Henry Miller and the Book of Life

Author(s): Katy Masuga

Source: Texas Studies in Literature and Language, Vol. 52, No. 2 (SUMMER 2010), pp. 181-202
Published by: University of Texas Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40755571 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 16:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Texas Studies
in Literature and Language.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBook ofLife
KatyMasuga

I am sitting
herereadinga poet.Therearemanypeoplein theroom,
buttheyareall inconspicuous;
theyareinsidethebooks.
- RainerMariaRilke1

In Nexus(I960),thethirdinstallment ofTheRosyCrucifixion Trilogy,Henry

Millerdeclaresthathe intendstowrite"thebookoflife/'as hehas decided
thathe is capableofwriting only"thetruthandnothing butthetruth" (217).
Thissubsequently rulesout,as faras Milleris concerned,writing "litera-
ture,"because"a wee smallvoiceobjectedsaying,'Literature is something
elseagain/"Millerthenrespondstohimself, statinghisintention: "Thento
hellwithliterature! Thebookoflife,that'swhatI would write"(217).This
claimsetsthesceneforMiller'sobsessionwithwriting and writers,and in
general with his concept ofliterature.
Throughout theunofficial "Obelisk
trilogy"(TropicofCancer[1934],BlackSpring[1936],and TropicofCapricorn
Trilogy(Sexus [1949], Plexus [1953], and
[1939]) and The Rosy Crucifixion
Nexus),Millerdevelopsa literary formthatdisruptsconventional modes
ofwriting by blurring thelines between his own writing, writingof
the
others,and the "real" world in which he, both as thenarrator and as the
writer,findshimself. To thisend, Millercitesnumerous writers and texts
inrelationtoepisodesofhisowntexts.Suchliterary evocationsilluminate,
peculiarfashion,eventsin thenarrator'slife.Although
in a deliberately
notimaginary per se, thesereferencesincorporate such thingsas Miller
discussinganotherwriter'smethodology forwritingor comparinghim-
selfwiththemas creators, as "thosewho weremostin life"(Sexus189).
Milleralignshimselfwithwritersbothin orderto becomeorientedfor
embarking on theprocesshimself and also,moreimportantly, toreflect on
howwriting operatesas a disruptive process,one thatinhibitstheflowof
lifewhilesimultaneously appearingtoestablishthatflow.
A controversialwriterat theoutset,Miller'snegativeliterary repu-
tationhas oftenkepthis workexcludedfrommuch seriousacademic
discourse.Thisexclusionis partlydue to,as MaryKellieMunsilnotes,
"theseemingly misogynist and sexuallyviolentinclinations oftheprotag-
onist/author" ("TheBodyinthePrison-house ofLanguage:HenryMiller,

TexasStudiesin Literature
and Language,Vol. 52, No. 2, Summer2010
© 2010 by the UniversityofTexas Press,P.O. Box 7819,Austin,TX 78713-7819

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182 KatyMasuga

Pornography and Feminism" [1992]285).Thisnegativeissueofpornogra-

phy,amongothersthatderideMiller'sliterary merit, ultimately comesas
a resultofan arrayofmisreadings ofMiller'swork,in thesensethathe
is oftenreadliterally ratherthanwithina contextthathis workrequires.
Munsil,forexample,argues,"Miller'sworkrepresents a new formofau-
tobiography" and suggests thatthe reader ought to "accept thisfactinthe
lightof its for
potential positive cultural subversion" (289). Munsiland
othercriticssuchas IhabHassan,JamesDecker,GillesDeleuze,and even
Miller'scontemporaries includingMauriceBlanchotand GeorgesBataille,
point to his style highlyinnovative
as in itsinterest in thefailuresoflan-
guage and in the questioning of the nature of writing, preemptive to an
acutedegreeof poststructuralist thought. Indeed, relative to thisindict-
mentofMilleras pornographic, a poorwriter, and unworthy ofacademic
attention is theveryqualityin Miller'swritingthatpreciselyblursthese
linesbetweenacceptablewriting, notjustin termsofculturalnorms(on
of
topics sexuality, among others) but in termsofa senseofthequalityof
writing that the reader observes in both theformand contentin Miller.
Thatis to say,if Milleris creatinga "new" formof autobiography, for
it is
example, precisely in this new form that Miller's can
ingenuity truly
shineand shouldbe permitted todo so bythecritics. Promoting thisread-
ing ofMiller as a "new" autobiographer, then,James Goodwin suggestsin
hisarticle"HenryMiller, American Autobiographer" the
(1992) following:
"In turning to theAmericantradition ofautobiography froma contextof
European nihilism and avant-gardism, Henry Miller voices a newneedfor
dissentandindependence" (300).Miller's writing style needs tobe consid-
erednotwithintheconfines oftraditional literaryevaluation but precisely
as something exceptional and external tothoseconventions; as something
thatasksitsreaderto rethink notonlycertainliterary guidelinesand ex-
pectations, but theveryontologicalbasis on whichsuchguidelinesand
conventions situatethemselves.
Notwithstanding suchdebatesas thoseoverpornography and auto-
biography (as buttwoexamples that highlight Miller's provocative style),
Miller'swriting is singularin itsexploration ofthedifficulty of drawing
a linebetweenwhatis realand whatis fiction, indeed,whatis thenature
ofwriting ingeneral.Naturally, issuesofpornography, autobiography and
othersare raisedin thistypeofliterature thatsetsitselfon theperiphery
ofconvention, againbothin formand content. Miller'sgreatest interestas
a writeris notnecessarily to defineor demarcate thislinebutto makethe
complexity ofitspotentialand tenuousexistence knownto thereader.In
supportofthisclaim,JamesDeckerwrites Henry in MillerandNarrative Form
(2005),"Millerimbues texts his with a of
critique modernity that reveals
hispersonalstruggle withculturalanxiety. As used by PriscillaWald,cul-
turalanxiety refers tothe'disruptions' thatoccurwhen'theexperiences of

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 183

individualsconspicuously failto conform to thedefinition ofpersonhood

offered in thenarrative7" (2). In thisway,then,Milleruses thefunction of
writingitselfto createa character who is writingaboutwriting; writing
aboutlifeand investigating and evaluatingtheworldofliterature by in-
flectinghis own work with that ofother writers and by mixing thesetwo
provocatively. Whatever kinds ofrestrictions that can be put around such
writing automatically, then,causeittofallpreytoseriousmisreadings that
discountthepossibleliterary questions that such writing can raiseand can
inform howliterature is notonlyunderstood butalso created.
Constantly plagued by thisparadoxand difficulty in writingthat
Millerat once perceives,he immediately seeksto identify himselfwith
otherwritersand theirown literary concerns, in
epitomized thefollow-
ing passage from Plexus: "Reading Van Gogh's lettersI identify myself
withhiminthestruggle tolead a simplelife,a lifeinwhichartis all" (48).
ForMiller,to be a writeris naturallyto have thedesireto createsome-
thingthatis concrete and final;inotherwords,toproducesomething that
is static,thatis a text.Miller'simmenseproductivity demonstrates this
desire,while simultaneously the of
demonstrating impossibility fulfilling
thatdesire:themoreMillerwrites,themorehe needsto write.In his no-
tablecriticaltexton HenryMillerand SamuelBeckett,TheLiterature of
Silence(1960),IhabHassanwrites,"'Creatingornotcreating changesnoth-
ing,'Camussaid Thustheimagination renounces itsancientauthority,
finding itsapotheosisnotin theromantic idea of the damnedpoetbutin
theironicattitudeofthewordlessauthorbindinga sheafofblankpages.
Whenthewriterdeignsto putwordsto paper,he is apt to conceiveanti-
literature eitheras pureactionor futileplay" (8). The sarcasticand sar-
donicstyleofMiller'sworkalertsthereadertothistruismand announces
thatwriting is a processofbecomingthatobscuresitsown incessantand
perpetualdeferment fromitsdesiredendandultimately becomesa playin
language.Thislanguageplaymaynotnecessarily be inherently problem-
aticbutis madeso bythefactthatMiller'snarrator himself is inpursuitof
thepursuit.Thenarrator's own interest in becoming a writeris embedded
in everyfacetofthetext,and theactofwriting aboutwriting oftenenters
thetextin unexpectedways.Thiskindofwritingalwaysbringswithit
thetwofollowing discoveries: one,thatthereis no arriving at thedestina-
tionofbeinga writerand two,thatthetaskofwritingitselfis incapable
ofeverbeingcompleted. As hiswriting commences, Millersetsup a sense
ofa particular horizonofachievement through writing, theverynatureof
whichis toremaina horizon.Highlysignificant is thatMilleremployshis
paradoxicaltechniquewitha greatdeal ofhumorand self-awareness. It
is perhapsthiscombination betweenhisdesperateinterest inwriting and
his firmunderstanding ofitsfutility thatcharacterizes Miller'sstyleand
underscores itsliteraryvalue.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 KatyMasuga

The firstattemptof Miller'snarratorat writinginvolvesthemany

poorand desperatemessengers thathehasemployedovertheyearswork-
ing as thehiringmanagerof a telegraphcompanyin New York.2There
is an extensiveepisodein NexusduringwhichMillerlamentsthepitiful
neighborhoods ofthecity,liketheone in whichhe grewup, and which
thesedowntrodden messengersinhabit.He setsout developingliterary
descriptions of the messengers, intendingto referto themas figuresin-
cludedin his novel,ifit werenot,he laments,forthefactthattheyare
"real."Exasperated,he exclaims,"Novels!As if one could writeabout
suchmatters, suchspecimens, in a novel. . . Theywerenotfictitious, they
werealive,everyone ofthem. . . Whatplace is therein a novelforsuch
goingson?" (Nexus220). The descriptions of thesemessengers - which
themselves includeprecise,yetseemingly arbitrary,literary -
references3
comeas a resultofa conversation thatMilleris havingwithhiswifeMona
abouthis commencement ofthis"bookoflife"(217).4Again,he declares
thathisprimary interestinwriting is toincludeall thatwhichis otherwise
excludedfrom"literature" (whichis tosay,"thetruth"), and thisdefinitive
assertionbringshis thoughts backto themessengers: "Mythemeshould
have been thewhole eightyor a hundredthousandwhomI had hired
and firedduringthosesizzlingcosmococcicyears"(217).In otherwords,
Millerinsiststhatwritingshouldincludetheelementsoflifethatwriters
have perpetually triedto keepoutofliterature or theelementsthatseem
impossible or difficult to include. Yet, Miller does notactuallyhope to at-
tainthisimpossibility butsimplytoilluminate boththedesiretofulfill this
literary task and its immanent failure, his
through deceptively simple and
subversivestyle.
Forthesereasons,Millerhas beencriticized and sidelinedas a minor
writer withlittletalentand short-sighted interests.Atthesametime,these
criticisms overlooktheaforementioned significance oftheveryqualities
thatare deemedMiller'sshortcomings. In HenryMillerand theSurreal-
istDiscourseofExcess(2001)Paul Jahshanwrites,"The whole theoryof
Millerianstylistic deviationis thussummedup in theabovepassage:the
is
text constantly trying tofinditself, to represent itselfto finda balance,a
fulcrum outofwhichtheincessantflowofwords,sentences, and semantic
featuresspillsout in a 'polymorphous'deconstructionist mode.Yetthe
attempt is made againand againin thetext's'suicidal'drive:knowingit
cannotattaintheabsolute,yettheurge,theflow,keepitgoingon" (199).
Again,Milleris deliberately in pursuitof"theend ofwriting" bywriting
aboutwritingand thenecessaryontologicalfailureof thatwritingever
to achievewhatit seeksto achieve:completion, closure,stablemeaning.
Neverlamenting thisparadox,Millerembracesand encouragesitthrough
humor,digression, and theself-conscious reflectionoftheveryfactthathe
is writing aboutwriting.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 185

Consequently, Millerbehavesin hiswriting as thoughhe is notinter-

estedin abstractdescriptions and loftyconceptsthatdo nottouchactual
lifein thestreets. On thefirst page ofBlackSpring, he writes:"Whatis not
in theopen streetis false,derived,thatis to say,literature" [3]. Of course
thisstatement is somewhatwithtongue-in-cheek; afterall,Milleris writing
aboutliterature andproducing hisownformofliterature intheprocess.As
such,he continuesto delivertiradeson theoretical and intangible writing
"withlanguagethatis merewords"{Tropic ofCancer 256). Making a division
betweenwhatis goodandbad writing, then,he pointstoShakespeareand
Danteas inspiration forwriting thatexceedssuchlimitations and creates
substantial literary works; writers whom Miller struggles to emulate
both
andtoovercome. "I wantriversthatmakeoceanssuchas Shakespeare and
Dante,riverswhichdo notdryup in thevoidofthepast.Oceans,yes!Let
us havemoreoceans,newoceansthatblotoutthepast,oceansthatcreate
newgeologicalformations, newtopographical vistasandstrange, terrifying
continents, oceans that destroy preserve thesametime,oceansthat
and at
we can sailon,takeofftonewdiscoveries, newhorizons"{Tropic ofCancer
256-57). This paragraph ends with possibly themost profound statement
Millercouldmake,in thecontextoftheargument presented here,on the
value ofhiswork.He writes,"I believethattodaymorethanevera book
shouldbe soughtaftereven ifit has onlyonegreatpage in it: we must
searchforfragments, splinters,toenails,anything thathas ore in it,any-
thing that is of the
capable resuscitating body and soul" (257).Millerdoes
notimplythat he wishes to become a writer likeShakespeare orDante.On
thecontrary, he is speaking to theirverysingularity suggeststhatper-
but
haps literature takesitselftooseriouslyin termsofwhatis worthreading
andwhatisnot.Shakespeare andDantecreateriversandoceans,as itwere,
becausetheyarenotconcerned withforegrounding theirownaccomplish-
mentsormonumentalizing thespecific books.
Millerwantsto makehis readerawarethatliterature - thenatureof
-
writing does notcontainwithinit a setstructure ofrulesforthewriter
tofollowand thatdefinethefinal,producedwork(whilealso defining the
nameofthewriteras theelevatedfigure"behind"thewriting - an issue
to be raisedagain later).Ultimately, a workofliterature mayindeedbe
poorlywritten yetstillevocative,or itmaybe a pleasurableread,and yet
analytically useless.Suchthingsarenotfoundational forassessingtheact
ofwriting, writing well,writing meaningfully, writing outofnecessity and
so on. Miller'sadviceis prophetic: "Let thedead eat thedead" {Tropic of
Cancer257),and lettherestinvestigate thecuriosities ofthedynamismof
languageand writing withoutthestultifying boundariesinflicted uponit
byhistorical modesofjudgmentand categorization.
Milleris interested perhapsnot in reshapingsocial moralsor even
redefining literature butat leastin questioning itsconventional formand

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 KatyMasuga

producingsomething ofhisownthatis on theperiphery, as simultaneous-

ly insideand outside.Tropic ofCapricorn containsepisodesthatdescribe
Miller'sattempts at writinghis firstnovel,usingMiller'ssame messen-
gersas characters. He admits,"I didn'tknowa thingaboutwriting. I was
scaredshitless.But I was determined to wipe HoratioAlgerout of the
NorthAmericanconsciousness"(32).Miller'smessenger novelwas tobe
an attackon thefalsity ofHoratioAlger'spulp fiction, whichnaivelyen-
couragestheunrealistic rags-to-riches scenario.As Millercontinueshis
quest to understand and acquire the artofwriting, he questionshis own
motivation: "Whathave I totelltheworldwhichis so desperately impor-
tant?"(Nexus131).Understandably, then,Millerwantsto crafthis own
abilitytowriteas beingsomething unique."ForifI was notuniquethenit
wouldbe likeaddinga cipherto an incalculableastronomic figure"(131).
Milleris aware,ofcourse,thatregardless ofhispossibleliterary additions
intheworld,all thewriting thatexistsadds up tonothing buttherelative
significance thatit mayor maynotbe givenby itsreader.Thisbody of
writing merelya collectionofideas in words,thesignificance
is ofwhich
is alwaysshifting. the of
Naturally, thought beingunique somehow ap-
peals toMilleras movingawayfromthisliterary platitude, butevenhe is
awareoftheillusionin this,despitetheendlesspursuitthatitnecessarily
establishes. Then,what,in fact,couldmakeMillerunique?Paradoxically,
he is uniquein his revelationthatanyadditionto thebodyofliterature
willnotmakea bitofdifference. Certainly a mostnoteworthy characteris-
ticofMiller'swriting is hisinterest notnecessarily inwriting a greatwork
ofliterature butin theactofwriting itselfand in writing in orderto live,
toexplorethenatureofwriting forthesakeofwriting, or,perhaps,forthe
taskthatis writing - withor withouta "sake"or anykindofdefin-
itself
ablepurpose.
Millerhas an understanding oftheprocessofwritingas something
thatsimultaneously bringshimcloserand further awayfromliving.Writ-
ing necessary seizing world, getting graspon itinthesense
is for the for a
of theway thingsfunction, how theyare considered,understood, used
andvalued.Itis nota privilege, nora pleasuretowrite:itis a necessity. Itis
an attempt togetclosertoan essence,a senseofbeing,thatitselfis always
movingawayduetoitsbeingwritten and thattherefore, as Millerrealizes,
does not exist - butthisknowledgedoes nothaltthe writer's processof
seeking it.He asksthe reader the following question:"Think, justa mo-
for
ment, of such willing victims as Blake,Boehme,Nietzsche,ofHölderlin,
of
Sade, Nerval, Villon,Rimbaud,Strindberg, of Cervantesor Dante,or
evenofHeineorOscarWilde!AndI, was I toadd mynametothishostof
illustrious martyrs?" (Nexus132).Fortheirsacrifices, Millerimpishlyre-
ferstothesewriters as "scapegoats" - theycarrythesins,thetroubles, the
the
difficulties, misunderstandings, the blame and the hardship of their

