"Mr. Naipaul’s writing about Africa drew criticism from many who were unsettled by his portraits of Africans.... He was also criticized for his unflattering portrayals of women.... He visited Iran, Pakistan and Malaysia in the late 1970s, when they were witnessing a rise in political power and Islamic fundamentalism. His first travelogue, 'Among the Believers,' was published in 1981. A sequel, 'Beyond Belief,' followed in 1998. He started his inquiry, he later explained, by asking simple questions: To what extent had 'people who lock themselves away in belief shut themselves away from the active, busy world?' 'To what extent without knowing it' were they 'parasitic on that world'? And why did they have 'no thinkers to point out to them where their thoughts and their passion had led them?' The books are grounded in Mr. Naipaul’s belief that Islamic societies lead to tyranny, which he essentially attributed to a flaw in Islam, that it 'offered no political or practical solution.' 'It offered only the faith,' he wrote. These books were harshly criticized...."
From "V.S. Naipaul, Who Explored Colonialism Through Unsparing Books, Dies at 85" (NYT).
४३ टिप्पण्या:
Rest in peace.
Naipaul is essential, and was acknowleged as such in his time.
But the world grew stupid faster than he grew old.
Truth and honesty are not welcome these days.
Accusing guilt to justify murder and theft becomes a trap without an atonement sacrifice to forgive and rehabilitate the accused. They must turn to internecine murder and theft.Sunni v. Shia is much crueler than mere infidel hunting.
Ah yes, poor Women. We mustn't write "Unflattering" things about them.
The poor babies should be infantry officers and President, but they have delicate feelings.
“books are grounded in Mr. Naipaul’s belief that Islamic societies lead to tyranny....”
The results are in. Tyranny confirmed.
Those people will never change; beyond hope. We’ve now got our own oil and gas
so screw them.
Wait! Barack and Ben gave them billions to build nukes. Who’s side was Barack on? Or was he a total idiot? Or billions in a Swiss bank account from Mr. Chicago?
A Bend in the River is a great novel.
However, it is "unflattering" about various groups of people.
I'd suggest liberals/Leftists avoid it & instead read "To Kill a Mockingbird" for the 100th time.
Wouldn't want to upset the little dears.
The truest successor to Joseph Conrad, as a global novelist in English.
Like Conrad he learned English as a foreign tongue.
Both could look at a situation and describe it in minute detail, sparing nothing, the complete truth, pitiless.
Like Conrad, Naipaul drew from life.
He wrote "A Bend in the River" from life, describing precisely what he observed.
I have found that most quibblers about ABITR tiptoe around it and avoid engaging the work, spending their fire instead on its fans.
"Islamic societies lead to tyranny, which he rightly attributed to a flaw in Islam"
FIFY
It brings to mind the Egyptian novel “The Yacoubian Building.”
"To what extent had 'people who lock themselves away in belief shut themselves away from the active, busy world?' 'To what extent without knowing it' were they 'parasitic on that world'? And why did they have 'no thinkers to point out to them where their thoughts and their passion had led them?' "
If you read about the Pilgrims and the Puritans it makes no sense to say that they "shut themselves away from the active, busy world." Their efforts led to the rise of parliament, the assembly of the people, as ruler rather than King. And, as colonials, they founded the US. Far from being "parasitic on the world" most of what they did was in opposition to those around them and only carried through by depending on God's grace as they said at the time. For example, here is Bradford, the Governor of Plymouth plantation loking back in about 1635 and describing the situation in 1629 as the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts:
"But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half-amazed at this poor people’s present condition; and so, I think will the reader too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation ... they had now no friends to welcome them, nor inns to entertain or refresh their weather-beaten bodies, no houses or much less towns to repair too, to seek for succor. It is recorded in scripture as a mercy to the apostle & his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them ... were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise. And for the season it was winter, and they that know the winters of that country know them to be sharp & violent, & subject to cruel & fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous & desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts & wild men? and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah, to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way so ever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a weather-beaten face; and the whole country, full of woods & thickets, represented a wild & savage hue.
If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed, and was now as a main bar & gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. ... Let it also be considered what weak hopes of supply & succor they left behind them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trials they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections & love of their brethren at Leyden was cordial & entire towards them, but they had little power to help them, or themselves; ...
What could now sustain them but the spirit of God & his grace?
May not & ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and he heard their voice, and looked on their adversity, &c. Let them therefore praise the Lord, because he is good, & his mercies endure forever. Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, shew how he hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry, & thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them. Let them confess before the Lord his loving kindness, and his wonderful works before the sons of men.
