TROPIC OF CANCER EPUB
Tropic of Cancer is a novel by Henry Miller that has been described as "notorious for its candid sexuality" and as responsible for the "free speech that we now. Author of Tropic of Cancer, The air-conditioned nightmare, Tropic of Capricorn, Tropic of Cancer, The books in my life, Black spring, Plexus. Shocking, banned and the subject of obscenity trials, Henry Millers first novel Tropic of Cancer is one of the most scandalous and influential books of the.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|ePub File Size:||15.85 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.59 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
tropic of cancer by henry miller ebook, tropic of cancer by henry miller pdf, tropic of cancer by henry miller doc and tropic of cancer by henry miller epub for tropic. Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller. Read online, or download in secure EPUB format. Tropic of Capricorn. Home · Tropic of Capricorn Author: Miller Henry Start by pressing the button below! Report copyright / DMCA form · DOWNLOAD EPUB.
I shoot hot bolts into you, Tania, I make your ovaries incandescent. Customs detained the novels and Besig sued the government. Before the case went to trial, Besig requested a motion to admit 19 depositions from literary critics testifying to the "literary value of the novels and to Miller's stature as a serious writer".
The case went to trial with Goodman presiding. Goodman declared both novels obscene. Besig appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, but the novels were once again declared "obscene" in a unanimous decision in Besig v.
United States. In , when Grove Press legally published the book in the United States, over 60 obscenity lawsuits in over 21 states were brought against booksellers that sold it.
It is a cesspool, an open sewer, a pit of putrefaction, a slimy gathering of all that is rotten in the debris of human depravity.
Supreme Court, in Grove Press, Inc. Gerstein, cited Jacobellis v. Ohio which was decided the same day and overruled state court findings that Tropic of Cancer was obscene. Eliot were ready to defend the book publicly. Mencken read the Paris edition, and sent an encouraging note to Miller: "I read Tropic of Cancer a month ago.
It seems to me to be a really excellent piece of work, and I so reported to the person who sent it to me. Of this, more when we meet. Stevenson 6Thorsen was undoubtedly a part of a generation and an artistic community that sought to bring fundamental change to the society they lived in, yet intrinsic within this is the need to follow an individual path, to break away from the collective movement that provided his impetus.
Stevenson is right when he describes Thorsen as non-doctrinal and as seeing sex as an affirmation of freedom and selfhood, and these observations could just as easily be applied to Miller.
After decades of censorship in both America and the United Kingdom, his most famous and controversial work Tropic of Cancer was finally published in his homeland in The s would be the decade in which Miller was feted around the world; he was invited to be on the jury at Cannes in , he appeared at the Edinburgh World Writers Conference in and the remainder of his back catalogue had been published in America by , including his novella Quiet Days in Clichy The question must surely be how did this world renowned writer come to collaborate with an underground, avant- garde film maker from Denmark?
The answer must surely lie in their shared belief that sex was a joyous, free act that had become a tool by which capitalism controlled and manipulated gender relations.
Rather than the reciprocal and revelatory experience that both believed it to be, sex had become commodified and commercialized into the institution of marriage and the accompanying consumerism that was a prerequisite to gaining sex.
Leaving aside the admittedly problematic notion of pornography as somehow a means by which to subvert said institutions, both Thorsen and Miller sought a return to what they believed was a more natural and fair sexual arena, where men and women gave sex freely without inhibition or hope of financial or societal reward.
Miller was never a joiner of political, artistic or religious groups; his belief system was fundamentally Zen Buddhist, and he placed the responsibility for change purely within the individual. Thorsen also goes his own way; he flits in and out of artistic groups as it suits him and he was hardly a doctrinal member of the SI, although I would argue that their ideological influence are clearly manifest in his work, if filtered through his own creative needs.
Miller and Thorsen shared many of the same fundamental beliefs regarding sex, culture and the inhibiting role of society to control the natural evolution of the individual. They spend their days and nights searching for free meals and sex. Quiet Days in Clichy is a chronicle of their bizarre sexual adventures and pursuit of food. Joey and Carl walk all over Paris, with no other compass than their hard-ons and empty stomachs. Their lives do not resemble in any way the expatriate picture postcard image of Paris.
They live a peripatetic life in a poor arrondisement rarely holding down jobs for more than a few weeks, liberated from the concerns of so-called productive members of society. Debord described the state as, The sudden change of ambiance in a street within the space of a few meters; the evident division of a city into zones of distinct psychic atmospheres; the path of least resistance that is automatically followed in aimless strolls and which has no relation to the physical contour of the terrain ; the appealing or repelling character of certain places—these phenomena all seem to be neglected.
In any case they are never envisaged as depending on causes that can be uncovered by careful analysis and turned to account. Knabb 50 11This will lead the individual to a freedom of experience generated only by his own authentic engagement with his surroundings. Thorsen shows us this in full, minute after minute of Joey walking around Paris with no destination and with no apparent progress to the plot of the film. As the streets of Paris bustle around him, Joey seems to glide above all the meaningless activity.
He does not belong with the throngs of tourists shuffling between sites of pre-determined interest, nor is he an employee governed by sequential time slots of activity. He is free to interact with the space as he wishes. The cinematography of Jesper Hom adds to the atmosphere of a city within a city, as he shot mostly around the dilapidated districts of Place de Clichy and Montmartre.
As gentrified as Montmartre has become, in the s it was still a working class district and we can see its roughness clearly. Place de Clichy remains rather seedy to this day, with its proximity to the sex shows and shops of Pigalle, Thorsen and Hom capture this coarseness well. This is not the beautiful Parisian street-shots of so many films; it has a griminess that hints at the daily squalor just off the main boulevards.
It is, if anything, repellant rather than attractive, but insidiously repellent, like vice itself. There are little bars filled almost exclusively with whores, pimps, thugs and gamblers, which, no matter if you pass them up a thousand times, finally suck you in and claim you as a victim.
And as the grapplings and cavortings get more playful—and downright infantile—the music gets friskier. The picture gets more redundant and even dull. However, during one sequence, when Valjean escorts a toothsome favorite to the countryside, the sound track does hold a philosophical musing on sexuality and time that is interesting, earthbound Miller. And the one really solid thing about the picture is its Parisian stamp, with the camera grainily scouring byways and burrowing deep into small cafes and shops.
Thomson 14Thomson seems to prefer the film version of Tropic of Cancer , which I find rather surprising. I would argue that the criticisms he levels at Quiet Days in Clichy—the mundane sex scenes, bad acting and lack of depth—could just as easily be levelled at Tropic of Cancer, arguably a much harder novel to do justice to on film.
Thomson has failed to comprehend the film as using SI concepts to engage with the original text in an innovative way, although it is debatable what worth Thomson sees in Miller himself: The picture is funny—just once—when the two men have an uneasy showdown with the parents of a year-girl, a dimwit of Gibraltar durability.
Thomson 15One could also argue that this was a more sophisticated version of techniques Thorsen had employed in the past. The previous year he had made the montage-orientated Viet Nam Nam, which starts with the initial frame countdown followed by a collage of various heads of state ending with a picture of Ho Chi Minh, exploding. This can take the form of recognizable art or advertising being remade to express views that are contrary and antagonistic to the original.
The fact that such a familiar image reflects a new and subversive message shocks the viewer into a reaction.
At that time I was given a table projector, so I sat editing together clips from the cinema—and whatever else I could get my hands on. At a place called Fagfoto you could actually buy old film clips. Most of my experimental films are based on pre-existing material. Production of that kind of film really picked up when we began mounting film festivals We really wanted to make something that was outside the frame, but in fact it intensified our interest in the popular, something everyone could use, some material known to everyone—archetypal….
Krarup and Norrested 20Thus by the time Thorsen came to make Quiet Days in Clichy he was well versed both in the philosophical and technical processes he wished to use. The role of Colette is especially problematic as there is something very distasteful about watching a balding, middle-aged man using an apparently underage girl she is 14 years old in the novel as a sexual plaything.
Colette is not a fully fleshed out character in either the novel or the film, in fact none of the female characters are. She is represented as only good for sex and housework, the latter of which she is mocked for as being too stupid to do effectively.
Thorsen has no problem showing an actress who looks like a young teenager engaged in a sexual relationship with a much older man. Sex has become a commodity like any other object within advanced capitalism; it has to be classified and approved by society before it can be deemed acceptable.