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 187

communities. Theirgreatness liesin theirabilitytobestrendersuchcom-

plexitiesofhumannature,but,certainly as scapegoats,thesewritersare
mostoftenunderstoodas outcastsfortheircontributions - as contrary,
in
somesense,to themundaneinterests oftheverycommunities to which
theyprovidedefinitionand perspective.
In workingouta senseofhis own dispositionas a writer, Millerdis-
cusseswhichwriters himandhowhe setsoutlookingfora themeon
affect
whichto write.Everything is fair-game,and his desireis to extractmate-
rialfromhislivingworldand encapsulateitin words.

I could spend hoursat a stretchwithWalterPater,or even Henry

James,in thehope of liftinga beautifully turnedphrase... I was
everfrantically
climbingladders to pluck ripefigfromsomeexotic
a
overhanging gardenof the past ... Or I mightbecomeinterestedin
the
sewers, great sewers of Paris, or some other where-
metropolis,
uponitwouldoccurtomethatHugo orsomeotherFrenchwriter had
madeuse ofsucha theme,and I wouldtakeup thelifeofthisnovelist
merelyto findoutwhathad impelledhimto takesuchan interest in
sewers.(Nexus239)

In thispassageMillersuggestsseveralwriters who mightgivehiminspi-

ration. He is describingbywriting what he does tobe able towriteand is
pointingout artificiality, yet passion,ofsearching
the and the fora theme,
something thata "great" writer of the past may have used, something
worthyofbeingthesubjectofwriting. Naturally, Miller'sdriveto write
and hisinspiration fromotherwriters areneverimpededbythefearofan
inability to writeor thefearofa lackofsomething to say.Indeed,Miller
is concernedwithlookingforsomething to say in the actofwriting - his
-
entireoeuvreassertsthisphilosophy but whatthis"saying" is almost
alwaysconcernedwithis theact ofwriting. Again,as thispassage indi-
cates,whatoccupiesthepage in Milleris his "preparation" forwriting,
hissourcesof"inspiration" - thisis theverythemeuponwhichhe writes.
It is notthesewersthemselves, then,butthepossibility ofwritingabout
thesewers.
Milleroftenclaimsto be "seized witha fitof writing"(Nexus132)
whilesimplywalkingdown thestreet."All in thehead,to be sure.But
whatmarvelouspages,whatmagnificent phraseology!" (132).ForMiller
writingis the processitself,not the completedproduct.Writing is cre-
ationand nota meansto an end.Milleris constantly producing, and,yet,
eachbitoftextproducedon theslipperyslopeofliterature demandsmore
production and is alwaysconcernedwiththisproduction ofwriting. The
actualactofwriting inMilleris perhapsa stateofmind,a constant mental
movement and less a processofaddingup wordson paper.Itis a way of

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 KatyMasuga

seeing,a way of being-in-the-world or simplya matterofperception. The

issueis one notjustofliterature then,butoflanguageitself.
A poignantexamplefromNexus,in a sectioninvolvingMillerwork-
ingforthe"ParkDepartment," is significantin thiscontext. At a certain
pointhe comesacrossa letterin thewastepaperbasketat worksentin
by a duty-bound citizeninquiringiftheParkDepartment would notdo
something aboutthedead treesoverhanging theroads- a requestwhich
was clearlydisregarded as pointlessly verboseand finally superfluous by
theParkDepartment and
management subsequently tossedaside. This
letterthatMillerfindsis verylengthy, earnest,and indeedquitestrange
(Nexus168-69).Millermocksit profoundly and facetiously but claimsit
also relaxeshim."As I say,upon finishing theletterI feltthoroughly re-
laxed,at ease withtheworld,and extremely indulgent toward my own
preciousself.Itwas as ifsomeofthatlight - that'morenaturallight' - had
invadedmybeing.I was no longerenvelopedin a fogofdespair.There
was moreair,morelight,morebeautyto all thesurroundings: myinner
surroundings" He
(169-70). certainly enjoystheletterto a greatextent,but
he does so in a veryironicand satiricalmanner.He imitates therepeating
passages of thisanonymousletter(withsome humorousmodifications)
again,roughlyone hundredpages later,in thefollowing passage:
"I wishthatyouwouldkindlyhavethemenoftheParkDepartment
prune,trimand pare offall thedead wood, twigs,sprigs,stumps,
stickers,shooters,sucker-pieces, dirtyand shaggypieces,low,extra
low and overhanging boughs and branchesfromthegood treesand
to prunethemextracloseto thebarkand to have all thegood trees
thoroughly and properly sprayedfromthebase to theverytopparts
and all through all
alongby partsofeachstreet, avenue,place,court,
lane,boulevard and so on ... and therebygivea greatdeal morelight,
morenaturallight,moreair,morebeautyto all thesurrounding ar-
eas." Thatwas thesortofmessageI shouldliketohavedispatchedat
intervalsto thegod oftheliterary realmso thatI mightbe delivered
fromconfusion, rescuedfromchaos,freedofobsessiveadmiration for
authorslivingand dead whose words,phrases,imagesbarricaded
myway.(243)
Whatis magnificent aboutthispassage and theanonymousletterthatit
of
parodiesis, course,thatMillerpensboththesatireand theoriginal, thus
comparing himself tothepeculiarindividualwhosubmitted whatwas con-
sidereda useless,and somewhatneurotic,requesttotheParksDepartment.
Miller'ssatire(derivedfromtheanonymousand eccentric letterfirst
pre-
sentedtothereaderbyMillerroughly one hundredpagespriorin thetext
and inan entirelydifferent
context),then,is a callto"thegod oftheliterary

