Nobel For Naipaul

Few writers, in recent times, have sparked off so much controversy as Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul. It is amazing that one more controversy now comes up - this time, a new kind - even as Naipaul wins his long overdue Nobel for Literature for 2001.

What is this controversy about? It is being said that the Nobel for Lit this year has been considered on political ground. It goes to Naipaul because he bashes the Islam in his writings, and in the current international scenario, the Swedish Academy contributed its little bit by awarding an anti-Islamic writer.

The argument has its takers, and you would come across various people -many Indo-Anglian writers among them - on the media voicing their grievances and resentment against this year's Nobel.

What, however, glaringly shows through all of this trashing job is their insufficient knowledge of the great writer and his works. It seems as though Naipaul is the author of some travel books only. What about his immortal works like A House for Mr. Biswas or The Enigma Of Arrival? He is basically a novelist, and switched over to non-fiction only when he felt he had little material left for fiction. As we all know, he does not write on borrowed or contrived themes.

It is his fiction, not his non-fiction, which is more important, and is the key to his appraisal as a writer. Unfortunately, Naipaul is known across the world mainly for his non-fiction - his travel-writing books, that is. This is one reason why he is often a misunderstood writer.

Even if you read these books closely, you would come across a writer of eclectic tastes and high standards, who moves around, watches and comes up with his brilliant observations and critical assesment of the post-colonial society, Muslim fundamentalism, and many other issues.

True that he is sometimes harsh, opinionated and outrageous in his comments - he sometimes reveals his open contempt and dislike for certain things - he is never the kind who we can label as a fundamentalist. If he bashes Islam, he does it in his own way, with his logic and enough of substance and back-up material to support his contention. His style being direct - calling a spade a spade type - he sometimes lands himself in a trouble, offending a section of the society, but nevertheless retaining his writer's intregity.

One of his great attractions as a travel writer is that he has never cultivated the art of being politically correct. This is a rare quality in these days of hypocrisy and double standard. When Naipaul says or writes down something, it carries an extra weight because it is a solid observation or inference unadulterated with motive or any sense of political correctness. You may not agree with it, but it is still thought-provoking and worth your read.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic