2001: Sir V S Naipaul

[[deleted user]]

I find him remarkable for the consistent high quality of his work. From early works like Miguel Street and A House for Mr Biswas, right through to his examination of how peoples of different faiths rub along together. All human life is in the works of V S Naipaul, and with such a range and variety, he must surely have something to interest every reader.

[Cl.]

I read The Mystic Masseur
and Miguel Street.
Like David, I enjoyed the sense of humour and insight into the minds and lives of the people of "the island". (Trinidad).

He commonly uses creole, giving the reader a feel for life in the Caribbean. I also became aware of how early world trade, conquests and colonization completely changed those islands, virtually decimating the original inhabitants, leaving behind a racial and class structure mix of Western Europeans (minority), East Indians and blacks.

And yet, given the diversity and mix of ethnic heritages, there seems to be remarkably little tension. (Although, I must admit I haven't travelled to this part of the world to experience it for myself.)

It might be interesting to compare Dereck Walccot's (Nobel prize 1992) point-of-view with Naipaul's when it comes to life in the Caribbean.

[[deleted user]]

On Sunday 29th May, at the Hay Festival 2011, I had the privilege, along with nearly a thousand other lovers of literature, of seeing Nobel Laureate Sir V S Naipaul being interviewed by Alexander Waugh. It was a strangely moving event. The interview concentrated on Naipaul’s new book Letters Between a Father and A Son. The plan of the event was sound: a general discussion of what’s in the letters, a short reading by Naipaul and then questions from the audience. The reality was somewhat different and good deal sadder. The interview started well, there was some light sparring about what was intended and then detail of Naipaul’s relationship with his father and the influence on them both of Gault MacGowan, one time editor of the Trinidad Guardian who employed Sir Vidia’s father as a reporter.

Apparently, Naipaul’s father found it difficult to find things to write about of his own volition and Naipaul had suggested that he write about his early life. This reminiscence suddenly became remarkably potent and moved Sir Vidia to tears as he recalled his father’s unwillingness to do that for fear of bringing shame on his family over a matter that today would be regarded as trivial. It was clear by the pregnant pause that followed that Naipaul was quite distressed and tears were visible below his eyes. From that point, something was lost and although he appeared to recover, his enthusiasm for the interview had dissipated. When he got to his reading, he seemed gradually to retreat within himself and went of for so long that there was no time for questions and eventually the session was concluded, not by Alexander Waugh, but by the spontaneous applause from the audience who clearly wanted to prevent further embarrassment for Sir Vidia and to allow them to get to their next event. A sad and unfortunate end to an event that had started so promisingly.

A point that fascinated me from early on was Sir Vidia’s assertion that his love of the novel as a literary form had declined since his youth, and like most men, fact becomes more important than fiction as we grow older. I know I’m happier when I have both a work of fiction and a work of fact on the bedside table at the same time.

[Omar]

David (Dafydd) wrote: "On Sunday 29th May, at the Hay Festival 2011, I had the privilege, along with nearly a thousand other lovers of literature, of seeing Nobel Laureate Sir V S Naipaul being interviewed by Alexander W..."

David, Thank you very much for sharing this poignant observation about Mr. Naipaul.

[[deleted user]]

Omar wrote: "David (Dafydd) wrote: "On Sunday 29th May, at the Hay Festival 2011, I had the privilege, along with nearly a thousand other lovers of literature, of seeing Nobel Laureate Sir V S Naipaul being int..."

Hello Omar and welcome to the group. The really big news at Hay was an apparent reconciliation between V S Naipaul and Paul Theroux. They were photographed shaking hands but I have a suspicion that this might have been a press stunt. We shall see.

[[deleted user]]

Whoops! These comments by Naipaul will ruffle a few feathers.

[Haaze]

David (Dafydd) wrote: "Whoops! These comments by Naipaul will ruffle a few feathers."

Indeed! I could not quite believe he actually said that. The comments below the article speak for themselves....

[[deleted user]]

Please post your comments on V S Naipaul's 'A Bend in the River' here.

[Haaze]

As I started reading A Bend in the River I was struck by Naipaul's ability to paint other realities. In terms of Africa he really builds am image of the numerous tidal waves that have swept over the continent over the centuries (esp. European and Arabian colonization as well as the slave trade). The thing is that he does not cover these topics in details, but rather builds the themes as undercurrents affecting the present time. As we get to learn the main characters we can sense the complex influences the past has had on the world we are experiencing. I think the novel is well crafted and the topics intriguing to think about. I feel suspended in a very different world. What are your own early impressions of the book?

[Haaze]

As I am progressing through Naipaul's book I sense a great theme of displacement (which is perhaps not too surprising considering Naipaul's background even though he claims in his Nobel speech that one cannot elucidate an author's intent based on his life). It appears as if every major character is at loss in terms of finding a specific identity. Would you agree with this statement? Are there characters that are "rooted"? Why is there such an emphasis on displacement in this novel?

[Beth]

I agree with the comments about the characters' struggles to settle into clear comfortable identities. This seems to be true of the country as well. I wrote a review of this book on my blog

[Silver]

One of the things which I am quite enjoying about this book is the feeling that this village at the bend in the river is consisted of individuals whom seem to be outcasts in someway. People that have nowhere else to go, belong to nowhere, and on the hand are not themselves truly African, and yet at the same time have been emerged into Africa and have no other home to return to.

I think you can also see how in some ways the culture itself is being somewhat displayed as the modern world comes to merge more and more into the old Africa and thus is also starting to attract more foreigners and the influences they bring.

[[deleted user]]

Silver wrote: "One of the things which I am quite enjoying about this book is the feeling that this village at the bend in the river is consisted of individuals whom seem to be outcasts in someway. People that ha..."

Yes, there is a strong sense of displacement here and, for me, is strongly reminiscent of Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'.

[Silver]

I think that Heart of Darkness is an interesting comparison, they both capture the heart of Africa in different ways.

One of the other things which I find interesting about this book is the way in which even with all the modernity and the influences of Christianity, and the Western World in considering Ferdinand's mother (the Sorceress) there seems to be the approach of better safe than sorry.

For though people like Salim may not on the surface believe in her magic, or hold with the old African religions they do not remain altogether free of the superstition and think it best not to tempt fate.

This idea in the way in which Africa can really take hold of a person and does seep into a persons soul, and cannot be completely escaped is pervasive in many works which deal with African culture. It is kind of ironic, there is so much displacement surrounding around Africa, displacement of culture, identity, religion, physical location, becasue of all the turmoil and war which surrounds it, and racial tension, and yet at the same time it seems Africa buries very deep roots in the heart of people.

Perhaps becasue it is the heart of humanity, the birthplace of man, so everyone has a touch of Africa within them, a sort of mother country that all our ancestral roots would eventually lead back to.

[Haaze]

I do not see the similarity with the Heart of Darkness. That seems to be a journey of the soul in my perception (a psychological maelstrom), while A Bend in the River appears (to me) to be more about the fate of Africa. The displacement of the characters seems to be more about the historical and political tidal waves of the past that have shaped the current nations on the continent in their dynamical pattern (positive and negative). Do the characters personalize the archetypes of the people of Africa or perhaps Africa itself?

[Silver]

I think there is a lot of identity displacement among the characters as well. The souls of the characters are tied into the fate of Africa. They are many of them, people who are both African, and yet not African, trying to find out where they fit into an Africa that itself is changing and caught between different worlds, different times. Many of the characters are also trying to discover who they themselves are or forced to take on duel personalities.

I think an interesting comparison is on considering the different photographs of the President which are discussed. He must appear both to be modern/European, the President, but at the same time he must always be an African tribal chief, traditional.

These dual struggles can be seen in many of the characters. Metty, Ferdinand, Indar. And Salim is trying to navigate this uncertain landscape, wondering where he himself fits in, and what he really wants for his own future, and where Africa will leave him.

[Haaze]

Silver,
Do you feel that Naipaul is putting forward a positive future for Africa or is he rather painting a picture of the complexity that tidal waves of history have shaped in the present? Curious about how you look at it?

[Silver]

Haaze wrote: "Silver,
Do you feel that Naipaul is putting forward a positive future for Africa or is he rather painting a picture of the complexity that tidal waves of history have shaped in the present? Curiou..."

I think that he is showing the complexity steeped within the culture of Africa, and its clashes with the Western world and the fact that there really is no simple or easy solution. I think he acknowledges the fact that the shifting atmosphere might open up for new opportunities which may come with certain benefits, while at the same time aware of the of the fact that it may also cause a deterioration of culture, which also does create a crisis of identity among the people trying to straddle these two different worlds. There are no easy solutions. There were problems in the past which needed to be corrected, doorways will no be open which were not there before, but at the same time, it has the affect of uplifting peoples roots.

[Abby]

Though just begun and only a bit into part 2, I already feel a sense of continual movement in this book. I think Mahesh describes Naipaul's vision of Africa perfectly - "we must carry on". Regardless of background or ties, all the people in any part of central or eastern Africa in the book are in a continual progression from one thing to the next. It may be revolution, or colonization, a new wave of immigrants, new slaves, new business, new lands. It's all there and everyone just keeps carrying on, despite the events around them. Naipaul describes a group of people for whom survival is life. The way they survive differs based on their background, who they want to be at the time (for example, Ferdinand's exploration of self and transformation), and the political situation that surrounds them.

The story feels almost like Salim's journal, a story that weaves all the characters in and out but each time adding depth to their beings. His narration is continual motion, just as the events in his life. It is, so far, a story of events. However, the details are enough to give a whole view of life at the bend in the river, without dragging through the particulars of everyday existence.

[Abby]

Reading Megan's insights into the book has made me wonder: what is the mark of a good author - one who describes the feelings and depths of her characters, or one who implies the feelings and depths of the characters?

With this book, I felt that the character developement was too little, with too much left to interpretation. That I felt the story a retelling of events (as many reviewers have said this book really is of post-colonial Zaire) and not a story of people left me less interested in the book overall. I had a difficult time connecting with any of the characters because the "human" element was left out a lot - the feelings, emotions, and depths of humans that really make us the people who form book clubs to discuss such things.

I suppose my question is thus - what makes an author great? And who decides?

And really, am I now forever biased towards Naipaul because of his sexist commments? Is this affecting my ability to enjoy his writing?

Ah, books...