Colette chooses to live with and engage in sexual relations with both Carl and Joey; the fact that she is a minor in the eyes of the law has no relevance to the men. The film refuses to disguise the nature of the sexual relationship, x rejecting the right of advanced capitalist society to commodify and delegitimize sex which is given and enjoyed freely.
Free will triumphs over legally mandated constructs regarding sexuality. This is life lived authentically and pleasure taken at first hand rather than through the prism of capitalist sanctioned enjoyment. As problematic as this may seem to a contemporary audience, and I would imagine it was challenging in too; it demands that viewers ask themselves questions regarding their preconceived ideas of the fetishization of female sexuality and childhood in general.
The reader never learns her name and it is debatable if Joey and Carl ever take the trouble to find out. This character is clearly in a vulnerable position and Joey and Carl take full advantage whilst acknowledging the crossing of ethical, if not criminal, boundaries: She returned our greeting as if in a trance.
She seemed to remember our faces but had obviously forgotten where or when we had met She accepted our company as she would have accepted the company of anyone who happened along.
Miller 31 25The woman is clearly not of sound mind with both men at different times calling her schizophrenic, a goofy, out of her mind, in a trance and sleepwalking. She accompanies them to their apartment without ever asking where they are taking her and upon arrival announces that she needs Francs for rent and will have sex with both men to get it. In the novel she writes poetry as she has sex with both men, never acknowledging in any way what is being done to her.
In the film she disappears into the bathroom to write her poetry on the walls whilst naked and seems to be having some kind of violent fit as Carl has sex with her, only for Joey to pour water over her. This act seems to return her to reality and she excuses herself and leaves. In an instant I had a tremendous erection. I got up and shoved my prick inside her.
I turned her around, got it in front wise and, lifting her off her feet, I dragged her over to the bed. Carl pounced on her immediately, grunting like a wild boar. I let him have his fill, and then I let her have it again from the rear. When it was over she asked for some wine, and while I was filling her glass she began to laugh.
The 100 best novels: No 59: Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller (1934)
It was a weird laugh, like nothing I had ever heard before. Just look at it! There is no attention to the urgent problems of the moment, above all no politics in the narrower sense. Our eyes are directed to Rome, to Byzantium, to Montparnasse, to Mexico, to the Etruscans, to the Subconscious, to the solar plexus — to everywhere except the places where things are actually happening.
When one looks back at the twenties, nothing is queerer than the way in which every important event in Europe escaped the notice of the English intelligentsia. The Russian Revolution, for instance, all but vanishes from the English consciousness between the death of Lenin and the Ukraine famine — about ten years.
Throughout those years Russia means Tolstoy, Dostoievsky, and exiled counts driving taxi-cabs. Italy means picture-galleries, ruins, churches, and museums — but not Black-shirts. Germany means films, nudism, and psychoanalysis — but not Hitler, of whom hardly anyone had heard till Literature was supposed to consist solely in the manipulation of words.
To judge a book by its subject matter was the unforgivable sin, and even to be aware of its subject matter was looked on as a lapse of a taste. In one way or another the tendency of all the writers in this group is conservative. Pound seems to have plumped definitely for Fascism, at any rate the Italian variety.
It is also noticeable that most of the writers in this group have a certain tenderness for the Catholic Church, though not usually of a kind that an orthodox Catholic would accept. The mental connexion between pessimism and a reactionary outlook is no doubt obvious enough.
What is perhaps less obvious is just why the leading writers of the twenties were predominantly pessimistic. Why always the sense of decadence, the skulls and cactuses, the yearning after lost faith and impossible civilizations? Was it not, after all, because these people were writing in an exceptionally comfortable epoch? People with empty bellies never despair of the universe, nor even think about the universe, for that matter.
The whole period was a prosperous one, and even the war years were physically tolerable if one happened to be a non-combatant in one of the Allied countries.
As for the twenties, they were the golden age of the rentier-intellectual, a period of irresponsibility such as the world had never before seen. The war was over, the new totalitarian states had not arisen, moral and religious tabus of all descriptions had vanished, and the cash was rolling in.
It was an age of eagles and of crumpets, facile despairs, backyard Hamlets, cheap return tickets to the end of the night. In some of the minor characteristic novels of the period, books like Told by an Idiot, the despair-of-life reaches a Turkish-bath atmosphere of self-pity.