An interesting point, perhaps.
In my experience neither Conrad nor Naipaul appeal, even a bit, to women.
Their fans are men.
I think it was in Bend in the River where the main character inherited a family slave, freed him, only to be followed into the interior by the guy demanding to be supported as as slave. In Africa.
Lol.
We’ve now got our own oil and gas, so screw them.
Exactly. That might be behind some of the mysterious forces backing the Administrative State.
Islam is a universal religion, and similar to Pro-Choice avoids reconciliation. When wedded to a left-wing ideology, it becomes a minority cause to oppress the majority through the scalpel, and a has a similar body count to secular (e.g. atheist) regimes.
The chief reason the Pilgrims survived was the assistance of the man they called Squanto. He was kidnapped from the exact place in which the Pilgrims settled and taken to be sold into slavery in Spain. But the Spanish were totally opposed to kidnapping Indians from coastal areas and selling them into slavery. It was illegal. They only recognized bringing an Indian to Europe in order to teach him the language so that he could function as an ambassador between a tribe and the Europeans. And so Squanto was sold to an Englishman who took him to England for the purpose of teaching him English so that he, an Indian from a northern coastal tribe could be an ambassador between the English fishermen and the coastal tribes near the Grand Banks and other northern fisheries. After three years training in England he was sent to Newfoundland for this purpose but he did not stay there. In 1630 in the early spring, he made his way from there to Plymouth, Massachusetts which was founded on the site of his own former village. In his absence this village was entirely wiped out by disease and the Pilgrims were building houses there near the cleared fields left by his lost tribe. He then showed the Pilgrims how to plant corn so that they had no reason to attack the Indians for food and he acted as an interpreter for them with the neighboring tribes, negotiating a peace treaty and smoothing over difficulties. He was the ambassador he was sent to be. From him the Pilgrims learned how to survive in New England, from the Pilgrims the Puritans learned these skills and survived to found Massachusetts. We know he was kidnapped and we know why he was returned and we know what he did. His thoughts we do not know.
In "Among the Believers" written more than 30 years ago, Naipaul noted the utter disconnect between the Islamic world's desire to own electronic products that allowed them to see and hear recordings and music they treasured --- and at the same time to be oblivious to the qualities and characteristics of societies that could invent, manufacture and distribute such products.
Apparently that remains the same to this day.
Ask yourself: what cars, PCs, airplanes, and electronics do the Muslim world produce today?
In the past fifty years the Muslim world has patented only a few hundred product or methods. The rest of the world has patented several MILLIONS.
Face it: most of them are still wiping their asses with the hems of their robes.
buwaya said...
An interesting point, perhaps.
In my experience neither Conrad nor Naipaul appeal, even a bit, to women.
Their fans are men.
***********************************
Gosh. You think that might be because MEN are the drivers of civilization?
Ya think? YA THINK?
wildswan said...
"If you read about the Pilgrims and the Puritans it makes no sense to say that they "shut themselves away from the active, busy world."
What I read sure does. Just because they were ultimately successful doesn't change that fact about their character. They were highly disagreeable busybodies, setting off into the unknown BECAUSE they were crazy and few liked them.
"The streets are paved with gold" because GOD, they thought - yeah right.
Like the early Christian missionaries, which spread their faith across the entire world?
Crack Addled Emcee wrote: "The streets are paved with gold" because GOD, they thought - yeah right.
********************
That's so downright STUPID !!
Streets presuppose cities and towns.
Where were these 17th century "streets" in the Puritan and Pilgrim New World that were paved with **anything**???
Yet it was YOU, crack, who claimed white people lack a sense of history.
Snort.
What a dumbass.
A lot of the people who go off into the unknown aren't very pleasant.
But where would we be if everyone was stable and happy in his circumstances, and not inclined to risk suicidal ventures into unknown dangers.
How many happy men followed Columbus, or Cortez, or Pizarro?
What streets they had to built the streets yes they were dissidents fleeing an oppressive monarch.
Naipaul was an optimist.
Minnesotans are about to elect a Somali Muslim to Congress and make another Muslim its attorney general.
Naipaul sensed the dangers, of course, but did not fully articulate that the left wants our civilization to die.
Naipaul and Paul Theroux famously feuded for years. Happily they reconciled before it was too late.
