• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

V.S.Naipaul

P

PimpinAintEasy

New Member
Any fans of this great controversial man? I finished A HOUSE FOR MR.BISWAS today. As an Indian I could identify with a lot of the characters and their circumstances in the novel. It is easy to dismiss Naipaul as a vicious man who was looking down upon his own culture. In doing so, Naipaul reveals so much about Hindu culture and Indian life that I used to take for granted.

His non-fiction work is also tremendously entertaining and helped middle class Indians like me understand what was going on in my country and why it is the way it is.

Naipaul recently said that he was great at finding the flaws in people from his childhood onwards.
 
I had read the book almost two years ago, and at that time, I did find Mohan Biswas, a cynical man, who did not care for relations, a very selfish man indeed, who was ready to blame the whole world for his losses. But, as I finished the novel, the same man had earned my genuine sympathy.

The moment when Mohan fell in love, is perhaps the best part of he novel, showing that often bitterness is only a mask to conceal your weaknesses.

Though, as an Indian, I would not give any credit to Naipaul as a representator or facilitator of Indian culture, in fact the only thing I did not like in the book, was the strange accent and incorrect English, he forced upon the natives. For knowing more about Indian culture, Rabindranath Tagore, R.K. Narayan and even Chitralekha Banerjee are much better options IMHO
 
anu said:
I had read the book almost two years ago, and at that time, I did find Mohan Biswas, a cynical man, who did not care for relations, a very selfish man indeed, who was ready to blame the whole world for his losses. But, as I finished the novel, the same man had earned my genuine sympathy.

The moment when Mohan fell in love, is perhaps the best part of he novel, showing that often bitterness is only a mask to conceal your weaknesses.

Though, as an Indian, I would not give any credit to Naipaul as a representator or facilitator of Indian culture, in fact the only thing I did not like in the book, was the strange accent and incorrect English, he forced upon the natives. For knowing more about Indian culture, Rabindranath Tagore, R.K. Narayan and even Chitralekha Banerjee are much better options IMHO
Click to expand...

Hello Anu, I have not read any Tagore. I read most of SWAMI AND FRIENDS but could not finish it. What do you think about Naipaul's controversial opinions on Indian writers in English? He said they did not know much except their friends and workplace. I have not read much of Indian writing in English to make a comment.
 
Mr.Biswas was a tragic character. Naipaul felt that Hindus believed the whole word was magic and entered a world of imagination instead of facing up to reality and taking care of problems.

I found the parts where Biswas compared himself to the characters (Samuel Smiles
) in his favorite novels to be hilarious. I could identify with that.

My favorite part of the novel was when the family went to the holiday home of Mohan's boss and experienced the kind of life lived by full people. That was wonderful. While I was reading the book, I wondered how Naipaul could write about his own father's life with such cruel humor.
 
I have only read one book by Naipaul, so I can't really comment on why he has such a downgraded opinion of the other Indian writers. Though, I personally feel that it is not at all wrong to write about the things, emotiins or subjects one is familiar with, be it work place or friends or a huge treatise on culture and traditions or just negative emotions one has accumulated in years.

There are indeed writers who continuously churn out lovestories and pulp fiction, but there is no dearth of serious writers in India, who understand the underlying problems of an individual and the society in general. Rohinton Mistry is one such. His A Fine Balance is one of the best books I have read that made me laugh and cry by turns. And, speaking of Indian writers, I think, the regional writers here have a very earthy quality, especially Premchand. His Kayakalp beautifully exhibited the transition, we all undergo as we gain more experience. Right now, I am reading Godan by Premchand, another take on the mentality of poor and rich, showing that despite glaring differences among different strat, al of them actually yearn for a fulfilment in life, that deludes most of us jist like Mr. BISWAS.

Kishore Thukral, Amitav Ghosh, Chitra Banerjee, Kiran Desai, Anita Desai are a few of the writers whoae books seemed quite off beat to me. If Amitav blended folklore with modernity in Hungry Tide, Kishore Thukral created an entire fictional utopian world in his Chronicler's Daughter, Anita Desai portrayednemotions of women wonderfully well in her Fasting Feasting, and gave the emotions of men a sacrosanct place in her Baumgartner's Bombay. Chitra reinterpreted character of Draupadi in Palace of Illusions while kiran Desai entertained immensely woth her take on a socially inept clerk in Hullabaloo in Guava Orchard.

Having read these and many other well crafted books, I fail to understand Naipaul's take on Indian writers. Perhaps it is easier to derode others and establish superiority rather than toiling hard to create a masterpiece.
 
I have only read one book by Naipaul, so I can't really comment on why he has such a downgraded opinion of the other Indian writers. Though, I personally feel that it is not at all wrong to write about the things, emotiins or subjects one is familiar with, be it work place or friends or a huge treatise on culture and traditions or just negative emotions one has accumulated in years.
Click to expand...

Hi Anu, I think Naipaul felt that Indians are generally a lazy people who are not interested in their country and would not conduct any kind of social inquiry.He said that most Indians do not have a clue why their country is the way it is. He also said that Indian intellectuals borrow ideas from the West and apply it to their own societies. According to him India is a different kind of country and it is not a very good idea to look at India through Western ideas. I recommend reading his India trilogy - AN AREA OF DARKNESS, A WOUNDED CIVILIZATION and A MILLION MUTINIES NOW. They provide a lot of insight into why India is the way it is. They are very provocative - one reviewer said that Naipaul's honesty was terrifying.

I have not read any of the writers mentioned in your post. Though I have heard a lot about Mistry and Ghosh.

Having read these and many other well crafted books, I fail to understand Naipaul's take on Indian writers. Perhaps it is easier to derode others and establish superiority rather than toiling hard to create a masterpiece.
Click to expand...

Naipaul is a bit of a provocateur. A lot of things he says are simply to get a rise out of people. He said he had no time for Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy. And once at a literature festival he yelled "I have no time for such banality" when Nayantara Sahgal was speaking :)

He said James Joyce was not interested in people and Thomas Hardy did not know how to compose a paragraph. I find Naipaul's comments to be very entertaining. He is never boring. And I think a lot of things he says about India is true. Though I have not read enough of Indian literature to comment on his statements on Indian writers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top