Naipaul was a genius, and as such had very high standards for himself and others. The proper way to "get" him is to know what that standard is, and see why he wrote and said in light of that. In this sense, the arguments against him made in this program miss the point. It's futile to say he had moral and ethical deficiencies therefore his work was "problematic." You need to know what he was trying to accomplish, and respect him for what he has achieved as a writer.
@@himangshusarma7649 Thank you! Here's the playlist I made of all Naipaul videos I could find on RU-vid: ru-vid.com/group/PL3ucMGH6Cx3gGzgWeAaGet9uCn-2UDa_c&si=g47hFc0T8SMPWM8Q
What frustrates the authors who are chosen to comment on Naipaul in this video (curiously almost all "people of color") is the unflinching and penetrating insights in much of what he wrote of their "half-made" societies. Naipaul angered people even when he was alive for his brutal honesty. But in the woke era - when narrative is valued more than truth, when people propagandistically obscure the truth in the name of an identity-based power play - his prose is an indispensable antidote, offering an unvarnished and ever perceptive take on peoples and the worlds they inhabit.
What you are saying goes well with what Naipaul once said- "If a writer doesn't generate hostility, he's dead". (By the way, it's the BBC, so the people on this video are bound to be anti-Naipaul.)
It seems your own reality is so firmly shaped by the colonial mindset that it is difficult to see in any other way. “Truth” is only what colonial cultures say it is - “perception” is only available to colonists or those with a colonial viewpoint. “Fully-formed” societies are those ones who enrich themselves by exploiting, pillaging, raping, enslaving, and mass-murdering those they consider lesser than themselves. Naipaul wad a racist who failed to understand basic colonial and historical contexts. He failed to see beyond his own myopic and colonial views to appreciate the vast troves of human cultural diversity and ingenuity. He was a misogynist, a woman abuser, and a complete failure as a human being.
What do you mean by "curiously almost all people of color"? Naipaul was himself a person of color. His novels and non-ficition comment heavily on non-white countries and peoples? What is more normal than having people of color talk about their perception of how Naipaul presented them?
(bp) i was re-reading his excellent "the enigma of arrival" then i found this wonderful documentary. i learned so much more about him through the archival film footage and shahidha's accompanying travelogue. great interviewees, great interviewer: everyone articulately adding to a rounded portrait of a great writer.
Good documentary about a complicated man. I've read only a couple of his books - Mr. Biswas and a Million Mutinies - and found them both very engaging. He is truly a gifted writer but I can understand why his views are considered problematic.
He spoke the truth about Trinidad. I feel the same now. The place is frozen and in flux at the same time. I've never felt like it was my home, and I've been here all my life, save for a week in London... when I felt peace for the first time. I suspect he had borderline personality disorder.
You touch Naipaul and some disturbance follows in the wake. Of course he was everything he was accused of. Condescending, racist, diminishing, elitist. What's new? But his prose was brilliant and his way of seeing things startling, and revealing. You can't take that from him. Tho Walcott's Sadhu of Couva summed up West Indian Indian experience as well as Naipaul's A House For... He seemed to be a tormented writer (which writer is not) searching for an identity, hating himself and his past equally, acerbically...still trying to assume it, celebrate it...
Though, I've never read any of V S Naipaul work, i still find him to be, one of the greatest West Indian writers of all time. Is style of writing can be compared to great literary figures such as Proust, Dickens, Fitzgerald etcs. But, Naipaul, the person i can't and wouldn't comment on much. But what i do know, is that no man is moral, no not one, We the people of the 21th century, have away in us that i find very quite repugnant and idolatrous. We seem to have this notion that people of high recognition, whether it be famous journalists, actors, musicians etc etc. That there are this demigod-like figures, that are prone to make no mistake, because there were predestine to be a Exemplar to us all, and maybe, maybe one day, we can be evolved in their image and likeness. This is one of the greatest form of Idolatry in today's society. Which need great purging from our system. As one prophet foretold, that one of the greatest sin of the last days. Men, will make their fellow men gods. ❤❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🇬🇾🇬🇾
So we should tell POC what they should and shouldn't be offended by? I'm confused by the comments....are all of you denying his attitude towards Caribbean culture and towards women? If not, then what is the objection to shining a light on these issues? I see a lot of knee jerk, reactionary comments here. And "woke" is such a tired term. Anyway, I thought these dissenting writers were articulate in their arguments and were able to make valid points in a calm, collected manner. These writers have as much if not more of a right to voice their opinions on how their country was portrayed when you consider the fact that Naipaul himself left Trinidad as a teenager.
@@udayjoshi3508 They can do that by reading his wonderful books! Don't agree that he was the greatest of the last century. In any event, there is a way to be respectful while also confronting Naipaul's flaws and complexities-and this wasn't it. This was a big lecture from a bunch of losers.