Naipul was to the third world what Orwell was to Communism --an honest observer. Despite winning the Nobel Prize, he truly was a great writer. I think they only gave him the Nobel because that was the year after 9/11 and they wished to honor a writer who thumbed his nose at the Islamic world.........I haven't read any of his books in decades, but they stick with you. I can still remember scenes from A Bend In The River. If you haven't read it, it's well worth your trouble. It's scarier than anything Stephen King ever wrote.
Criticizing criticism is fine/good. If it wasn’t, you’d be against the first instance too.
But, ya gots ta have reason.
The exception is con thinking of the day, it’s always right.
P.S. Zeppearalla (sp?) gals are worth the geez......er.....golden years crowd. Moonfest 2018.
IOW more than loons in planes around these parts.
OTOH, we were just recognized. Loon behavior is human, everywhere.
IMHO.
Buwaya,
Naipul was born in Trinidad and his first language was English.
Unlike Conrad who was born in Poland and learned English as an adult.
I'm a big fan of Conrad and some of his books I've read dozens of times.
I've read a number of Naipul 's books and like the non-fiction better. Otoh, I don't think I've read any of his books twice.
John Henry
' The books are grounded in Mr. Naipaul’s belief that Islamic societies lead to tyranny, which he essentially attributed to a flaw in Islam, that it 'offered no political or practical solution.' 'It offered only the faith
Derrida on Islamic terrorism
``What appears to me unacceptable in the ``strategy'' (in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so on) of the ``bin Laden effect'' is not only the cruelty, the disregard for human life, the disrespect for the law, for women, the use of what is worst in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism. No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse _open onto no future and, in my view, have no future_. If we are to put any faith in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political scene, of the ``world'' itself, then there is, it seems to me, _nothing good_ to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly, is that all captialist and modern technoscientific forces be put in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized in even the nontheological form of sovereignty (...), none of this seems to have any place whatsoever in the discourse ``bin Laden.'' That is why, in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well I would. Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the ``international terrorist'' coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this ``coalition'' themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the ``political,'' democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth. Even if this ``in the name of'' is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal committment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don't hear any such promise coming from ``bin Laden,'' at least not one in this world.''
``Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides'' _Philosophy in a Time of Terror_ p.113
I've read The Suffrage of Elvira at least twice. A quick read, quite funny (IMHO).
rcocean: A Bend in the River is a great novel.
Second that. (I always remember the great opening line: "The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.")
As you say, that novel offended a lot of people for its unflattering portrayals. Then there's A Turn in the South (a travel book, not a novel), also good, which probably offended the same people for its rather sympathetic portrayals of Southerners.
Anyone who was perceptive enough to realized the need for a book like "Among the Believers" and talented enough to actually write it will be missed.
The only other book of his that I read was "A Turn in the South".
. . . . . the man did not suffer fools gladly.
I think the Theroux's rather crabby memoir of his friendship with Naipaul was the only instance of "celebrity gossip" I've ever allowed myself to indulge in. Can't remember anything about it but the crabbiness, though.
I always suspected that he got the literature Nobel Prize because the committee never actually read his books.
They wouldn't have liked them if they had.
R.I.P.
I read those two travel books. They are excellent: sharply and gracefully written, insightful, interesting, and unafraid.
I liked several of the novels too, especially Biswas which is quite funny.
"Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief" were highly criticized for telling the truth about Islam, the same truth we later learned from UBL.
"An interesting point, perhaps.
In my experience neither Conrad nor Naipaul appeal, even a bit, to women.
Their fans are men."
Conrad wasn't big on female characters. However, his biggest commercial success - and one of his worst from an artistic standpoint - is "Chance".
Why? Because it has a female protagonist. Flora de Barral.
I became obsessed with Conrad when at 12 saw O'Toole in Lord Jim. That tale of redemption was irresistible to this devout Southern Baptist girl. Conrad never disappointed.
Naipaul was discovered with the publication of Among the Believers, back when I read all the important books The NYT Book Review touted. I found he spoke to me. His novels were filled with people I understood and cared about, unlike the modern novels college and the NYT had told me were vital. I gobbled up his entire oeuvre until A Turn in the South. I so looked forward to reading Naipaul's view of my beloved homeland, but found that the South he saw was one I knew existed but wasn't the one I had experienced. I took joy from his Nobel.
buwaya: An interesting point, perhaps.
In my experience neither Conrad nor Naipaul appeal, even a bit, to women.
Their fans are men.
Orwell on Conrad: "One of the surest signs of his genius is that women dislike his books."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा