Candy Paperback – February 9, 1996

I have long been curious about Candy as one of a trio of famously scandalous books written before 1960. It was actually banned in a lot of places.My initial impression of the book as I was reading it was that it reminded me of a National Lampoon movie – not one of the better ones. There is a lot of sexual innuendo, though little real sex, and there is no plot. At the back of the book, in the author biographies, it was mentioned that the book was a satire of pornography and that it was based on Voltaire’s Candide. That explains so much about it. I don’t remember Candide having so much sex in it, although there was some innuendo. But I don’t remember it having much of a plot, just a lot of people running around getting into trouble. Candy fits that mold admirably.At least it was funny. The other one of the scandalous books I read, Lolita, may have had more sex, but it was otherwise very flat, tawdry, and depressing. And boring.I did notice one tiny little tickle of a theme in Candy; before her first almost-sexual encounter with her philosophy professor, she declared herself committed to the idea of giving of herself fully. And she sticks to this as sort of her life’s mission throughout her subsequent adventures. This leads me to wonder whether supposedly high-minded ideas like this (she has obviously directly absorbed this idea from the philosophy professor) are meant to encourage vulnerable students or other people to fall prey to sexual predators.

The Eisenhower era is something like the American version of the Victorian era. At least in the sense that they were both times noted for their straight-laced sexuality which encouraged writers of a certain bent toward the production of erotica. Unfortunately, most writing done to shock Puritanical readers is mainly mediocre. I would place this novel right square in the mediocre category.Writing during the late fifties and early sixties does have one quality that Victorian erotica doesn't: pretentions of significance. Supposedly a take-off on Voltaire's Candide, this novel has little of Voltaire's wit and insight. Granted, Southern and Hoffenberg hit a number of the right notes: taking Candy from the clutches of a lecherous college professor, through the quackery of a medical doctor, to single life in New York City, to a rural commune, into the hands of a spiritual guide in India. These are all low-hanging fruit of the era ripe for the plucking of a good satirist. The problem is, they very rarely give us anything really funny or clever.There are some good moments, particularly early on when Candy's indestructible naïveté is still pleasant, a few chuckles. But as the events get more outrageous, it is difficult to maintain any sort of sympathy with our protagonist since she just seems more stupid than naïve by the end. And, in this day and age, the sex in the novel is basically tame and has little shock value. That means the actual story has to hold us, and this one does not.To be honest, in my opinion, literature was really damaged in the fifties. With a few exceptions, I have found very few American novels to enjoy written between, say, 1952 - 1962. In their push to shock and break away from the expectations of the time, too many authors produced works of their time rather than timeless works. I would say the same about this one. Perhaps it spoke to people in its day, but it does not speak to me now.

When this book is funny, it's rolling on the floor funny. But, as seems to be typical with Southern's books, it's uneven. After the first chapter (the praying mantis in the eye thing), I was prepared for this to be the funniest book I had ever read. Alas! It only made me really laugh in about 4-5 places.I had never heard of this book until I read Michael Dirda, in his "An Open Book," recount how he drooled over this as a sex-starved adolescent. Since then I've discovered that virtually everybody's heard of this but me. I hate when that happens. How did this escape my radar?Anyhow, I read it. Southern is a masterful prose stylist, but it's unfortunate that this book is not unified by any coherent theme. At times his insight into female psychology is frightening, but at other times he doesn't seem to know what to do with it. Several characters (e.g., Aunt Livia) and events (the janitor mother in the service closet) should have suffered deletion, but they were kept in, resulting in a final product that seems a mismatch of tone, theme, and authorial intention. From what I read about this book, Southern was riffing on the devices of pornographic novels. But this genre is virtually extinct by now, so unless you are familiar with them from their heyday, the wit of many of his literary antics, I imagine, will be lost on you.Sure made me laugh a couple of times, though.I have heard it said, incidentally, that the book is a spin-off of Candide. Hmmmm. I think that's a bit of an overstatement. It's certainly not a re-doing of Candide. We have a good-hearted main character in the beginning who studies under a philosophizing and randy professor, and whose antics result in her expulsion from her beloved home, but the similarity pretty much ends there.

My tempered expectations made this book an enjoyable read as the pace was quick and provided hilarity in spots. It was definitely light hearted and silly while poking fun at religion and the culture of the time. Viewed through today's lens this book is not all that racy though I'm sure there are plenty currently afflicted with severe constriction of the gluteus maximus that would say otherwise. It is no surprise that books like this set off a firestorm of pushback when they appear since they no doubt become an arrow piercing the guilty conscience of some who have indulged in the same behaviors. Books like this, that are outrageous in their time, are necessary to open doors for authors that come after.

In 1759 the French author and philosopher Voltaire wrote the short story "Candide", the tale of an innocent abroad. It was actually a satire on the philiosophy of Leibniz, who claimed that since God was omniscient, omnipotent and loving, he would never make a less than perfect world; hence this world is the best of all possible worlds. The story follows the hero, Candide, as he naively holds on to this view despite all the misfortunes and abuse he suffers.Terry Southern and Mason Hoffenberg changed male Candide to female Candy and set it the peace-and-love "everything's cool, man" world of the Hippies. Oh, and added more sex and dumbed down a bit.So, it's a more accessible read for most than Voltaire's original. Worth reading - and thinking about. If you know anyone who's at risk of being drawn into a cult, get them to read the espisode about Great Grindle - it might just open their eyes!

This is a brilliant piece of work, which I first read back in the sixties. I was disappointed to find that it isn't obtainable as an e-book,which is mostly all I read these days. I may well convert it to an e-book myself to store for my personal use as it would appear thatno-one else is going to bother. It is a book one could read over again, funny and interesting all the way through. Although the themeis about a sexual journey of discovery, the sex is very tasteful and never graphic, which makes it good reading for most people.

I read this when it first came out and found it, . . . well . . . interesting. It was certainly not like anything else I had ever read, a most unique read. My partner had never read it, so I bought him a copy. He will get it for Xmas, so I have no idea what he will think. What I can say is that seller was very good. It arrived promptly and was actually in a little better condition than I expected. Well done and thank you.

I read this book about 40 years ago and enjoyed it I think it was taken out of circulation for a while but resurfaced and I bought it again

As amusing as it was when we first read it long long ago. The true warmth, so to speak. Lucky to have unearthed a copy.