book a seemingly random swirl of philosophy, wit, character studies, soaring observations of topography and weather, literary and arty musings, puzzles, koans, epigrams, aphorisms, scripture, historical trivia, astrological forecasts, and jokes. It does not, upon first glance, have any point whatsoever. But that, friend, is the point. What Miller is laying out here (in a unique way, free of the usual hippie jargon) is a meditation on how to live a different life, a vibrant life, a life of the spirit, which is, by his definition, a narrative that refuses to conform to the usual numbing standards of conduct. So if you are looking for a "story," per se, keep driving until you get to Monterey. And if you are looking for some of Henry Miller's famously invigorating foulness and fury, pick up Tropic of Cancer instead. If you are looking for peace, stop here.
Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch is for any reader who is in the mood for a beguiling rumination on how a man once tried to bring peace into his life. The story, as such, is this: Henry Miller moves to Big Sur, one of the most beautiful places on the planet, and sets out to create a new home infused with energy, creativity, a sense of community, and an appreciation of nature, while at the same time he copes with intrusions and financial pressures and the charisma and creepiness of other people. That's it. If that sounds dull to you, steer clear. If it sounds seductive to you, plunge in. Because if these are issues that gnaw at your soul (and maybe they should, since our media-saturated culture is becoming more programmed and conformist every day), then you might find this book to be a page-turner as gripping as any of John Grisham's potboilers. I could not put it down. I read it straight through, and afterwards, I felt like every step I took was charged up with a new vitality. Crazy, huh? The way I see it, Henry Miller's big lascivious grin was one of the bravest acts of American rebellion, because it came roaring out of his heart, and the heart is where all true liberation takes place. That's the appeal of this book, for anybody who cares to explore it. In my case, this book said to a depressed man: There is another way to live. Choose it.

Snuggled like a tumor in between the two 'Tropics' came Henry Miller's grotesquely dull work of semi-self-indulgence, 'Black Spring.' He must have been suffering from some kind of social disease that he humped-up in Paris when this otherwise 1st rate, 2nd rate author vomited up this indigestible piece of trash.

I hated every page of "Black Spring" save one paragraph in the first quarter of the novel in which Miller describes the coal-stained hands of a hot-coffined labourer. Notwithsitting that small bit of grin, I stand by my chopfallen displeasance for not having been forced at gun point to read 'Black Spring' from cover to shining black cover . . I volunteered to spend my time with this grotesque, libidinous assemblage - indeed, an air-conditioned nightmare.

This, like any of Mr. Millers' other works, is essential to only a handful amongst us. Not that there is not much to be learned from this great artist. But my point is..... it is essential to any aspiring writer, because it itches that urge in us to write. To struggle with it, and fail, and move on. No other author has done such for me. None has pushed me forward more than Henry (and yes, I am on a first name basis, he's like the best friend I could only dream of having) He is the most important writer that has ever lived in the fact that no other writer has ever made the art of writing seem more wonderful than he.

I got my great understanding of the workings of the mind and pathological states, of good and evil, and where our choices inevitably lead us from Dostoyevsky. I received my understanding of the divine from Dante. From Mr. Miller..... I got what every writer needs.....

To know that all that is needed is the urge, the desire to write. Who gives a damn if it's all gibberish, who cares if no one understands? That's not the point to it. Let the critics with no talent rip your work to shreds, let the intellectually elite thumb their noses at you. Creation is all. Nothing else matters. We may have to die one thousand deaths (emotionally so) and sink to the lowest levels a human can sink. But if even one paragraph is created, all was worth it.

I think this is the best place to start with Mr. Miller. Just because of how drunk he gets on his own words (or so it seems) But, it's still just a taste. It's best to tease first, then work up a gnawing hunger.

The "Paris books" are by far the best work Henry Miller produced and Black Spring, a collection of shorter pieces that followed Tropic of Cancer should rank at the top. If I had to make a list: Black Spring, Tropic of Capricorn, Tropic of Cancer, Quiet Days in Clichy. Black Spring contains some of his best work and displays his dazzling use of language and the exhilarating build-up of detail. This book contains some his most energetic writing. My favorite is the first piece in the book, his depiction of his Brooklyn days, which stands as classic "memoir" writing. Speaking of which, in Henry Miller's day, there were very few people writing fiction disguised as "memoir." Now take a look around and that's all you'll see! Imagine the world without Henry Miller! No Jack Kerouac, no Frederick Exley, no Dave Eggers. Black Spring is a MUST-READ for anyone interested in this kind of writing. Another recommendation for younger readers: The Losers' Club by Richard Perez

I just finished reading BLACK SPRING. It blew me away. Henry Miller's storytelling style is so personal, it's kind of like taking an unexpected medium punch in the gut. The geography becomes local, the imagery is rough, obscene and poetic, and goes on for pages at a time. Miller becomes larger than life, powerful through his honesty and vulnerability. I am amazed with his unique ability to effortlessly paint such vivid pictures, wander aimlessly through haunting nightmares, and relive pleasure and passion. From sitting around in the Parisian home of friend Jabberewohl Crondstadt celebrating each other's conquests and madness, to wandering the dark bum-piss hooker-lined streets of forbidden America, I found myself constantly stopping, re-reading and wondering how he took me there. Eventually I stopped raising my hand to ask questions, and just sat back and listened.

Black Spring is the antithesis of the "small talk" which defines commercial literature. And henceforth, if you should choose to be so morbid, if you acknowledge the loneliness of our age of instant communication you realize that Miller is the antithesis of our neighbors as well. In this stellar performance Miller plays friend and educator. He manages an astounding approachability for such scholarly work. You'll get the feeling early on that much like his beat cousins honesty is his game. But Miller's honesty seems to be more interested in its absorption into the common public denominator. This Book finds Miller at his best do what he does better than anyone else...Writing fine & insightful literature in a style, which accomplishes confession devoid of the triteness of ego

This book (this whole trilogy) is not for everyone. Before anyone considers reading this, they should first check "Tropic of Cancer" - probably twice. Once done, consider picking this up. Only pick it up if you loved "Tropic." Personally, I found the trilogy a lot harder to digest and a lot slower going. Conversely, I found it times more rewarding. If you feel like you have something to offer the world that has yet to be realized, this is the book for you. It will give you hope. In his darkest moment, Miller is able to funnel all of his sadness, rage, pain, heartbreak, etc., and somehow smile through it. For the dissatisfied soul, trudging through these tomes is like finding a friend you never dreamed of. If you're happy with the way things are and life is satisfying - god bless you. Keep doing whatever you are and find some other book to read. There are thousands out there that you will get more out of. If you feel stuck, however, these books should give you courage. Read them and act on them. As Miller will show you, there is nothing to lose, and we all have it in us.

Plexus is another of Henry Miller's masterpieces. He can make one yearn for poverty, because along with it dangles freedom on the other end. Whenever I begin to doubt myself, I read a bit of Miller. At times, he makes far more sense to me than the bible. It's soul food. - Mel Mathews - Author of LeRoi, Menopause Man, SamSara...

I thought sexus was really funny and wild hearted, and this next book isn't really either. Plexus has hundreds of pages of Miller telling boring stories and long winded opinions and outdated analysis of the world and all that, and basically this huge book should have been about 200 pages instead of 600. Most of the time I kept thinking "Okay, Henry...stop telling old man stories and get back to the damn storyline in the book!"

Reading Henry Miller is like being in a dysfunctional relationship. It's painful and tedious, and you often ask yourself why you stick with it. You have this overwhelming feeling that you're wasting your time, and you wonder just where this whole thing is going to lead to. And yet despite all that, you feel an inexplicable need to keep going, to see if things will maybe get better. But of course they don't.

I'm of the camp that believes that what Henry Miller did wasn't so much "writing" as it was "typing." There's no plot to this book or any other book by him that I've read. There's no beginning, middle, or end. No climax or denouement. No character development, no central conflict. You could skip a hundred pages ahead and come away with no less of an understanding of the book than if you had read the whole thing. Or you could read the last hundred pages first without giving away anything that would make the first five hundred pages any less of a surprise. This isn't so much a book as it is a long, rambling collection of disconnected events in a man's life, and the occasional digression into unintelligible philosophical meanderings.

And unlike Sexus, there isn't even any sex in this one.

