Greece has been sneaking up on me lately. First, it was just reading about the debt crisis in the paper and discussing it with my father, whose take is that ‘the Greeks have gotten lazy.’ Then I agreed to read Herodotus’s The Histories with my buddy Kareem. All well and good- still nothing terribly suspicious. But then I started to read Henry Miller’s account of traveling throughout Greece in 1939, while sitting in a diner near my house. As I read, I heard one of the owners of the diner, a very tall and broad bald guy I hadn’t seen for a while, talking to his nephew behind the counter in a foreign language. Occasionally, he would lapse into English. I heard him say, “so someone drinking a Heineken, it’s like driving a Lamborghini…”, and “another thing is that now everyone tips…” Remembering that this guy was Greek, I concluded that he was probably speaking Greek to his nephew, and probably describing a trip he’d recently taken, perhaps to Athens (which made sense, since, again, I hadn’t seen him at the diner for a while), the same city that I was reading Miller’s account of visiting.
Strange. But anyway, the first part of this book is great. Miller’s great at describing people, places and odd encounters with strangers. I have read a few reviews here making the complaint that this book is not really about Miller’s friend Katsimbalis, whom Miller calls ‘the colossus’, but about Miller himself, which seems to me about as silly as complaining that a singer doesn’t repeat the song’s title in the chorus. Here’s a sample of how Miller describes Katsimbalis, towards the beginning of the book:
I saw that he was made for the monologue…I like the monologue even more than the duet, when it’s good. It’s like watching a man write a book expressly for you: he writes it, reads it aloud, acts it, revises it, savors it, enjoys it, enjoys your enjoyment of it, and then tears it up and throws it to the winds…From the time he met us he was bubbling over. He was always that way, even on bad days when he complained of headache or dizziness or any of the hundred and one ailments which pestered him…Things which happened only yesterday fell into this same nostalgic done-for past. Sometimes, when he talked this way, he gave me the impression of being an enormous tortoise which had slipped out of its shell, a creature which was spending itself in a desperate struggle to get back into the shell which it had outgrown. In this struggle he always made himself look grotesque and ridiculous- he did it deliberately. He would laugh at himself, in the tragic way of the buffoon…He saw the humorous aspect of everything, which is the true test of the tragic sense.
And a little later: He could galvanize the dead with his talk. He was everywhere at once…If he couldn’t dispose of a thing at once, for lack of a phrase or an image, he would spike it temporarily and move on…All this flurry and din, all these kaleidoscopic prestidigitations of his, was only a sort of wizardry which he employed to conceal the fact that he was a prisoner- that was the impression he gave me when I studied him…Nobody can explain anything which is unique. One can describe, worship and adore. And that is all I can do with Katsimbalis’ talk.
Could you ask for a more vivid and interesting description of a person? What more could you want to know about Katsimbalis?
In addition to the occasional breathtaking passage (for me, anyway), there are some things about Henry Miller’s worldview that I admire and enjoy. Here’s another quote that I think speaks to both:
It was then that I made the discovery that his talk created reverberations, that the echo took a long time to reach one’s ears. I began to compare it with French talk in which I had been enveloped for so long. The latter seemed more like the play of light on an alabaster vase, something reflective, nimble, dancing, liquid, evanescent, whereas the other, the Katsimbalistic language, was opaque, cloudy, pregnant with resonances which could only be understood long afterwards when the reverberations announced the collisions with thoughts, people, objects located in distant parts of the earth. The Frenchman puts walls about his talk…The Greek, on the other hand, is an adventurer: he is reckless and adaptable, he makes friends easily…Of my own experience I would say that there is no more direct, approachable, easy man to deal with than the Greek. He becomes a friend immediately…With the Frenchman friendship is a long and laborious process: it may take a lifetime to make a friend of him. He is best in acquaintanceship where there is little to risk and there are no aftermaths.
If you find that you can enjoy this passage for the way in which it is expressed, for its creativity and clarity and attention to detail, even if you happen to disagree with him, then you are, or are becoming as you read, a little like Henry Miller. It reminds me of a quality a friend of mine has, who also happens to be the only person I know my age who likes, or at least liked, Henry Miller. My friend, like many people, has his share of strong opinions, but I’ve seen him argue a few times with people he’s disagreed with and, after listening to something the other person has said, step back and smile, and shake his head slowly, not sarcastically, but admiring something about the other person’s articulation, delivery, choice of words, style, etc. A lot of people don’t have that capacity. But there’s the same kind of quality in Miller’s writing. He is the kind of person who can get pleasure out of being gypped on taxi fare because of the particular way in which he’s gypped; because it’s an experience in Greece, a place he likes and sometimes finds hard to believe he's in. That’s the kind of person I’d want to be traveling with.
