| Achilles |
Posted
on 12-Sep-02 09:14 PM
Review of Naipaul's book of essays (The Writer and the World) in "Time". By Paul Theroux. For those among us whose admiration for Naipaul (strictly talking of the writer, not the individual) is qualified, this seems to be a more balanced review than the one in the Times (which appeared in a separate thread in Sajha earlier)
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020916-349181,00.html
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 12-Sep-02 10:03 PM
Thanks for this piece, Achilles, one really can't consume enough of Naipaul. Granted that Theroux the writer and person probably knows more about Naipaul the writer and person more than anyone on this planet, after the publication of "Sir Vidia's Shadow", one really has to question the choice of Theroux as Naipaul's reviewer. While there is no such thing as an absolutely objective review, and all reviewers color their material with their own shades of positive or negative bias -- on a continuum of such shades, one would think Theroux represented an extreme, and thus would be politely avoided. This time it's the venerable Time; last year I remember it was the equally respected, left-leaning Guradian from London. I wouldn't go as far as seeing this as an ingrained journalistic instinct for sensation, but it is choices like this that really re-enforces a truism that newspapers are after all published primarily to make profits. Any value-addition to wisdom is bonus.
So Theroux's thesis here is -- Naipaul used to "be", "think", and "write" differently before he was co-opted by Her Majesty's attention and the "Swedish Lottery". He used to "enmesh" himself in all sort of details, now he is "detached"; he used to be "distrusting, opinionated, sermonizing", now he his busy addressing august gatherings at the Manhattan Institute. Even the rare good thing he says is borrowed, that VSN has been "consistent in his crustiness".
It baffles me why Theroux just ignores a most basic and simple point: maybe people just grow up. And become old!
I like Theroux the travel writer (haven't read any of his novels) in his own right -- but when he reduces himself to being a reviewer of a former ally, he is a bitter man writing bitterly. Would have been good if he at least tried to make that not very obvious. Because Naipaul the snob, Naipaul the bitter man, also happens to be a literary genius; and he deserves a fairer hearing.
|