And even the best writers of the time can be convicted of a too Olympian attitude, a too great readiness to wash their hands of the immediate practical problem. They see life very comprehensively, much more so than those who come immediately before or after them, but they see it through the wrong end of the telescope. Not that that invalidates their books, as books.
The first test of any work of art is survival, and it is a fact that a great deal that was written in the period has survived and looks like continuing to survive. But quite Suddenly, in the years , something happens.
The literary climate changes. Suddenly we have got out of the twilight of the gods into a sort of Boy Scout atmosphere of bare knees and community singing. The typical literary man ceases to be a cultured expatriate with a leaning towards the Church, and becomes an eager-minded schoolboy with a leaning towards Communism. This book is, of course, written entirely from the angle of the younger group and takes the superiority of their standards for granted.
The whole poetry, on the other hand, of Auden, Spender, and Day Lewis implies that they have desires and hatreds of their own and, further, that they think some things ought to be desired and others hated. And again: The poets of New Signatures have swung back. Then first requirement is to have something to say, and after that you must say it as well as you can. Still, it is broadly true that in the twenties the literary emphasis was more on technique and less on subject matter than it is now.
As before, I am lumping them together simply according to tendency. Obviously there are very great variations in talent. But when one compares these writers with the Joyce-Eliot generation, the immediately striking thing is how much easier it is to form them into a group. The outstanding writers of the twenties were of very varied origins, few of them had passed through the ordinary English educational mill incidentally, the best of them, barring Lawrence, were not Englishmen , and most of them had had at some time to struggle against poverty, neglect, and even downright persecution.
On the other hand, nearly all the younger writers fit easily into the public-school-university-Bloomsbury pattern. It is significant that several of the writers in this group have been not only boys but, subsequently, masters at public schools. No doubt there is an element of parody that he intends, but there is also a deeper resemblance that he does not intend. And of course the rather priggish note that is common to most of these writers is a symptom, of release.
The prophetic side of Marxism, for example, is new material for poetry and has great possibilities. We are nothing Into the dark and shall be destroyed. Think though, that in this darkness We hold the secret hub of an idea Whose living sunlit wheel revolves in future years outside. Spender, Trial of a Judge But at the same time, by being Marxized literature has moved no nearer to the masses.
Even allowing for the time-lag, Auden and Spender are somewhat farther from being popular writers than Joyce and Eliot, let alone Lawrence. As before, there are many contemporary writers who are outside the current, but there is not much doubt about what is the current.
And the movement is in the direction of some rather ill-defined thing called Communism. Between and the Communist Party had an almost irresistible fascination for any writer under forty. For about three years, in fact, the central stream of English literature was more or less directly under Communist control.
How was it possible for such a thing to happen? It is better to answer the second question first. The Communist movement in Western Europe began, as a movement for the violent overthrow of capitalism, and degenerated within a few years into an instrument of Russian foreign policy.
This was probably inevitable when this revolutionary ferment that followed the Great War had died down. In England, for instance, it is obvious that no such feeling has existed for years past. The pathetic membership figures of all extremist parties show this clearly. It is, only natural, therefore, that the English Communist movement should be controlled by people who are mentally sub-servient to Russia and have no real aim except to manipulate British foreign policy in the Russian interest.
Of course such an aim cannot be openly admitted, and it is this fact that gives the Communist Party its very peculiar character. The more vocal kind of Communist is in effect a Russian publicity agent posing as an international socialist. It is a pose that is easily kept up at normal times, but becomes difficult in moments of crisis, because of the fact that the U. Alliances, changes of front etc. Every Communist is in fact liable at any moment to have to alter his most fundamental convictions, or leave the party.
The unquestionable dogma of Monday may become the damnable heresy of Tuesday, and so on.
Full text issues
This has happened at least three times during the past ten years. It follows that in any Western country a Communist Party is always unstable and usually very small. Its long-term membership really consists of an inner ring of intellectuals who have identified with the Russian bureaucracy, and a slightly larger body of working-class people who feel a loyalty towards Soviet Russia without necessarily understanding its policies.
In the English Communist Party was a tiny, barely legal organization whose main activity was libelling the Labour Party. But by the face of Europe had changed, and left-wing politics changed with it. Hitler had risen to power and begun to rearm, the Russian five-year plans had succeeded, Russia had reappeared as a great military power.
