Posted ByOld Fart on November 07, 19101 at 09:34:09:
In Reply to: with my pants down, and in other ways posted bySchwitters on November 05, 19101 at 22:57:45:
...outwardly they look the same, but essentially they're completely different.
: Opus Pistorum may be peripheral to Miller's main body of work, but the same can be said for his paintings, which display a marginal talent at best.
Perhaps, but they were an honest expression of his creative vision, not a prostitution of his talent. Their principal interest is not "in shedding some light on the author" they are works of art in their own right. Whether or not they live up to your standards is beside the point.
: The same is true of Biographies of Miller. Why would anyone read them when they can just take a spin through the Tropics again?
Why indeed? The only books on Miller that are worth reading are those written by friends and contemporaries - like Fred Perles - or by artists of stature - like Norman Mailer.
: Consuming these peripheral works broadens and sharpens our affinity for the artist.
It's precisely the opposite. Most "author" biographies are small minded hatchet jobs, or academic tomes that suck the life out of the subject and his work. If Henry Miller ever becomes "required reading" in the Universities he never attended, he will well and truly be dead.
: As for posing for pornographic pictures, I believe that probably never happened.
Perhaps it didn't. Brassai has more reason to be lying on this point than Miller, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Because, frankly, it doesn't make any difference one way or the other. This is one of those "biographical" details that shed more light on the person digging them up then on the artist or his work.
: Brassai seems to believe that Miller's use of exaggeration (and lying) in his books was a means of constructing a mythology of himself.
Again, this sheds more light on Brassai then on Miller.
: He wanted the myth to be complete with warts and all and if there weren't enough warts in real life, he'd invent a few just to round out the picture, - which is why it seems strange to me that Miller would not own up to authoring the book.
Exactly! The only two possiblities are:
1. it is NOT his work.
2: He did not CONSIDER it his work, which amounts to virtually the same thing.
Recently, some opportunist published Millers first, abortive, novel, Crazy Cock. I tried reading it. It's lousy. Miller acknowledged it's lousiness and didn't want it published. But he didn't deny he wrote it.
Reading Crazy Cock is not a very satisfying experience but I suppose some PhD candidate might find it useful in following the development of Miller as a writer.
Reading Opus Pistorum will only do what the pieces were written to do - give the salacious a cheap thrill.
Yes, I know there's such a thing as curiostity but I'm not curious about these things any more. I'm not twelve years old. When I became a man I tried to put aside childish things.
O.F.