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 189

realm"forassistancewithhis writingand his "obsessiveadmiration for

authorslivingand dead." Thisself-proclaimed unhealthy infatuation curi-
ouslyinhibits Millerfrom writingnotonlyinhisownstyle, butwithhisown
words.Ironically, ofcourse,Milleris constantly writing himself - hiswords,
-
hisstyle inthetext.Thereis no textpresent herebutMiller'sitself.
SomewhatsimilartowhatWilliamCarlosWilliamsdoes withpoetry,
Miller'sproseincludestheseintra-textual references to suchletters, call-
outs,literary insights, and obstructions in writing. In other words, at every
turn,Milleris one stepahead ofthereader,who is stillrepeatedly made
toacknowledgeand acceptthathe is readinga textaboutsomething, about
certain things that,because of the verylanguagebeing used, it cannot be
about(i.e.,writingabouttheinabilityto write).Milleris constantly hu-
moringthereader,butbringing him"intotheknow"by reminding him
thathe is essentially reading a farcicaltext.What is interestingabout this
particular point is that, of course, Miller's textmay be the least farcical of
all,in its desire and abilityto assert as
itself a veryfragmented construc-
tionand withoutanyclaimsorillusionsotherwise.
Thereis a keypassagein whichMillerbringsone ofthe"greats"out
oftherealmof "obsessiveadmiration" and intothecontextofeveryday
reality,illuminating how Miller encouragessuchfragmentation and a re-
examination oftheuse ofwritingand itsfigures. Miller'sstyleopensthe
textup to newwaysofreadingand evensimplyofconceptualizing writ-
ing and writers. In one instance in Nexus, while contemplating newhis
futurein Europe,takinga walk througha familiar neighborhood, Miller
considers himself "a touristnow" (308),as he feels in a
foreign formerly
familiar location.5 He passesa Germanbakery, whichcauseshimtothink
ofhisold TanteMelia'sstoriesoftheKonditorei in Germany. Thismemory
ofhisold,Germanauntthenleadshimintothoughts on Buddenbrooks and
TonioKruger, prompting a curiousand amusingreaction. He writes,"Dear
old ThomasMann.Sucha marvelouscraftsman. (I shouldhaveboughta
pieceofStreuselkuchen!) Yes,in thephotosI'd seenofhimhe lookeda bit
likea storekeeper. I couldvisualizehimwriting hisNovellen inthebackof
a delicatessenstore,witha yardoflinkedsausageswrappedaroundhis
neck"(Nexus309).Thisjokeyreverieis quicklyfollowedbyMillerwatch-
inga street-car pass inwhichhe thinksthedriverresembles KnutHamsun.
"Thinkof it,thenovelistwho finallyearnstheNobel Prizeoperatinga
street carinthisGodforsaken land!"(309).Thesetworeferences mayseem
tobe morehumorousthananything else,buttheyaresignificant in terms
ofhow Millerenvisionshimselfbothas a personand as a writerand of
coursehow he envisionsthesame of otherindividualswho occupythe
collective literaryimagination.
Inthesetwoinstances, ThomasMannand KnutHamsun- bothNobel
-
Prizewinners are depictedas real,normalmen("normal"in thesense

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 KatyMasuga

thattheyarenotonly"great"writers butarealsohumanbeingswithphysi-
cal presencesand needs,likesellingsausagesand earninga livingwage).
Miller, ofcourse,also seeshimself inthismanneras a "normal"man,while
also identifyinghimself as a writer ofsomeskilland withpotential distinc-
tion.Obviously, Milleris nottogo on andwintheNobelPrize,buttheseare
precisely thekindsofallusionsthatsethimapartas a writer - reminding
his readerthat,as thetextis nota pictureof theactualworld,so too is
a writer'simagenotnecessarily a reflectionof his humancharacter. By
drawing Thomas Mann and Knut Hamsun intothe textin thisway, Miller
alludestotheabsurdity ofthewaysinwhichreading - indeed,literaturein
- is treatedas something
all itsfacets sacred,and hencenecessarily stable
initsconstruction, and as separatefrom"real"life.
These kindsof anecdotesmay producelaughterin the reader,but
theyarealso analytically usefulinthewaytheyrevealMiller'sinsight into
thenatureofwriting: whattheperceivermakesoftheobjectperceivedis
alwaysboundup withtheperceiver'sknowledgeand perspective. A text,
therefore, does notpainta pictureofreality butprovidesan avenueor an
approachintoa creationoftheimagination withinan alreadyestablished
senseofrealitybythereader.As Derridasuggests,in Spurs(1978)forex-
ample,a namein a textdoes notreferto an actualpersonbutcreatesan
imageofa personthatrefers to a preconceived setofideas in thereader's
mind.6Disruptingthatmentalimageis alwayssurprising and oftenhas
humorousresultsin Miller.CallingThomasMann a "storekeeper" and
describing Knut Hamsun as "operating a street car" bring to mind the
specific of
critique Derrida's againstHeidegger, that
suggesting Heidegger
confuses"Nietzsche"as thename (theword)thatwe give to thewriter
of a body of philosophicalworksand "Nietzsche"as the name of a
dead man.
In TheEaroftheOther(1982),Derridawrites,"Attheveryleast,tobe
dead meansthatno profitor deficit, no good or evil,whethercalculated
or not,can everreturn again to the bearerofthename.Onlythenamecan
inherit, and this is the
why name, to be distinguished fromthebearer,is
always and a priori a dead man's name, a name of death.Whatreturns
to thenameneverreturnsto theliving"(7)7 It is an absurdityto begin
attributing qualitiesto a dead man,as if it is the same thingthatthey
arebeingattributed tothemetonym, orevensynecdoche, thattheproper
namehas become.Indeed,thisconfusion ofthenameto referbothto the
writerand themanis thesubjectofMiller'sfrequent insightand humor
andonceagainalludestotheimportant, ifalso amusing,literary qualityof
hiswork.Referring toThomasMannand KnutHamsuninthisway,Miller
drawsattention to literature as builtupon an arbitrary set of rulesand
notas a structure oftruth.IfThomasMann can be sellingsausagesand
KnutHamsunconducting a streetcar,thereis no limittowhat"literature"

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 191

can portray,norwhatit can appear to undo. These figuresare nothing

butthefigurestheyare made to be in anyreferential instance.Theyare
dead menentering a text,butmenwhosenamescometobe infusedwith
qualitythatis an illusion.Thehumorresidesin usingthename
a literary
thatrepresents a literaryfigureas ifitweresomething realand knowable.
As Derridaexplains,thenameinherits thequalityofliterary significance,
insteadofsimplyremaining thenameofa dead man.
As Millerdemonstrates, each nameor each wordis onlyone small,
momentary prick on thesurface oflanguageand one smallrendering in
thatlanguageamongtheinfinite still
possibilities to come. These small
wordsareoftenexploited, expanded,and manipulated, through thewrit-
er's desperationand confusionto stabilizemeaning,untiltheybecome
conceptually largerthantheyshouldpossiblyeverbe.As Millersuggests,
thisneed to locate,to define,to name- whichis theact ofwriting - is a
forcethatmakesus "racelikecometsafterour own tails."Millerquotes
fromSpengler's DeclineoftheWest(1917): "Withthenamethestepis taken
ofman.It is thegreat-
physicalofthebeasttothemetaphysical
fromtheeveryday
estturning-point inthehistory ofthehumansoul" {Plexus450).Thisis the
movement, the motion that literature (indeed,all language)createsand
uses to givemeaning:meaning,whichis anotherwordfortruth.
Thismistakein distributing truththrough meaning,as Nietzscheini-
tiallyexplains,is not a failure of writing,but it is a misunderstanding to
to
attribute languageany definitive quality of truth. On this in
note, speak-
ingoftheFrenchlanguage,Millerwrites,"Thathistoire shouldbe story,
lie
in
and historyall one was of a significance not to be despised.And that
a story,givenoutas theinvention ofa creativeartist, shouldbe regarded
as themosteffective materialforgetting at thetruthaboutitsauthorwas
Lies can onlybe embeddedin truth"(Nexus246).Chas-
also significant.
ing"ourown tails,"indeed,is whatBlanchotcallsthe"curve"in writing
("uncourbé"),whichis thenatureofwriting itself(TheInfinite Conversation
[1969]28). Similarto Derrida'smorecontemporary conceptofdifférance,
thiscurveis themodein whichwritingconstantly evades itsgoal ofde-
finingsomething onceandforall. It can be consideredas thespace where
writingdoes notmeetitsobject,insofaras theobjectalwaysoutruns, so
to speak,itsnaming(in otherwords,thechaseneverends).The paradox
consistsin thefactthat,ifwriting seeksto markorto definewhatis here-
tofore unknown, thenthisunknownmustalwaysremainas suchinorder
to be thisotherness thatitis. The distanceofseekingto knowsomething
through perceiving itis neverovercome, becauseitis a necessarydistance
thatallowsbothelements(theperceiverand theperceived)to maintain
theiridentity.Yet,in themomentofcomingto knowtheperceived,both
elementsareinvolvedinan interplay thatdestroys thedistancewhilealso
keepingitperpetually intact.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 KatyMasuga