This meant that the English or French Communist was obliged to become a good patriot and imperialist — that is, to defend the very things he had been attacking for the past fifteen years. The Comintern slogans suddenly faded from red to pink. The Fascism-democracy dogfight was no doubt an attraction in itself, but in any case their conversion was due at about that date.
It was obvious that laissez-faire capitalism was finished and that there had got to be some kind of reconstruction; in the world of it was hardly possible to remain politically indifferent. But why did these young men turn towards anything so alien as Russian Communism? Why should writers be attracted by a form of socialism that makes mental honesty impossible?
The explanation really lies in something that had already made itself felt before the slump and before Hitler: middle-class unemployment. Unemployment is not merely a matter of not having a job. Most people can get a job of sorts, even at the worst of times. The trouble was that by about there was no activity, except perhaps scientific research, the arts, and left-wing politics, that a thinking person could believe in.
Who now could take it for granted to go through life in the ordinary middle-class way, as a soldier, a clergyman, a stockbroker, an Indian Civil Servant, or what-not? And how many of the values by which our grandfathers lived could not be taken seriously? Patriotism, religion, the Empire, the family, the sanctity of marriage, the Old School Tie, birth, breeding, honour, discipline — anyone of ordinary education could turn the whole lot of them inside out in three minutes.
But what do you achieve, after all, by getting rid of such primal things as patriotism and religion? You have not necessarily got rid of the need for something to believe in. There had been a sort of false dawn a few years earlier when numbers of young intellectuals, including several quite gifted writers Evelyn Waugh, Christopher Hollis, and others , had fled into the Catholic Church. It is significant that these people went almost invariably to the Roman Church and not, for instance, to the C.
They went, that is, to the Church with a world-wide organization, the one with a rigid discipline, the one with power and prestige behind it. Perhaps it is even worth noticing that the only latter-day convert of really first-rate gifts, Eliot, has embraced not Romanism but Anglo-Catholicism, the ecclesiastical equivalent of Trotskyism. But I do not think one need look farther than this for the reason why the young writers of the thirties flocked into or towards the Communist Party.
If was simply something to believe in. Here was a Church, an army, an orthodoxy, a discipline. Here was a Fatherland and — at any rate since or thereabouts — a Fuehrer.
All the loyalties and superstitions that the intellect had seemingly banished could come rushing back under the thinnest of disguises. Patriotism, religion, empire, military glory — all in one word, Russia. Father, king, leader, hero, saviour — all in one word, Stalin.
God — Stalin. The devil — Hitler. Heaven — Moscow. Hell — Berlin. All the gaps were filled up. It is the patriotism of the deracinated But there is one other thing that undoubtedly contributed to the cult of Russia among the English intelligentsia during these years, and that is the softness and security of life in England itself. With all its injustices, England is still the land of habeas corpus, and the over-whelming majority of English people have no experience of violence or illegality.
Nearly all the dominant writers of the thirties belonged to the soft-boiled emancipated middle class and were too young to have effective memories of the Great War.
To people of that kind such things as purges, secret police, summary executions, imprisonment without trial etc. They can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism. But to-day the struggle. To-day the deliberate increase in the chances of death, The conscious acceptance of guilt in the necessary murder; To-day the expending of powers On the flat ephemeral pamphlet and the boring meeting.
All very edifying. It could only be written by a person to whom murder is at most a word. Personally I would not speak so lightly of murder. Therefore I have some conception of what murder means — the terror, the hatred, the howling relatives, the post-mortems, the blood, the smells. To me, murder is something to be avoided.
So it is to any ordinary person. The warmongering to which the English intelligentsia gave themselves up in the period was largely based on a sense of personal immunity. The attitude was very different in France, where the military service is hard to dodge and even literary men know the weight of a pack.
The first part of the book, is, more or less, an evaluation of present-day literature. It is interesting to notice that among prose-writers her admires chiefly those specialising in violence — the would-be tough American school, Hemingway, etc.
The latter part of the book, however, is autobiographical and consists of an account, fascinatingly accurate, of life at a preparatory school and Eton in the years It is the theory that the experiences undergone by boys at the great public schools are so intense as to dominate their lives and to arrest their development. When you read the second sentence in this passage, your natural impulse is to look for the misprint. But no, not a bit of it!