Perhaps the following quotes from Plexus will help to convey something of the insight that can be found throughout Henry Miller's writing - "The moment one gives close attention to anything, even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnified world in itself." AND - "It isn't age which makes us wise. Nor even experience, as people pretend. It's the quickness of the sprit." AND - "There are only two classes in this world -- and in every world-- the quick and the dead. For those who cultivate the spirit nothing is impossible. For the others, everything is impossible, or incredible, or futile." AND - "... if one is at all intelligent and sensitive, one naturally ends up in the world of art."

From page one of this book Henry Miller exacts his revenge on his unwelcome houseguest. This book is a superb rant, filled with some of Henry Miller's most brilliant and amusing caricatures. Henry Miller deftly swings between sweet admiration and praise for the object of his troubles, and outright disgust. Set in Big Sur, later in his life, it's a short, easy read, and doesn't contain the profanities that cause some people shy away from in Henry Miller's books. Highly Recommended for those who want to laugh out loud at Henry Miller's audacity and want to better understand HM's genius.

Other than the fact that the author had a good vocabulary and knew a lot of people whom he made reference to, this book was a waste of time. First of all, the author is descriptive and listing to the point of being utterly redundant about pointless subjects ex). " the past and the future converged with such great clarity and precision that not only friends and books but creatures, objects, dreams, historical events, monuments, streets, names of places, walks, encounters, conversations, reveries, half-thoughts, all came sharply into focus, broke into angles, chasms, waves, shadows, revealing to me in one harmonious, understandable pattern their essence and significance." Meaning, everything became clear to me as I saw an intricate but precise pattern and reason to all that is (through astrology). It would have saved me some time. Another ex) "The wealthy were as active as bees or ants, redistributing their funds and assets, their mansions, their yachts, their gilt-edged bonds, their mine holdings, their jewels, their art treasures." It would have made sense to be thoroughly descriptive at some points, but for throughout the novel it becomes unenjoyable and monotonous. Another problem with the book is that it leads to no true climax, it was like slowly been lead down a mildly sloping hill the entire time. And after reading the book I was expecting the ending to give some new bit of information that really tied things up and made the book work. There was no such thing, only a restatement of work was already known. The characters, for the most part just Moricand and Miller, were indistinguishable, except for Miller's friend Leon who had some personality vulgar, rude and aggressive, typically American. Eighty percent of book was Miller telling you what he thought about whatever, there was little action in the story so you had take his word for it , making the book very one sided, boring and predictable. There is absolutely no twists, surprises or anything, just a bunch of the authors tangents that are strung loosely together. I'd give this book a 3 out of ten. Unless your looking to improve your vocabulary or learn the names of a bunch of people you've never heard of before I wouldn't bother reading it.

Very slim book. A quick read. In just a few pages Miller successfully presents the comprehensive problem of dealing with something that outsiders perceive as being so easy--just get rid of that guest of yours.

Well, Miller had made an obligation, and knew what it mean to be needy. So, how does one simply say, "GET OUT!"? But more exciting is Miller's ability to give a sober, fair representation of the rude guest. It would have been so easy & bratty to present the guy as thoroughly rotten; but Miller gains credibility as an artist by delineating the complexity of a condition.

So, I disagree with a previous reviewer who took this book as a rant. No, no. Miller makes a huge effort to be fair to his nemesis. Rants are one-sided and uninteresting.

This book, unlike Miller's "Tropic of Cancer" or "Tropic of Capricorn", follows a pretty standard form. By this i mean that unlike some of Miller's other work, there is a definite plot to this book; a definite beginning, middle and end. In addition, it lacks the surreal atmosphere of these other works. However, Miller makes up for for this with a superb demonstration of his story-telling abilities. Rather than writing fragmented adventures, Miller here writes a book that flows from beginning to end. In this way, he is able to chronical the relationship that he has with the novel's antagonist, as well as with his wife and daughter. Although the decriptions are not as elaborate as in some of Miller's other works, the imagery is still superior to most other writers. Overall, this is a more toned-down Miller than in his early years as a writer, but for it lacks in youthful lust, "A Devil in Paradise" makes up with crafty story-telling, crisp imagery, and a more focused energy.

We get a glimpse into Henry's life along the California coast, with old friends, his relationship with his wife and daughter, and his neighbors. The imagery is unforgettable and seem more real than reality. His ability to detail relationships are superb. It's a fine book, but not as tumultuous in plot as his earlier ones.