Languageis a tool,surely, buta toolthatcannotprovide,as hardas

at itsoutcome.Whatfollowsis thefrequent
ittries,a stablestructure mis-
understanding thatlanguageultimately
suggesting "fails"atitstask.This
irresolvable discrepancyis preciselythemodusoperandi ofwritingitself,
something whichMillerfundamentally embraces.Writing is theeffort
to
establishand to locateideas as unwavering - eventhetruththatis
truths
fiction.Theworldofthewriteris populatedby conceptsthatrelyon this
verymythoftruth. One developsone'sownworldoftruths inand outside
writing. To returntoNietzsche, itis hispassageon truth
as a "mobilearmy
of metaphors"fromTruthand Falsityin an Ultramoral
Sensethatserves as
thekeyreference ("ein beweglichesHeer von Metaphern").Millerposi-
tionshimselfin relationto thisclaimwhenhe announcesthathe is notof
thesameworldthatis consideredtheactualor "real"world,becausehe is
oftheworldofthewriter. Theconstant becomingofthisactualworlditself
is theworldthatthewritercreatesand so thetruthofitis as malleableas
anyother.Millerclaimsthefollowing:
I knowthatthisis theonlylife,thislifeofthewriter,
andtheworldmay
stayput,getworse, sickenand all
die, one, becauseI no longerbelong
to theworld,a worldthatsickensand dies,thatstabsitselfoverand
over,thatwobbleslikean amputatedcrab... I havemyownworld,a
Graben ofa world,clutteredwithVespasiennes, Mirosand Heideggers,
bidets,a lone YeshivaBocher, cantors who singlikeclarinets,divas
whoswimintheirownfat,buglebustersand troikasthatrushlikethe
wind. . . Napoleonhasnoplacehere,norGoethe,noreventhosegentle
soulswithpoweroverbirds,suchas St.Francis, MilosztheLithuanian,
andWittgenstein. Evenlyingon myback,pinneddownbydwarfsand
gremlins, mypoweris vastandunyielding. Myminionsobeyme;they
pop likecornon thegriddle,theywhirlintolineto formsentences,
paragraphs, pages.(Nexus246)
Miller'sworldas a writeris a "grave"- a dead thing - of a world ("a
Graben"),fullofsurrealobjects(including itemsofthe
an actualsurrealist),
toilet(urinalsand otherdevicesforprivateaffairs),philosophers(more
accurately,multiplecopiesofone philosopher), singers,performers,and
Russianhorse-carriages. this
Furthermore, world,he tellsus, has no need
of Napoleon,Goethe,St. Francis,Milosz,or Wittgenstein. Whatkindof
worldis this?How is thereadermeantto analyzethis?Putsimply, itis a
collectionofelementsthatsuitMiller'swritingneedsas he anticipatesus-
ingthem.Itis theworldthathe createsinhiswriting, intheverymoment
ofhiswriting, in thecollection
ofsuchobjectsas theyaretransmitted into
thetext,thatbecomethetext,thathavenothing hiddenbehindthemas to
theirpurpose,function ormeaning.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 193

This,then,is thetruthofwriting. Itis composedofwhatthewriter re-

quires,orsimplydesires,inthemodeofwriting. Scratching atthisreveals
whatis necessarily thenevenmoreprecise:Miller'swriting is a worldof
unmentionables, whicharenevertheless spoken;itcontainsdreams,surre-
al imagesand sculptures, nonsense,philosophy, music,bodies,sexuality,
rhythm, and movement. It does not contain earnest or idealizedvalues
or religion.It does notcontainobjectified poetry or consistent, yetarbi-
trary,rulesof of
language.Ironically, course, itdoes contain all these things
whichhe claimsitdoes not.Theyarethere,written on thepage,included.
Thecollection herein Miller'sworldconforms simplytohisneeds,and it
is realortrueinsofaras he createsitand uses it- despitewhatevermodes
thatexistto restricthim- in orderto createnewtruths, whichis to say,to
"formsentences, paragraphs, pages."
A figurewhomMillerdid notmentioninthislistbutwhomhe might
also includeinhiswriterly worldis Dostoevsky.8 Millerhas a veryfervent
interestin theRussianwriter, and he creditshis personalphilosophical
awakeningto his discoveryofDostoevsky' s work.Thereare severalpas-
sages throughout Miller's oeuvre that refer to Dostoevsky, the firstof
whichoccursin Tropic ofCapricorn,where he explains thisinitial encoun-
ter."ThenightI satdowntoreadDostoievskiforthefirst timewas a most
important eventinmylife,evenmoreimportant thanmyfirst love.Itwas
thefirstdeliberate,conscious actwhich had significance me;itchanged
for
thewholefaceoftheworld... It was myfirstglimpseintothesoul ofa
man,or shallI say simplythatDostoievskiwas thefirst manto revealhis
soul to me?"(Tropic ofCapricorn189).Miller's interest in Dostoevsky, like
ThomasMann,extendsbeyondDostoevsky's writing. He often and
stares,
has done so foryears,he says,at a particular imageofDostoevskythat
hangsin a bookshopwindow.Whenrandomlypassingby,he haltsand
allowshimself tobecometransfixed bythepictureofthisman:a manwho
was a realman,whois dead,who,likeNietzsche,is notthesamethingas
thebodyofworktowhichhisnameis ascribed.

I plunkedmyself infront ofDostoievsky's as I had donebefore

portrait,
manya time,to studyhis familiar physiognomy anew.It was some-
thingmorethana bow or saluteI made to Dostoievsky. It was more
likea prayer,a prayerthathe would unlockthesecretofrevelation.
Sucha plain,homelyface,he had. The faceofa manwho mightpass
unnoticedin a crowd... I stoodthere,as always,trying to penetrate
themystery ofthebeinglurking behindthedoughymassoffeatures.
All I couldreadclearlywas sorrowand obstinacy. A manwho obvi-
ouslypreferred thelowlylife,a manfreshfromprison.I lostmyself in
contemplation. FinallyI saw onlytheartist,
thetragic, unprecedented
artistwhohad createda veritable pantheonofcharacters, eachone of

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 KatyMasuga

themmorereal,morepotent, moremysterious,moreinscrutable
than
all themadCzarsand all thecruel,wickedPopesputtogether.
(Plexus
16-17)

As he gazes longerand longer,Millerclaimsto see in thisimagenoth-

ingbut "theartist."He has clearlymade an idol ofthisimage,suchthat
he offersa "prayer"to Dostoevskyso that"he would unlockthesecret
ofrevelation," buthis meditation upon itpointsto his awarenessofthis
discrepancy betweenthewriterand theman.Millerconsistently persists
inseekingtoknowtheunknownortoat leastdrawoutthequestionscon-
cerningit.Thatis to say,Millerwantsto coverthedistancethathe knows
is notcoverable.As Deleuze writes,"[T]hepropernameis alwaysa mask,
a maskthatmasksitsagent"(TheNewNietzsche 147).9A name,oran image,
is nota representation ofsomething thatis hiddenbehindit.Itis onlywhat
itmade ofitin an instant. Deleuze quotesNietzsche:"I am all thenames
ofhistory. . ." (146).10 ThesefiguresthatMillerreveresand to whichhe
alignshimself, he necessarily himselfbecomes, insofaras he createswhat
they are in his perception of them. Like Heidegger'sNietzschecoming
backtolife,thesefigures areno longerdead people.Theyaretheideasthat
Millerhimself createsand definesinthetext.UnlikeHeidegger, as Derrida
argues, Miller this in
recognizes problem naming knowingly and exploits
itin orderto chargehistextbothwithhumorand crisis.
Milleralso seemsto citedirectly fromotherliterary or philosophical
works,yet, more often than not,they are not necessarilydirectcitations, al-
thoughtheyappear tobe in the text. In essence, Milleris puttingwords in
anotherwriter'smouth - words,whicharehisownbutwhichhe "loans"
to another - to make a claimor a description, whichis technically his
ownbutwhichhe wantsto attribute to anotherwriter(suchas theParks
Department letter).This"word-loaning" can also be seen as a qualityat-
tributable to Miller'sinterest in writingas living.Thatis to say,because
Milleris writing"thebook oflife,"he attempts to writeas he livesand,
thus, recallspassages not verbatim but as are
they manifest inhismemory.
SinceMilleroftenrefers to thinkers and writerswhomhe admires,these
passagereferences areused as reinforcement to reflect
whathe perceives
to be his own disposition:a struggling writerin a mad,malfunctioning
and ignorant world.
As such,Millerplayswiththebordersand definitions ofartand ma-
the
nipulates presence ofart in his texts. He constantly measures hisown
conceptualizations of art with that of other artists
and with that of con-
ventional understandings ofart. Bybringing writers and theirwriting into
his textin orderto discussthenatureofwritingand theselfas inflected
inwriting, Millerdeliberately castsa shadowofdoubtas tothevalidityof
writing as a means of
capable successfully discussingitsownfoundations.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 195

In thefollowingpassage,he uses themetaphorofthemirror to indicate

thisproblemin languageand refers and Novalis:
to Richter

"I stoodbeforea mirror 'I wantto see how I look

and said fearfully:
in themirrorwithmyeyesclosed/"ThesewordsofRichter's, when
cameuponthem,made an indescribable
I first commotion in me.As
did thefollowing,whichseemalmostlikea corollary oftheabove-
fromNovalis:"The seat ofthesoul is whereinnerworldand outer
worldtoucheachother.Fornobodyknowshimself, ifhe is onlyhim-
selfand notalso anotherone at thesame time.""To takepossession
I, to be theI ofone's I, at thesame time,"as
ofone's transcendental
Novalisexpresseditagain.(Sexus190)

Can thewriter holdup a mirror tohimself in theactofwriting? Crucially,

Millerindicatesthatone'ssenseofselfis alwaysboundtoan external iden-
tityof oneself.Hence, the mirror always reflects a separate,uniquesubject
whois notthesameselfthatis presenton thefront-side ofthemirror. With
theeyesclosed,thereis a presenceoftheselftotheself;yet,withtheeyes
opentheselfis onlyperceiving itselfand notdirectly knowingit.Andyet
is
knowing always bound up with these two selves, twomodesofper-
or
and
ception(subjectperceived objectperceived).
Theperceiver encounters himselfas theperceivedin thiscase,evok-
ing what Proust calls the zone dfevaporation, in whichthetwo objectsin
theencounter could be said to existin or through themirror. In Beingand
Nothingness (1956),Sartrewrites,"[being] is itselfso completely thatthe
perpetualreflection whichconstitutes the self is dissolvedin an identity"
(28).He continues, "In factbeingis opaque to itselfprecisely becauseitis
filledwithitself.Thiscan be betterexpressedby sayingthatbeingis what
Thereflection
itis" (28).11 is themodebywhichtheperceiver knowsthatit
-
is thesubjectwho is standingbeforethemirror eventhoughitcan only
knowthisfactofthesubject'spresencethrough gazingintothemirror. This
actis howtheperceiver, orsubject,knowsitself;itis itsconscience desoi,as
Sartrecallsit.Thetext,in thesamevein,is also beingestablishedthrough
reflection;ittoois "dissolvedinan identity" through itsbeingwritten. Yet
eventhisactivity ofbeingwritten demandsthatthetextseparateswhatit
is fromwhatitclaimstobe. Itremainsunstableand undefined in orderto
havethattenuousidentity as itself.
This metaphorof the mirrorpersiststhroughout thesepassages in
Miller,and he makesallusionsto it threemoretimesjuston thisoppos-
ingpage in Sexus.Twoarecontainedin thepassagebelow(precedingthe
linesattributed to Hugo, whichare at theend of thepassage),and the
last is a reference to Nietzsche,whichimmediately succeedsthe Hugo
passagein Sexus.Aftera longmonologueon his need forliberation from

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 KatyMasuga

thefalseselfthathas developedas a resultoftheexpectationsofconven-

Millermakesthepronouncement:
tionality, "Everythingexternalis buta
reflection bythemindmachine"(Sexus191)and continues
projected intoa
passageon creationas theonlyformofliving,whichis also theformofart.
He writes,

Creationis theeternalplay whichtakesplace at theborderline;it

is spontaneousand compulsive,obedientto law.One removesfrom
the mirrorand the curtainrises.Séancepermanente.
Only madmen
are excluded.Onlythosewho 'have losttheirmind',as we say.For
theseneverceasetodreamthattheyaredreaming. Theystoodbefore
themirrorwitheyes open and fellsound asleep; theysealed their
shadow in thetombof memory. In themthestarscollapseto form
whatHugo called"blindingmenagerieofsunswhich,throughlove,
makesthemselvesthepoodles and theNewfoundlandsof immen-
sity."(Sexus191)

Miller,continuing in thevein of promoting his own artisticmeritover

and abovehiscohorts, makesa directcitationfromHugo in thispassage.
At thesametime,as withRichter and Novalis,theprecisephrasingdoes
notactuallyseemtobe Hugo's. Milleris feigning a senseofspontaneous
mentalrecovery in his writing, notto appearmore"real"(closerto "real
life"behavior)butperhapssimplyto demonstrate ofsuch
thepossibility
a techniquethatseemsto violateconventional uses ofliterary It
writing.
seemsthattheprocessofcreation, forMiller,also includesthere-creation
ofotherwriters and theworksofotherwriters intohisown.
Theabovereference inrelationtoHugo's story,
is also interesting The
Man WhoLaughs(1869).One ofHugo's centralfigures in thestory,
Ursus,
is capableofimitating all animaland humansounds:accents,pronuncia-
tions,languages,voices,crowds,cries,howls,barks,and so forth, on such
an accuratelevelthathe can deceiveanymanor animal.Hugo's narrator
comparesthischaracter ofUrsus,whois temporally presentinthetext,to
anotherfigure existent in "the lastcentury"called Touzel,"who imitated
themingledclamorofmenand ofanimals,and who reproducedall the
criesofbeasts,was attachedto thepersonofBuffon, as thoughhimself
a menagerie"(2).12Thereseemsto be, then,a bitmoreto thismirroring
metaphorthanjust theobvious.Miller's"citations"implythathe uses
hissourcesin sucha waythathe ultimately recreates, oreven
refashions,
mirrors theverysubstanceof thetextsof thesewriters.Millerbecomes
likeHugo's Ursusand Touzel:animal-like menwho imitatelanguageto
perfection this
and,yet,through reproduction ofuncannysameness,are
gross A
outcasts. menagerie, it
although may a showcase,stillconsists
be
ofa seriesofcages.In otherwords,thisHugo reference withthe"blinding

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 197

-
menagerie"couldverywellbe Miller'sown presence as theimitator of
writers, and dogs,likeUrsusand Touzelor likemadmen-
philosophers,
who"through love"becometheobjectsofadorationbutwhoexplodethat
desireintoan unprecedented"immensity."
flight creationcontinuesdirectly
Thisterrifying into in thenextpas-
sage withtheaforementioned to
reference Miller
Nietzsche. writes:

The creativelife!Ascension.Rocketingout of theblue, graspingat

flyingladders,mounting, soaring,lifting theworldup by thescalp,
the
rousing angels from their
ethereal lairs,
drowning instellardepths,
tothetailsofcomets.Nietzsche had written of -
itecstatically
clinging
and thenswoonedforwardintothemirror to die in rootand flower.
"Stairsand contradictorystairs",he wrote,and thensuddenlythere
was no longeranybottom;themind,likea splintered diamond,was
pulverizedby thehammer blows oftruth. (Sexus 191)

Like Renoir'sOrphée,advancingthrougha mirrorintotheunderworld

in searchofEurydice, whomhe willneverrecapture, Nietzscheuses the
mirror, to
according Miller, in an to
attempt join with his own reflection
and "die in rootand flower." As thephilosopher withthehammer, Miller
remindsus, Nietzscheobliterates our misconceptions aboutlanguageas
truth-giving. "Wehaveneedofliesinordertoconquerthisreality, this'truth/
thatis, in order to -
live That lies are necessary in orderto live is itselfa
partofthetarrying andquestionable character of existence"13(WilltoPower
[posthumous] is
451).Language truth-making, as
and, such, Miller provides
thesepassagesto makethatpoint- and withsuchstrongimagery, giving
overtolanguageitselftheverymeanstoscatter itsownboundaries.
In termsoftruth, then,whatis producedin thetextis alwayssome-
thingthatcannotbe confined to an imaginary realmthatis permanent or
-
concretedespiteitsexistenceas a text it is a question of motion versus
destination. Inotherwords,thepresenceofthetextis actuallya movement
and a constantbecoming;nota stagnantstatein a fixed,imaginary uni-
verse.Millerwrites,"SomewherePaul Valéryhas said: 'Whatis ofvalue
to us alone (meaningthepoetsofliterature) has no value.Thisis thelaw
ofliterature'" (Nexus249).Millermakesthisreference despitealso think-
ingthatpoetryis a "meaningless, worthless pursuit"becauseitattempts
tohide"the'impurities' fromwhichitwas decocted"(249).He claimsthe
poetsunreasonably "toilinthenameofBeauty,Form,Intelligence, and so
on" (249).This sarcasmcomesfromMiller'sunderstanding of "the law
ofliterature" as beingarbitrary and flexible.Indeed,itsarbitrariness can
be seenthrough thefactthathow literature is read,understood and used
changesthroughout Naturally,
history. differentstylesareappreciated and
regardedindifferent waysduringanygiventimeperiod.ForMiller,then,

