Errata?

[Ciricola]

Early in the book, Moti convinces Mr. Biswas to retain a solicitor, Seebaran, to help him collect money from customers who owe him money. It's a small point, but isn't the word 'creditors' (it's used several times) misused by the author in the telling of this tale. Below is an overview, not written by Naipaul, that uses the term 'creditors' in like fashion in summarizing this short episode from the book. If it's an error, was it ever corrected in later editions?:

One day a small dark man
advises Mr. Biswas to retain a solicitor named Seebaran, who promises to collect all
the debts. Shama wants to ask her family about Seebaran, but Mr. Biswas insists on
independent action. He engages the solicitor, sight unseen. Threatening notices are
sent out, and the man who owes the most, Mungroo, confronts Mr. Biswas.
Several of the creditors pay their bills, but Mungroo retains a Muslim solicitor to sue
Mr. Biswas for defamation.

[Ilze]

If you still have access to the book, go to imprint page (the one with the ©, etc.) and why not write to the publisher? They might well appreciate your comments.

[Ciricola]

Ilze wrote: "If you still have access to the book, go to imprint page (the one with the ©, etc.) and why not write to the publisher? They might well appreciate your comments."

I have written to the publisher and received a reply to my general inquiry; I then followed up with my specific concern as described above.

It will be interesting if they follow up on this (small) matter. The book was first published in 1961.

[Ilze]

How interesting!

What did the publisher say? I mean, did they take you up on it?

[Ciricola]

Ilze wrote: "How interesting!

What did the publisher say? I mean, did they take you up on it?"

A representative for Macmillan & Co., UK wrote and stated that whatever question I had regarding this title (A House for Mr. Biswas), I should email to her/him. So I promptly forwarded my query regarding the usage of the word 'creditor' (as explained above)

[Ciricola]

It would be nice if Naipaul himself were contacted.

[Anar]

Ciricola wrote: "Early in the book, Moti convinces Mr. Biswas to retain a solicitor, Seebaran, to help him collect money from customers who owe him money. It's a small point, but isn't the word 'creditors' (it's us..."

Ok, so my take on it is that in the 60's it was quite common to use the word creditors for those who owed you money. You have to remember that the idea of debit and credit cards is more recent perhaps the early 70's? And the terms took on different meanings. So the way that Naipaul has used the term is ok given the context of the time period. Hope this makes sense :-) Of course I could be completely wrong about this...

[Shashank]

This is how language evolves. You must not over look the fact that this is one of Naipaul's early works. I feel that the word, "creditors" can be used without causing any consternation. Stop nitpicking and enjoy the masterpiece!

[Shona]

Anar wrote: "Ciricola wrote: "Early in the book, Moti convinces Mr. Biswas to retain a solicitor, Seebaran, to help him collect money from customers who owe him money. It's a small point, but isn't the word 'cr..."

I think you're right.