I've almost gotten through Patrick French's biography of V.S.Naipaul :
The World is what it is. As it takes up no less than 499 pages in annoyingly condensed font size, hitting on it all week long does takes its toll. But this is probably the only chance i have to get this done. So here goes.
The book's key strength, as one review mentions, is the way French has cautiously kept 'Naipaul the person' and 'Naipaul the writer' distinct - and apart from a small anecdote from the first few pages - French keeps his own assessment/opinions of Naipaul out of the book.
I've never ever thought of reading any of Naipaul's works, but have always been fascinated by the aura and hype associated with him. In one sense, this book will serve as an easily digestible, condensed summary of Naipaul's books - as nearly all of Naipaul's notable works of fiction including
A House for Mr.Biswas appear to be near-completly derived from personal experience. In fact, i am quite sure that I'l probably never ever manage to read some of his racier works (For instance '
Guerillas' influenced by Black power wackos like
Micheal X**) primarily because they all revolve around themes which are pretty dated and are of absolutely no interest to me.
Most of Naipaul's driving force, writing material appears to have come from his own background, being born into an eccentric, extended hindu (Brahman) immigrant family in Trinidad and his move to England as a student after winning a scholarship to go to Oxford.
This unique combination of ethinic, geographical factors - him being a Hindu of Indian origin (but no other connection with India whatsoever), childhood experiences, his father's influence (a sort of a smalltime, failed writer), his native intelligence, the oxford education, the black influence from the Caribbean - in my opinion- put into his head this potent mix of - eccentricity, identity crisis and writing talent.
Most of his works are considered to be of very high literary quality but almost always appear to have caused much scandal, hue and cry - mostly because of, what i feel - his fuck-all, egoistic attitude, related lack of subtleness, sensitivity.
French has presented, throughout the course of the book, incisive references from other people's critique of Naipaul's writing, often quoted verbatim. One that particularly stuck to my mind, quoted from page 351:
Quote
'Naipaul is a scourge, He never relents,' wrote Joe Klein in
Mother Jones. His work 'can best be described as a literature of buggery: His main purpose seems to be the desecration of this audience.'
All the same, Klein admitted, "I, as a devoted reader, cannot resist the temptation to be ravaged'
Unquote
But what makes this book truly interesting is the truly wonderfully well done presentation of - Vidia Naipaul, the person - his eccentricity, thought processes exposed by way of excerpts from personal correspondence, his early life in Trinidad, relationships with siblings, Pat, the period he spent as a struggling writer, his publishers, his social set, his affair with Margaret, accounts of his travels across the world on writing assignments. etc..
Did you know that Naipaul probably spent more time executing writing commissions as a travelling journalist than actually writing fiction ? word-by-word he's probably written more for this genre than actual fiction.
Did you also know that Naipaul met
you know who in Africa, when the latter was just in his early twenties ? In fact, Theroux is a constant presence in this book - He appears to have treated (the mostly misanthropic, boorish) Naipaul as some sort of mentor-type figure, writing letters, reviews, seeking guidance and so on..
Theroux has of course written several books, collection of memoirs on Naipaul - most notable amongst them being '
Sir Vidia's Shadow*' (Click the link and you'll know how complex they both are, as people).
If i ever had to make a Naipaul-centric reading list - i'd probably try 'A House for Mr. Biswas', go on to his India Books and take a call from there. But for people with lesser bandwidth, this book offers a nice dose of Naipaul's writing with superbly entertaining background on the man***, the state of the world during the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, and the kinds of specific stimulus he received to make him do all the stuff he did.
*Sidetrack # 1 : There is a section in this book, where French compares Theroux's distorted description (from 'Sir Vidia's Shadow') of a specific lunch party hosted by Naipaul and his wife (Which Theroux was invited to) - with true facts obtained from other attendees.
There are several instances where Theroux's description of the Lunch (which was claimed to be fully reporting facts) is actually factually wrong. In fact, most of the distortion appears to have been done on purpose, with full knowledge.
That leaves me smug with the satisfaction of having found factual evidence that my original theory on Theroux's writing is correct.
I've always believed that a large portion of Theroux's stuff is actually only based on a true BACKBONE - most of the facts that go along with the misanthropic humor and kink that is actually (in my humble opinion at least) considered to be Theroux's selling point is actually fictional. Not that it makes him any less fun to read.
(** Remember the Jason Statham starring Brit-pic i wrote about seeing on Emirates last year
The Bank Job - that had a bit of a side story involving the Micheal X scandal tpp..vaguely interesting. We, of course, are WAY off the subject.)
(*** I have a theory on why i find reading background / biographical fundae on blokes like Naipaul interesting. Later, maybe.)