He means it! And what is more, he is merely speaking the truth, in an inverted fashion. To nearly all the writers who have counted during the thirties, what more has ever happened than Mr Connolly records in Enemies of Promise?
It is the same pattern all the time; public school, university, a few trips abroad, then London. Hunger, hardship, solitude, exile, war, prison, persecution, manual labour — hardly even words.
They were so gloriously incapable of understanding what it all meant. By the whole of the intelligentsia was mentally at war. The thing that, to me, was truly frightening about the war in Spain was not such violence as I witnessed, nor even the party feuds behind the lines, but the immediate reappearance in left-wing circles of the mental atmosphere of the Great War. The very people who for twenty years had sniggered over their own superiority to war hysteria were the ones who rushed straight back into the mental slum of All the familiar wartime idiocies, spy-hunting, orthodoxy-sniffing Sniff, sniff.
Are you a good anti-Fascist? Before the end of the Spanish war, and even before Munich, some of the better of the left-wing writers were beginning to squirm. Neither Auden nor, on the whole, Spender wrote about the Spanish war in quite the vein that was expected of them. Since then there has been a change of feeling and much dismay and confusion, because the actual course of events has made nonsense of the left-wing orthodoxy of the last few years.
But then it did not need very great acuteness to see that much of it was nonsense from the start. There is no certainty, therefore, that the next orthodoxy to emerge will be any better than the last. On the whole the literary history of the thirties seems to justify the opinion that a writer does well to keep out of politics.
For any writer who accepts or partially accepts the discipline of a political party is sooner or later faced with the alternative: toe the line, or shut up. It is, of course, possible to toe the line and go on writing — after a fashion. In the future a totalitarian literature may arise, but it will be quite different from anything we can now imagine.
Literature as we know it is an individual thing, demanding mental honesty and a minimum of censorship. And this is even truer of prose than of verse. It is probably not a coincidence that the best writers of the thirties have been poets. The atmosphere of orthodoxy is always damaging to prose, and above all it is completely ruinous to the novel, the most anarchical of all forms of literature.
How many Roman Catholics have been good novelists?
Tropic of Capricorn
Even the handful one could name have usually been bad Catholics. The novel is practically a Protestant form of art; it is a product of the free mind, of the autonomous individual. No decade in the past hundred and fifty years has been so barren of imaginative prose as the nineteen-thirties. There have been good poems, good sociological works, brilliant pamphlets, but practically no fiction of any value at all.
From onwards the mental climate was increasingly against it. Anyone sensitive enough to be touched by the zeitgeist was also involved in politics. Not everyone, of course, was definitely in the political racket, but practically everyone was on its periphery and more or less mixed up in propaganda campaigns and squalid controversies.
Communists and near-Communists had a disproportionately large influence in the literary reviews. It was a time of labels, slogans, and evasions. Is it pro-Fascist? It is almost inconceivable that good novels should be written in such an atmosphere. Good novels are written by people who are not frightened. This brings me back to Henry Miller.
He does at any rate mark an unexpected swing of the pendulum. I first met Miller at the end of , 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.Late in the novel, Miller explains his artistic approach to writing the book itself, stating: Up to the present, my idea of collaborating with myself has been to get off the gold standard of literature.
At the dawn of the next world war, a plane crashes on an uncharted island, stranding a group of schoolboys. He consoles himself that Paris is far superior to America, which he sees as the land of lawn mowers and selfish rabbis and priests. As a novel, Tropic of Cancer is far inferior to Ulysses. All very edifying.
The leisures and luxuries gained from capitalism can only be consumed: there is more free time, choice, and opportunity, but the commodity form in which everything appears serves only to reproduce the alienated relations of capitalist production. The Distinction of Fiction. And the whole atmosphere of the poor quarters of Paris as a foreigner sees them — the cobbled alleys, the sour reek of refuse, the bistros with their greasy zinc counters and worn brick floors, the green waters of the Seine, the blue cloaks of the Republican Guard, the crumbling iron urinals, the peculiar sweetish smell of the Metro stations, the cigarettes that come to pieces, the pigeons in the Luxembourg Gardens — it is all there, or at any rate the feeling of it is there.
Moreover all his themes are adolescent — murder, suicide, unhappy love, early death. Oakland, CA: PM,