A previous reviewer asked what Thoreau might think of how society has developed commercially since he wrote this book. I have to also wonder what he would think of the ridiculous (in my opinion) and jingoistic cover of this current edition? The person who chose the cover design should have read the book. The cover is offensive, given the ideas the book contains. Penguin should be ashamed.

This is a classic novel. It's value as literature speaks for itself.
I received the product in the condition advertised, in two days.
I am completely satisfied with the purchase and service.

Thoreau is more than simply a writer who produced a great American classic. He exemplified the idea which perhaps as much as any other has come to be at the heart of the American creed. "If a man does not keep pace to his companion, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

Throreau when he went into the woods of Walden Pond on July 4, 1845 , a journey in solitude which would last just two years and two months, was the archetypal American individualist. He was the man 'doing his own thing' living in accordance with what only he could know was right for himself. This idea of 'radical individualism' has become part of the American common faith. Its abuses are legion and may be disastrous, but it also has brought about not simply 'better mousetraps' but a whole vast world of innovations and innovators, the like of which Mankind has never known before.

Thoreau as he writes in his introduction went to the woods to explore not simply the natural world, the outdoors he so much loved. He went to the woods to truly go more deeply into and know himself. As he says in his introduction:

" I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. Unfortunately, I am confined to this theme by the narrowness of my experience. Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men's lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me."

Thoreau in that enigmatic, epigrammatic aphoristic style, he shared with his great mentor and fellow pioneering poet- philosopher, Emerson connects the world within with the world without , connects the Concord woods with the Cosmos . He creates a work in 'Walden' of singular beauty and of its own special economy and principles in thought.

Thoreau was too an abolitionist, an opponent of the Mexican war, a civil disobedient who refused to pay the poll tax-, a pioneer
whose followers would include Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

But in his close looking at the world of nature and the world of himself he was first a great explorer of life and reality going out alone in his own way- however geographically close he may have been to home.

His words and his wisdom waken us even today to the hope of new and better worlds i.e. he also embodied the spirit of a great American optimism.

The great individual teaches us even in dark hours to find new worlds in ourselves outside our own darknesses. " There are new worlds yet to be born" he writes, " The sun is but a morning star"

Thoreau lived for two years and two months at Walden Pond. He said the mass of men live lives of quiet desperation. Henry Thoreau asked hard questions.

He related that when the Masschusetts Bay Colony was founded, earthen houses were built. They were convenient and suitable and they had the advantage of putting everyone in a position of equality and not making the poorer inhabitants feel discouraged. It distressed Thoreau that a good deal of the money spent for shelter and dress was for show, uneconomical.

He farmed organically because he was only a squatter. He found that by working for about six weeks he could meet all of the annual expenses of living. He claimed that memorable events transpired in the morning.

Thoreau went to the woods because he wished to live deliberately. The sounds of the railroad penetrated the woods. Visitors were frequent during three seasons. In the wintertime basically he had only himself for company and some of the animals.

In any season, the woods were surprisingly dark at night. Because he had no helpers or animals to assist him in cultivating the fields he felt that he ws more intimate with the beans in his beanfield. Songs have suggested that husbandry is a sacred art.

The scenery of Walden was on a humble scale. The first ice was especially interesting. He reported seeing fox, jays, chickadees, and red squirrels in the the winter.

In CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE he asserts that in a government that imprisons unjustly, the place of a just man is in prison. Thoreau underwent an overnight jail stay when he failed to pay a poll tax.

Isn't it a little bit incongruous to desire to detach yourself from society, seeking self-reliance, and then write a book about it? Just an observation...

While Thoreau is a curious individual - sort of a poor-man's G.K. Chesterton - he always seems to come up short. The Virtue of Civil Disobedience reads more like self-satire than a serious attempt at political philosophy. And while Walden is rich and fulfilling, it is ultimately just a vehicle for Thoreau to make baseless claims predicated upon his treasury of tidbits and odd knowledge.

Had Thoreau been blessed with living in the modern world, he could have just written "Living by a Pond on Your Own For Dummies" and saved himself (and us) a lot of trouble.

Instead of "Civil Disobedience," I recommend anything by Lysander Spooner (particularly "No Treason")

Instead of "Walden" I recommend "Two Years Before the Mast." It's both more relevant than Walden, and a heck of a lot Closer To Nature.