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198 KatyMasuga

poetryis a "meaningless, worthlesspursuit"becauseit subscribesto the

notionthatthereis a certainformthatis thecorrect formbywhichwords
shouldbe constructed and readfora particular purpose.It is confined to
a law thatis ungrounded.He is interested, then,in theflexibility ofthe
law ofliterature, suchthathe can use a semblanceofstructure and then
subvertit.
Literature, by itsveryconstruction, is alwayscapableofbreakingits
own laws. In TheWork ofFire(1949)Blanchotwrites,"Iflanguageand,in
particular, literary languagedid not constantly hurlitselfeagerlyat its
death,itwouldnotbe possible,sinceitis thismovement towarditsimpos-
sibility that is its nature and its foundation; it is this movement that,by
its
anticipating nothingness, determines its potential tobe this nothingness
withoutactualizing it.In otherwords,languageis realbecauseitcanproj-
ectitselftowardnon-language, whichit is and does notactualize"(20).14
Thus,Valéry' s idea thatvalue mustapplynotonlyto thewriterbutalso
to thereaderpointsto theabsurdity in assumingthatliterature can estab-
lishmeaningand stability of ideas throughwords(or ofwordsthrough
words).Literature failstodo thisbecauseitis a processthatis restricted to
itsstructure, whichleavesitwithroomonlytoproducewhatitis capableof
(wordson a page),whichis alwayslessthanwhatitsetsouttodo (defining
concepts, securingtheirdefinitions, and so forth). Againin TheWork ofFire
Blanchot writesthatwriting canonlyeverpresent"an unrealworld"thatis
"accessibletoreadingalone,inaccessible tomyexistence" Readingis
(75).15
a processinwhichthereis alwaysa separation betweenthereaderand the
writing thatcanneverbe transcended. Thedifficulty occursinthinking that
thereevenissomething tobe transcended. Thisis themistakethatlanguage
letsus believeand thendisruptsthrough literature, through theperpetual
of
pursuit transcending. Of the world of literature, Blanchot writes,"There
is nothing poorer than such a universe" (75)16 because,despiteanytypeof
articulation or anyamountofdetails,thementalimagethatis produced
comesfroma deliberatelimitation thatis articulated throughthewords.
It is nota limitation in thesenseofinadequacy, ratheritis a limitation in
thesenseofthelinearity ofthetext.Thereis alwaysa word-for-word per-
formance in a text - one thatleads thereaderin a particular direction and
witha particular aim.A story, inotherwords,canonlydeliver itself
linearly,
providing content ina particular, structured manner.
Thus,havingjustmadetheValéryreference, Milleraskshimself why
thewriterfeelsitnecessaryto writeaccordingto thetastesand valuesof
thepublic.Theidea ofwriting as a commodity oras a predetermined form
ofartforcollectiveappreciation and consumption is distastefulto him.It
reducesthewriter's possibilities ofexperimentation andpursuitandforces
himtowarda particular focusdefinedbya predetermined audience,limit-
ing what the literary pursuit has at all the potential to be. He asks,

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 199

Whycreatea worldofone's own ifitmustalso makesenseto every

Tom,Dick and Harry?Have nottheothersthisworldof everyday,
whichtheyprofesstodespiseyetclingtolikedrowningrats?Is itnot
strangehowtheywhorefuse, oraretoolazy,tocreatea worldoftheir
own insiston invadingours?Who is it tramplestheflowerbeds at
night?Whois itleavescigarette stubsinthebirdbath?Whois itpees
on theblushingvioletsand wiltstheirbloom?Weknowhowyourav-
age thepagesofliteraturein searchofwhatpleasesyou.Wediscover
ofyourblundering
thefootprints Itis youwhokill
spiriteverywhere.
genius,you who the
cripple giants. You, you,whether throughlove
and adorationorthrough envy,spite and hatred.
Who writesforyou
writeshis own deathwarrant.Littlesparrow, /Mind,mindoutofthe
Issa-Sanwrotethat.Tellme itsvalue!(250)
way,I Mr.Horseis coming.
If literaturehas no purposebut thatwhichis appliedto it,it is initially
thefunction ofthewriterto establishthatpurpose.Yet,becausewriting
becomesa collective inthatthewriter
activity, is alwayswriting fora reader,
thenimmediately thepurposeofliterature is boundbymanyotherforces.
Miller,as thewriter, lamentsthisparadox:he is alwayswriting foran audi-
encebutwriting in orderto overcomethataudience.Ofthewriter, Miller
statesin Sexus,"Whydoes he deferaction- unlessit be that,likeother
men,whathe reallydesiresis power,fame,success?"(18).Writing is inac-
tion("an actdevoidofwill" [Sexus18]) in thatitceasestheactivity oflife
of
forthepurpose attempting put to elements of that lifeinto words. And
for
why?Millerasks;forsuccess, posteritythings - thatMiller himself de-
niesdesiringbutcan notavoidoncehe chooses to touch paper with ink.
Milleraccuseshisreaderofbeingthedestroyer ofliterature in thatit
is thereaderwhotakestopieceswhattheauthorhas createdand searches
withinit forhis own privatemeaning.How can literature have a private
meaning?Surely,it has as manyprivatereadingsas it has readers,com-
poundedbythepossiblemultiple readingsofeachreader.Thisis whywhat
is written is notstableonitsownbutis alwayssubjectto who is gazingat
thewordsand sentences. Blanchotwrites,"Themessenger is notmasterof
hiswords;eveniftheyarebad,theyarebeyondhiscontrol, forthatmight
be theirverymeaning, tobe bad; all thatoneis abletograspis thatthewill
to destroyitmaybe incorporated in themessageitself:thesecretdesireof
speechis to be lost,butthisdesireis a vainone and speechis neverlost"
17
{Work ofFire15). It is in thereader'sreadingthatnew meaningsareper-
petuallycreated,and despitethewriter'sfutileattempts at authorship, he
cannotclaimwhathe has written as hisown,no morethanhe canclaimto
havebuiltsomething unwaveringly concrete inhiswriting.
As Millersumsup hiswriterly experience, "WhatlittleI havelearned
aboutwriting amountstothis:itisnotwhatpeople think itis.Itis an absolutely

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 KatyMasuga

newthingeachtimewitheachindividual"(BlackSpring 30).Literature
can-
notsimplybe whatitchooses,in termsofa specificand staticentity with
a straightforward and lucidmeaning.It is not,in otherwords,theunique,
steadfast, and definitivecreationofan author, butitis a constructionthat
can be, thatnecessarily mustbe,dissectedby each new readerand thatis
infinitelyavailablenotonlyto interpretation butto further creationbythe
writerand thereader.Bothby aligninghimselfwithwritersand by dis-
tancinghimself fromtheconstruction ofwhatitmeanstobe tobe a writer
(i.e.,to producea stable,knowabletext),Milleropensup thisparadoxof
literatureand ofwriting tohisreaderand allowsthequestionsnotonlyto
remainunanswered butencouragestheirunanswerability through humor,
self-deprecation, and an often and
paradoxical challenging form.Ultimate-
ly,HenryMillerbecomes,likeThomasMann,KnutHamsun,Dostoevsky,
Nietzscheand others, a namethatis giventoa text;butitis onlythereader
in bad faithwho can acceptthatas a valid meansforunderstanding the
natureofwriting and naivelybelievein thefalseand deceptivesimplicity
ofsuchan assertion. WithMiller'stexts,then,thereadercan cometo un-
derstandtheflexibility, and humorin theambiguousnatureof
brilliance,
writing and to loosen an otherwisefiercegripon theconceptofliterature
as a stableand straightforward constructionwithfinite and an
possibilities
easily definable purpose.
TheUniversityofWashington
Seattle,Washington

