Talk:Tropic of Capricorn (novel)

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tropic of Capricorn is not an "Erotic Novel"

I would like to argue that "tropic of Cancer" is not an "Erotic Novel". There is sex in the book but the main focus in the novel is the birth of a writer and his philosophies.

I feel that by classifying the work as "Erotic Fiction" it belittles the philosophies and ideas held in the book. Trailofdead 19:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned?

I've read that this book was at one time banned from publication in English-speaking countries. The source is a fictional short story, so another source must be found before the fact can be added to the article.

The source is Arthur C Clarke's 'Patent Pending' (found in the compilation 'The Nine Billion Names of God'). Meneth (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

off/on topic call for expansion

Feel free to delete any or all of this post if it's in violation of wikipedia talk page guidelines.

Extended content

<ego>Just wanted to say that this book is so often misunderstood and mislabeled as being "sexual." People who get caught up in the sexual language used by Miller are missing the point all together. Miller is like a Zen monk pointing his finger at the moon. While readers who get caught up in the sexuality are are like (unwitting) students who have mistaken the finger for the moon at which it points; missing the celestial magnificence unfolding above them! While the novel is overtly sexual, it's also completely open ended much like 2001:A Space Odyssey. Examine what it really means, or what I really mean rather, to be "open-ended" as opposed to "close-ended." The purpose of "closed" media is to program the viewer; tell you what to think, how to think about it and impose limits or parameters on these thoughts. "Closed" media seeks to "tell" you something, focusing on the content itself, the "what" and overlooking the process or the "how" all the while doing this with a preset intent, agenda or purpose. Miller doesn't tell you how to think, what to think nor does he have an agenda, he merely offers up pointers; he points the readers in a direction. It's almost as if the entire book was written as a test of intelligence or a scan for personal power. Like the Bhagavad Gita, many people who read it find it utterly boring, nonsensical, sexual or uninspiring... yet people like Einstein and Oppenheimer were overwhelmed and tremendously inspired by the Gita. Oppenheimer went so far as to learn Sanskrit so as to read to Gita in it's original glory. It makes me wonder; is there anything special about these books themselves? or the letters, words, sentences, paragraphs and pages contained within them? Is the magnificence that Oppenheimer found with the Gita really contained in The Gita or is it a magnificence he found within himself? Maybe Oppenheimer was keen, quick and perceptive.... maybe he looked up in time...clearly, he didn't miss the celestial glory and magnificence. Maybe for him and others, The Gita was merely a finger pointing to the moon. So is it the book or reader? The content or the process? The what or the how? OK: So you've read this post. How much of what you're now thinking really originated in the content of this post itself? Who is responsible for those thoughts, your thought? Is the content of this post really what's important in your perception of it? Just how much can I, the architect of this post, sculpt the content I am leaving here for you to perceive and parse so as to point and guide you in one direction or another? Am I trying to tell you what to think, how to think, etc? Do I have an agenda or intent? The letters of these words, are they important in and of themselves or in relation to each other? The words? And so on... Does the content really matter and if so how much? Lets assume ten people read this comment before its pruned and expunged. It's possible all ten will walk away with different thoughts and feelings about it. Is this post, like Tropic of Capricorn, some arbitrary code and by parsing will it run some predefined program in your head? Is Miller responsible for the thoughts which arise in the consciousness of any and all who reads his book? Content is irreverent; process is paramount. You decide.</ego>

I wish we could find some appropriate sources to include some more information about Miller's intent as well as state of mind when writing this magnificent and often mis understood novel of novels...or even include some of his own quotes and thoughts about it... just something, anything really. This page is just yearning for more encyclopedic appropriate information!

Sorry for being out of place, off topic and personal. But most of all, thanks for listening. 0null0atzil0 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Times Change

When Tropic of Capricorn was written, it was classified as obscene. Today, the erotic content would be classified as minor and of low intensity. Today, however, Miller's remarks about blacks would justify classifying the book as racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:882A:0:BCED:B4F1:91F9:39FD (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]