Comparing Henry Miller to Charles Bukowski

[Movie Nerd]

I am currently reading Henry Miller's controversial classic TROPIC OF CANCER. Due to its sexual depictions it was banned in America upon its publication in France in 1934, and remained banned for almost thirty years. Because of this censorship, I figured I would give it a go. So far, here is my supreme opinion on the book:

The story is a blending of fact and fiction, and autobiographical novel much in the vein of Charles Bukowski's novels (with the exception of PULP). The narrator, a thinly-veiled version of Miller himself, is a young writer running around Paris, mooching off of whoever he can and essentially screwing anything that moves. He is an anti-semite, a chauvinist, and even a homophobe, despite several passages I've read so far where things get a little...homoerotic. The story is broke up into little episodes, almost little stories in and of themselves, and they vary in quality.

For me, this reads very much like Chalres Bukowski's depictions of his alter ego, Henrey Chinaski. The two big differences are this: one, Bukowski didn't go for any of that flowery, quasi-poetic crap in describing his surroundings; and two, Bukowski had ways of making you care about his hero, rather than just depicting him as a continual douchebag.

Henry Chinaski was a misanthrope who became a hateful alcoholic to deal with the abusive isolation that had been thrown upon him. Miller's character is a youthful jackass trying to live what he sees as the artist's life while getting into as much mischief and mayhem as he can. You can probably guess which one I can better sympathize with.

Now Miller's book does have segments which are beautifully written, without much unnecessary metaphor, which lead the reader to almost care for the characters. Almost. Given that I am still reading the book, I understand I have yet to give a complete opinion on it. However, I figured it to be appropriate to give a progress report, seeing as how my feelings thus far are quite strong.