On the other hand, I see a connection between this quality (the ability to appreciate things aesthetically) and the aspect of Miller’s writing that I don’t really like: one of the ways it manifests is in the interminable rhapsodies about nothing. I remember these ecstatic rhapsodies from Tropic of Cancer, but especially from Tropic of Capricorn, which I couldn’t even finish. And I finish novels and novelish books about 98% of the time, once I’ve started them. I guess ecstatic rhapsodies were somewhat of a staple of the time, and Miller is a writer of a different time- you notice it as soon as you start to read him. You may even remember the 'Seinfeld' episode in which Jerry still has Tropic of Cancer checked out after something like sixteen years (he'd heard as a teenager that it contained sex scenes), and a librarian comes around to harass him. But I stopped reading Tropic of Capricorn in the middle of what I remember was at least a five-page encomium to ‘the cunt’- the cunt that knew itself, the eternal cunt, the cunt that transcended its own cuntness…it wasn’t offensive, at least not to me, but it was total gibberish. And I’ve found at least a little of this kind of thing in all three of Miller’s books that I’ve read, including, unfortunately, this one. Again, I think his descriptions of people and places and encounters, his thoughts on Greeks, Americans, the British, are great. I like him as long as he stays in the terrestrial realm. But there is a five-page sequence here in which he tries to tell some cosmic jazz origin story that I think may be one of the most annoying passages of prose I’ve ever read. And when he starts telling us that Greece is the land of light, that man will experience war and bloodshed until the ‘old gods’ return, and…sorry, but wake me up when that paragraph is over.
Lots of people get boring or overblown at times. No one’s perfect. But there is something else that I started to think about as I read parts 2 and 3, neither of which I liked as much as part 1, related to his appreciation of aesthetics, that I find a little more interesting. I’m not sure if it’s a fair criticism, or a criticism at all. I’m also not sure to what degree it would have stood out to me if I had never read Orwell’s ‘Inside the Whale’, which is ostensibly a review of Tropic of Cancer. But I have. The visit that Miller is describing to Greece, as I mentioned, took place in 1939. There were some pretty significant things happening in Europe at that time. Orwell, who published ‘Inside the Whale’ in 1940, says that while a contemporary writer is not required to write about world events, a writer who completely ignores them is generally an idiot. One of the things that seems to fascinate him about Miller is that Miller, who completely ignores world events, is clearly not an idiot, and that Tropic of Cancer is good. Orwell doesn’t reveal until part 3 of the essay that he and Miller have met:
I first met Miller at the end of 1936, when I was passing through Paris on my way to Spain. What most intrigued me about him was to find that he felt no interest in the Spanish war whatever. He merely told me in forcible terms that to go to Spain at that moment was the act of an idiot. He could understand anyone going there from purely selfish motives, out of curiosity, for instance, but to mix oneself up in such things from a sense obligation was sheer stupidity. In any case my Ideas about combating Fascism, defending democracy, etc., etc., were all baloney. Our civilization was destined to be swept away and replaced by something so different that we should scarcely regard it as human—a prospect that did not bother him, he said. And some such outlook is implicit throughout his work. Everywhere there is the sense of the approaching cataclysm, and almost everywhere the implied belief that it doesn't matter.
He goes on to compare Miller to Jonah in the belly of the whale- passive, subjective, with no desire to alter the course of world events (and with the knowledge that he couldn’t, even if he wanted to).
I remember reading a quote a while ago. I can’t remember who said it: “no serious person ever thinks about anything except Hitler and Stalin.” That might be an exaggeration, but one would think it would have been less of an exaggeration in 1939. I think Hitler is mentioned once in the book, and the impending war is mentioned a few times, but never with any of the detail that Miller brings to bear, say, on Katsimbalis. Instead, the reference generally sets us up for another long rhapsody. Or anti-rhapsody, whatever that would be called.
I guess that’s okay. After all, what good does it really do anyone to be dejected, or even to closely follow world events that you yourself, inside the whale (as we all are, as even Orwell admits), are powerless to prevent? And there will always be something going on in the modern world that others will want you to pay attention to and think about (although in general slightly less significant things than the beginning of WWII). And yet, there is something about Miller’s worldview that seems to me less admirable and more naïve than Orwell’s; Orwell went to a foreign country to fight, and was shot through the neck and almost died. So maybe this is more of a question of Miller’s worldview than his writing (although I think it would have been very interesting if he’d trained his powers of perception on, say, Hitler, as well as on his friend Katsimbalis), but personally I don’t think the two can always be separated; if I find a writer’s worldview to be somewhat naïve, then it doesn’t really matter how inventive the prose style is.
One might say that Miller wanted to preserve an image of a paradise that he worried would soon be lost. But it wasn’t a paradise: Greece, as he mentions only once, was under a military dictatorship at this time. Should he have written about that? I can’t say. Not necessarily. But I can’t help but be reminded of another book, Roberto Bolano’s By Night in Chile, set during Pinochet’s coup, in which the artsy-fartsy folks sit around and talk about art and aesthetics while there’s a torture chamber in the basement.
That being said, there are some sequences in this book that I thought were really great, and there are things that I’ll certainly reread if I ever end up going to Greece.