There are "no more great writers," V S Naipaul

I can think of several who didn't receive the Nobel Prize who would have been worthy winners. Italo Calvino, Vladimir Nabokov, Marcel Proust, Mark Twain, Checkov, W.G. Sebald and Jorge Louis Borges amongst others.

Yes, certainly Mark Twain.

Naipaul is a man who can write but can't talk. His writing is brilliant --- if some say he is one of the best writers of English prose today they may not be wide of the mark --- but his tongue is too sharp and his views too outrageous for the comfort of too many people. I once became the victim of his sharp tongue. In the part of the world where Jayaprakash lives, I met Naipaul. A friend of the author --- yes, he has, or at least he had, friends --- had another friend who was my boss at the time. I was asked to suggest to Naipaul names of some people who could get him certain information for a book he was writing. I did. And what do you think Naipaul did after I reeled off some names? He smiled graciously and thanked me profusely? No, sir. He blew his top and shouted at me for suggesting to him wrong kind of people, in full view of at least a dozen people who were in the restaurant where we met. He went into a loud monologue on what sort of people he wanted to see and asked me to come back in a couple of hours. I never did.

I do wonder sometimes whether he could be forgiven for the kind of things he says because of the sheer brilliance of his writing.
 
Jeanette Winterson and Joyce Carol Oates are two female writers who are both living and excellent. When at their best, they are both phenomenal writers. Never heard of Naipaul before.
 
First let me say that I agree that he seems like a prat to put it mildly but... he is at least maybe an honest one, looking at what is in his authorised biography:

One reviewer said the book, The World Is What It Is: The Authorised Biography of V S Naipaul, "must be the frankest authorised biography of anyone alive and in possession of their senses".
 
I've read a couple of his books and he is certainly an exceptional writer - 'Miguel Street' made a big impression on me. I'm disappointed to hear his person may not live up to his writing - but generally I don't investigate the writers of books I like, I'm happy enough with what's between the covers. Hard to miss the publicity he's been getting lately though...
 
Where is 'Hay'? Were the people who went there ugly before they went or did going there make them ugly?
 
Where is 'Hay'? Were the people who went there ugly before they went or did going there make them ugly?

It's in Wales – or at least part of it is. It's so close to the border (presumably the river Wye – or should that be "Presumably the river. Why?") that bits of it are probably in England.

It's the world's biggest second-hand book collection. And yes, I was ugly before I went there, so required no cosmetic makeover. I do think, however, that equating love of reading with unattractiveness ("Oh, (s)he couldn't get a mate and was reduced to reading about it.") is a considerable oversimplification.
 
What exactly is it with 'literary' writers? Martin Amis is always mouthing total brainwrongs too. Its guaranteed to get column inches but you'd think the readers would get sick of it.

Naipaul with his current 'my readers are as ugly as molerats' schtick is clearly just seeing how far he can push it.
 
I think following the lives of the artistic great and good allows those who look down upon the gossip mags and papers to indulge in just the sort of behaviour those publications' readers do. (And all because they "want an insight into the creative process".)

Radio Four was at it yesterday at 13:30. This October is the two hundredth anniversary of Liszt birth, so they did a programme from Weimar, one of the great (though not very large) cities of Culture. What did they spend half an hour on? Not the music. Not the attractions of Weimar to great artists in many fields. Not the attitude to artists of the time (e.g. why a free spirit such as Liszt, who was not short of money, took a job as a Kapellmeister). No, it was about who may or may not have had affairs with the man. All it was was down-market tittle-tattle**. But no doubt the BBC will claim that it was all in the service of Art.



** - Much of which was probably true, but I don't think Liszt's attitude to women was a dominant feature of his creativity.
 
Last edited:
And is it -on- topic?

The latest from Naipaul is that women writers only turn out 'feminine tosh.'

** - Much of which was probably true, but I don't think Liszt's attitude to women was a dominant feature of his creativity.

Are you suggesting that, by the same token, we shouldn't mix up Naipaul's exceptional writing talent and his tendency to put his foot in the mouth whenever he opens it?
 
It is the typical intellectual arrogance of the so-called 'masters of literature', who will always know they are better than every other living person, and look down from their (self-imposed) olympian heights on every other writer. Shame then, that a female writer should have so much impact...

From The New Scotsman, although it was widely reported across all the newspapers:

Research by the Federation of Children's Book Groups (FCBG), shows that JK Rowling's storytelling has had a major impact on literacy and reading habits in the UK.

Almost six out of 10 children (59%) think the books have helped them improve their reading skills. And 48% say Rowling's creation is the reason they read more.

Teachers are even clearer about the effect Rowling's series of books, the sixth of which will be released this week, have had on reading: 84% say Harry Potter has helped improve child literacy and 67% claimed the series has turned non-readers into readers.

Colin Harrison, professor of literacy studies at the University of Nottingham, who contributed to the research, said: "The sheer pervasiveness of JK Rowling's books means Harry Potter will certainly have impacted on children's literacy levels.

"Reading and re-reading books is very valuable in building fluency, and there is a strong link between reading books for pleasure and improvement in word recognition and comprehension."

Naipul or Rowling? Does any of his writing have the same impact on adults?

I know which I'd rather be remembered for; since children grow into adults, and may actually have been stimulated into greater 'word recognition and comprehension' that might allow them to understand what Naipul writes - imagine that...
 
This man obviously has the taste of a bitter, twisted and vile creature. While I'm not a very well versed reader of modern literature, there are still Booker, Nobel and other coveted literary awards handed out to excellent authors every year.

Obviously being a Nobel winner doesn't make you a better person. Isn't Harlan Ellison supposed to be quite abrasive as well?
 
I can think of several who didn't receive the Nobel Prize who would have been worthy winners. Italo Calvino, Vladimir Nabokov, Marcel Proust, Mark Twain, Checkov, W.G. Sebald and Jorge Louis Borges amongst others.

Among the notable omissions are also James Joyce and Graham Greene.

Obviously being a Nobel winner doesn't make you a better person. Isn't Harlan Ellison supposed to be quite abrasive as well?

Forget Nobel or any award, being a good writer doesn't necessarily make one a good human being.
 
Among the notable omissions are also James Joyce and Graham Greene.
I was going to add Graham Greene. Joyce I'm more ambivalent on but I'm yet to tackle such fun reads as Finnegan's Wake and Ulysses, so I will reserve judgment.

Two more who represent for me one of the greatest oversights in the history of the award would be Virgina Woolf and George Orwell.

Over and out....
 
Are you suggesting that, by the same token, we shouldn't mix up Naipaul's exceptional writing talent and his tendency to put his foot in the mouth whenever he opens it?
The artists with which I have most qualms are, happily, dead and beyond the reach of modern copyright law, so I have no trouble enjoying their art, as I can be sure I'm not funding their lifestyle.

However, if I felt I had to read Mr Naipaul's work (for whatever reason), I would do so and judge it by its own merits, not the morals** of its author.


** - By the way, I doubt that he's ever been accused of any foot-fetishish-related auto-eroticism. let alone that of an obsessive nature.
 
So by Great Writers do we mean future generations will torture school kids with a book by making them analyzing every odd sentence whilst removing any sense of of historical context and sense of the book as a whole?

Surely this is a good thing.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top