To say that the study of Henry Miller's work is going through something of a renaissance would be somewhat of an exaggeration; however, in recent years it is easy to detect, at least, what could be called a reappraisal of Miller's philosophical underpinnings and an understanding of his importance in twentieth-century literature. In Henry Miller: The Inhuman Artist Indrek Manniste aims to place Miller squarely as a modernist writer, who deserves his place amongst the literary giants of modernism. By giving a very detailed account of what he means by modernism, Manniste is able to argue that Miller should be included because modernism should not be read purely as a chronological or geographical phenomenon, but rather as an overarching set of concerns and themes. The overarching themes of the disenfranchisement of modern industrial society, the role of the individual in modern civilization and the profound responsibility of the writer to expose certain truths are the main themes of Miller's life works. Surely these are themes which he unarguably shares with the greatest of the modernists?

Manniste breaks his argument down into five neat chapters, with each chapter examining key themes in Miller's work. Chapter 1 examines the influence of surrealism and Dada upon Miller, philosophically building a foundation based upon Spengler and Bergson. This chapter is perhaps the least comprehensive, with regard to Miller himself, as it attempts to cut the cloth to fit the man. The influence of the surrealists upon Miller has been well documented in other, fuller works, for example Caroline Blinder's A Self-Made Surrealist: Ideology and Aesthetics in the Works of Henry Miller (2000), or Henry Miller and the Surrealist Metaphor: Riding the Ovarian Trolley (1996) by Gay Louise Balliet. Manniste offers nothing new to this debate and at times this chapter reads more like a list of intellectual touchstones. His use of modernist writers to elaborate on his Miller hypothesis at times feels contrived. Random quotes from D. H. Lawrence and T. S. Eliot are not substantial enough to make the idea of Miller as a modernist work. The influence of Spengler et al. adds so much more flesh to the bones of this argument, yet nowhere near enough time is given to fully exploring their lasting power on Miller.

The rest of the book is on much firmer ground from a philosophical point of view, although the troublesome need to contrast Miller with leading modernists continues. Chapter 2 spends more time on showing us how dissimilar Miller is from the modernists on the subject of time and history than on showing any real similarities. Manniste is especially eloquent on Miller's concept of time and timelessness, which draws heavily upon the works of Spengler and Nietzsche. He contrasts Miller's belief in the “full present” with the “traditional present,” showing how his rejection of a linear concept of history led him to see both himself and the world around him in ways very different from the leading modernists. Much more could have been written upon Bergson's Time and Free Will (1910) and Creative Evolution (1911) and the significant role they played in Miller's understanding of time. This ahistorical approach to life is perhaps crucial to understanding Miller's work and I think the book would have been stronger for investigating it in more detail. Another odd omission is the influence of the works of the Austrian psychoanalyst Otto Rank upon Miller's notion of death and rebirth in both the historical and creative processes. Rank is crucial to Miller's development as a writer, allowing Miller to see the artistic need for breaking with his past, but also using his life experiences as material to be written about. Without this link, it is hard to understand why Miller repeatedly uses images of birth, death and stillbirths in his novels as a way to illustrate the creative process.

In Chapter 4 the author presents Miller's journey into the territory of the “inhuman artist” by making clear the differences between Miller's “human” and Nietzsche's “last man.” What are rather complex philosophical differences are explained with great finesse by Manniste, and this in many ways is one of the main strengths of this book. Manniste shows an incredibly thorough grasp of the intricacies of Miller's philosophical thought processes throughout his life. Miller was notorious for his eclectic intellectual influences, often adhering to and then discarding theories and concepts rapidly, yet Manniste is always able to help the reader see the larger picture of Miller's overall evolving destination. Again the omission of Otto Rank is odd, especially given Manniste's exploration of the notion of art as a means by which to give up the creative life, a model that Miller explored directly through his reading of Rank. However, the author is especially strong on the importance of Miller's idea of “China” as the ultimate destination and elaborates upon this in such a way that the reader cannot help but understand its significance.

This is a well-written, well-researched book that aims to place Miller as a philosophical writer, deserving of more respect than he currently receives from academia. It makes good use of the work that has been done by other Miller specialists and is absolutely representative of the high standard of analysis that Miller deserves. I, however, cannot help but think that the continual tying of Miller to modernism is the patent weakness in this book. Manniste's analysis of Miller is masterful enough to carry the book. A philosophical work on Miller's influences and evolution as a writer is long overdue and this book could have explored these ideas more effectively without the distraction of attaching it to modernism.