NOTES
1. TheNotebooks
ofMalteLauridsBrigge,
38. "Ichsitzeund lese einenDichter.Es
sindvieleLeuteim Saal, abermanspürtsie nicht.Sie sindin den Büchern"{Die
des malteLauridsBriççe35).
Aufzeichnungen
2. Throughout Miller'sworks,thenarrator oftenrefersto thiscompanyas the
Cosmococcic orCosmodemonic Telegraph Agency,whichis a parodyoftheWestern
UnionTelegraph CompanyofNewYork, whereMillerworkedfrom1920until1924.
3. Thereis "theGreekwiththelongequineface,a scholarunquestionably, who
wantedto read fromPrometheus Bound - or was it Unbound!"(217-18).Thereis
"thatLesbian,Iliad,she calledherself - whyIliad?- so lovely,so demure,so coy
... an excellent musiciantoo" (218).Thereis another,who "wentbackto Indiato
finish hisHistory oftheWorldin fourlanguages"(219).
4. Wonderfully, thenarrator referencesthisso-called"bookoflife"in Sexusas
well,wherehe also discussestheproblemsofincludingeverything from"thereal
world"intosuchan inexplicable text.
5. Certainly,thisdeliberateestrangement froma oncefamiliar locationclearly
becomessignificant inMiller,
metaphorically, byparallelingitwith literature
itself,
in thecontext ofonceassumedstability ofwriting and itsconventions nowbeing
exposedas arbitrary, questionable,and foreign forMiller'sreader.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HenryMillerand theBookofLife 201

6. Derridawrites,forexample,'Tor justthisreason,thereis no suchthingei-

theras a truthofNietzscheor ofNietzsche'stext"(Spurs103).'Tour cetteraison
même,il n'ypas unevérité de Nietzscheou du textede Nietzsche"(Éperons 102).
7. "Êtremortsignifie au moinsceciqu'aucunbénéficeou maléfice, calculéou
non,nerevient plusau porteur du nommaisseulement au nom,enquoile nom,qui
n'estpas le porteur,esttoujourseta prioriun nomde mort.Ce qui revientau nom
ne revientjamais à du vivant,rienne revientà du vivant" de
(L'Oreille Vautre
18).
8. Millermentions Dostoevskyin severaltextsconsidered here,butwithmore
thanone spelling(Dostoievski and Dostoievsky). Forthepurposesofconsistency,
I willuse thestandardcontemporary of
spelline Dostoevsky.
9. "[L]enompropreesttoujours unmasque,masqued'unopérateur" (Nietzsche:
Intensités
169).
10."[T]ousles nomsde l'histoire, Intensités
c'estmoi"(Nietzsche: 169).
11."[L'être]l'estau pointque la réflexion perpétuelle le soi se fond
qui constitue
enuneidentité." .
[. .] "En fait, est
l'être opaque à lui-mêmeprécisément parcequ'il
estremplide lui-même. C'estce que nousexprimerons mieuxen disantque l'être
estce Qu'ilest" (L'êtreet le néant33).
12."[Q]ui imitaitles cohuesmêléesd'hommeset d'animauxet qui copiaittous
en qualitéde ménagerie"
les crisde bêtes,étaitattachéà la personnede Buffon
romanIII 352).
(Oeuvrescomplètes:
13. "WirhabenLüge nötig,um überdieseRealität, diese »Wahrheit« zum Sieg
zu kommen, das heißt,um zu leben. . . Daß die Lüge nötigist,um zu leben,das
gehörtselbstnochmitzu diesemfurchtbaren und fragwürdigen Charakter des
Daseins"("Aus demNachlaßderAchtzigerjahre" in Werke 692).
14."Si le langageetenparticulier le langagelittérairenes'élançaitconstamment,
paravance,verssa mort,il ne seraitpas possible,carc'estce mouvement versson
impossibilité qui est sa conditionet qui le fonde;c'est ce mouvementqui, en
anticipant sur son néant,détermine sa possibilitéqui est d'êtrece néantsans le
réaliser.En d'autrestermes, le langageestréelparcequ'il peutse projecter versun
non-langage qu'il estetne réalisepas" (La Partdufeu28).
15."fAccessiblela seulelecture, inaccessible à monexistence" (La Partdufeu6).
16."Riende pluspauvrequ'un telunivers"(La Partdufeu6).
17. "Le messagern'estpas maîtrede ses paroles;mêmemauvaises,elles lui
échappent, carc'estpeut-être là justement leursens,d'êtremauvaises;toutce que
l'on peutretenir, c'estqu'au messagedoitêtreincorporé le
le voeu de la détruire:
désirsecretde la parole,c'estde se perdre,maisce désirestvainetla parolen'est
jamaisperdue"(La Partdufeu23).

WORKSCITED
Blanchot,Maurice.L'Entretien infini. 1969.
Paris:Gallimard,
. TheInfinite Trans.SusanHanson.Minneapolis:
Conversation. U ofMinnesota
P,1993.
. La Partdufeu.Paris:Gallimard,1949.
. LheWork Mandell.btantord:
oftire.Irans.Charlotte btantoraun i^s.
Decker, James. HenryMiller and NarrativeFrom:Constructingthe Self,Rejecting
2005.
London:Routledge,
Modernity.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 KatyMasuga

Deleuze, Gilles. "Nomad Thought/7 TheNew Nietzsche. Ed. David B. Allison.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT P,1997.
. "Penséenomade."Nietzsche aujourd'hui? Intensités.Paris:Uniongénérale
d'éditions,1973.
Derrida, Jacques.TheEaroftheOther. Trans.Christie McDonald.NewYork:Schocken
Books, 1985.
. Éperons: deNietzsche/
lesstyles Spurs:Nietzsche'sStyles.Trans.BarbaraHarlow.
ChicagoandLondon:U ofChicagoP,1978.
. L'Oreilledel'autre.
Montreal: VLBéditeur.1982.
Goodwin,James."HenryMiller,AmericanAutobiographer." CriticalEssayson
Henry Miller.Ed. Ronald Gottesman. New York: Twayne Publishers; Ontario:
MaxwellMacmillanCanada,1992.
Hassan,Ihab.TheLiterature ofSilence:HenryMillerandSamuelBeckett. New York:
AlfredA. Knopf,1967.
Hugo,Victor. L'Homme qui rit.Oeuvrescomplètes:roman III. Paris:EditionsRobert
Laffont, 1985.
. TheMan WhoLauçhs.Trans.WilliamYoung.New York:Appleton,1869.
Jahshan, Paul.Henry MillerandtheSurrealist DiscourseofExcess:A Post-Structuralist
Reading. New York:PeterLang,2001.
Miller,Henry.BlackSpring. New York:GrovePress,1963.
. Nexus:TheRosyCrucifixion, PartIII. London:PantherBooks,1980.
. Plexus:TheRosyCrucifixion, PartII. London:PantherBooks,1969.
. Sexus:TheRosyCrucifixion, PartI. London:PantherBooks,1970.
. TropicofCancer. New York:GrovePress,1961.
. TropicofCapricorn.London:PantherBooks,1978.
Munsil,MaryKellie."The Bodyin thePrison-house of Language:HenryMiller,
Pornography andFeminism." Critical
Essays onHenry Miller. Ed.RonaldGottesman.
NewYork:TwaynePublishers; Ontario:MaxwellMacmillan Canada,1992.
Nietzsche,Friedrich. Truth
andFalsity inan Ultramoral Sense:Critical
TheorysincePlato.
Ed. HazardAdamsand LeroySearle.Boston:ThomsonWadsworth, 2005.
. Werke. München:CarlHanserVerlag,1954,1978,1993.Ed. KarlSchlechta.
CD-ROM.Berlin:Directmedia Publishing GMBH,2004.
. TheWilltoPower. Trans.WalterKaufman.New York:VintageBooks,1968.
Rilke,RainerMaria. Die Aufzeichnungen desMalteLauridsBrigge.Frankfurt am
Main:InselVerlag,1910.
. TheNotebooks ofMalteLauridsBrigge. Trans.StephenMitchell.New York:
Vintage Books, 1985.
Sartre,
Jean-Paul. BeingandNothingness. Trans.Hazel E. Barnes.New York:Pocket
Books,1956.
. L'Etreetlenéant.Paris:Gallimard, 1943.

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.32 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:03:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions