naipaul: no female writer my equal

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:30 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-jane-austen-women-writers

take the guardian quiz.

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:33 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-jane-austen-women-writers

take the guardian quiz.

Among female writers writing in english, i like the Bronte sisters.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:33 am

he is right, as usual. my favorite female writer is agatha christie. rest cant write.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:42 am

i think naipaul is suffering from the male equivalent
of menopause.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:49 am

if you feel he's wrong, why dont you name a few female writers you feel are great and have made contributions equalling or bettering those of VS?

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:59 am

equal is a judgment call. i can't say i have read very
many english female authors in the first place. of the ones from
a prior era i've read, i like iris murdoch and virginia woolf
who are both his equal in gravitas.

of the modern writers, i like kiran desai and jhumpa lahiri.
too young and have not been around long enough for any
sort of comparisons for a good long while.

my comment was less about his claim of being any female
writer's superior (he is conceited but that's ok), and more about
his claim that he can read a couple of paras and know if it's a woman
or a man writing.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:00 pm

to be fair there was no need for him to say what he said but when he's right, he's right. I think the point he was trying to make is that most of the literary works of 'great' female writers are in the domain of love, heart, getting married, fucking the gardener etc. they dont generally write fiction/nonfiction with sweeping historical narrative after dedicating themselves to exhausting research etc and that itself makes most of their work 'lightweight'.

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-jane-austen-women-writers

take the guardian quiz.

Among female writers writing in english, i like the Bronte sisters.

another great female writer: Margaret Mitchell of 'Gone with the Wind' fame.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:04 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:they dont generally write fiction/nonfiction with sweeping historical narrative after dedicating themselves to exhausting research etc and that itself makes most of their work 'lightweight'.

have you read doris kearns goodwin's book on the civil war? i have read a good portion
of it and recommend it highly.

this one.

by harharmahadev Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:14 pm

My favorite author is Ayn Rand.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:they dont generally write fiction/nonfiction with sweeping historical narrative after dedicating themselves to exhausting research etc and that itself makes most of their work 'lightweight'.

have you read doris kearns goodwin's book on the civil war? i have read a good portion
of it and recommend it highly.

this one.

yes there are women that wrote historical fiction/nonfiction but how many of them withstood the test of time? that's a prerequisite to being called great. same applies to gone with the wind. yes it has a historical setting but in the end is still a crappy love story.

by Impedimenta Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-jane-austen-women-writers

take the guardian quiz.

Among female writers writing in english, i like the Bronte sisters.

another great female writer: Margaret Mitchell of 'Gone with the Wind' fame.

that is absolutely the worst book written probably even before "little women". i hate to agree with grandunkil but agatha christie, yes. amazing!

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:30 pm

that's it, am burning all of agatha christie's works in the backyard.

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:33 pm

Impedimenta wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-jane-austen-women-writers

take the guardian quiz.

Among female writers writing in english, i like the Bronte sisters.

another great female writer: Margaret Mitchell of 'Gone with the Wind' fame.

that is absolutely the worst book written probably even before "little women". i hate to agree with grandunkil but agatha christie, yes. amazing!

what about Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre' and Emily Bronte's 'Wuthering Heights'?

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:34 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:that's it, am burning all of agatha christie's works in the backyard.

you had once recommended a detective story writer to me. was it bill pronzini?

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:35 pm

detective story writer? I am a huge fan of the noir genre...might have mentioned elmore leonard, james ellroy..

by harharmahadev Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:54 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:they dont generally write fiction/nonfiction with sweeping historical narrative after dedicating themselves to exhausting research etc and that itself makes most of their work 'lightweight'.

have you read doris kearns goodwin's book on the civil war? i have read a good portion
of it and recommend it highly.

this one.

yes there are women that wrote historical fiction/nonfiction but how many of them withstood the test of time? that's a prerequisite to being called great. same applies to gone with the wind. yes it has a historical setting but in the end is still a crappy love story.

Nancy Friday.

by Propagandhi711 Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:04 pm

harharmahadev wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:they dont generally write fiction/nonfiction with sweeping historical narrative after dedicating themselves to exhausting research etc and that itself makes most of their work 'lightweight'.

have you read doris kearns goodwin's book on the civil war? i have read a good portion
of it and recommend it highly.

this one.

yes there are women that wrote historical fiction/nonfiction but how many of them withstood the test of time? that's a prerequisite to being called great. same applies to gone with the wind. yes it has a historical setting but in the end is still a crappy love story.

Nancy Friday.

yeah this.

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:41 pm

I recommend all you goons to read "Unbroken" by Laura Hillenbrand. You can thank me later.

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:13 pm

I certainly prefer Austen to Naipaul.

Naipaul has also said “Africans need to be kicked, that’s the only
thing they understand”.

by Kris Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:29 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think naipaul is suffering from the male equivalent
of menopause.

>>>I don't think this is a new thing with him. He has always been outspoken and made controversial comments of this nature. He is a brilliant writer without a doubt, but the flaw in making assertions like this recent one, is that he makes a broader world view a prerequisite for good writing. While that may be true for his genre, that shouldn't lessen those who specialize in other genres. Austen for instance wrote for a different audience and in that sense, a comparison is unfair. The only other female writer I have read to some extent is Ruth Jhabvala, whose fictional works (at least the ones I read) drew on her indian experience and as such were "narrow" in their scope. Inasmuch as she was not aiming for anything else, a comparison doesn't seem warranted.

by Silhouette Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:36 pm

In the past white men claimed that writing was their domain and theirs alone. In fact Virginia Woolf has a famous article in response to that. Naipaul is just rehashing the same argument subtly eliminating race but keep gender as the basis. I'm sure white male writers would considered Naipaul as much an under-performer as he does women writers.

He makes three fallacious assumptions. One, that he is a writer par excellence. Two, that women writers cover a limited domain and three, that assuming two is correct one must be the "master of the house" in order to be a good writer.

I can't comment on his talent and skills because I haven't read any of his works. However, winning the nobel in itself cannot be the criteria of a great writer since several women have won that before him. And i'm certain his work doesn't have even 1/10th the appeal, the fan base or the doctorate level theorizing from subsequent writer that someone like Jane Austen garners. I'm not sure what criteria he's adopted to assume his own excellence.

Until recently many women writers successfully used male pseudonyms without having their covers blown. Therefore, when he says that he can detect female writing in a paragraph or two, I'm not so sure if he is truly sincere there.

by artood2 Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:45 pm

Silhouette wrote:He makes three fallacious assumptions. One, that he is a writer par excellence. Two, that women writers cover a limited domain and three, that assuming two is correct one must be the "master of the house" in order to be a good writer.

I can't comment on his talent and skills because I haven't read any of his works.

You cannnot really say the two together. He is generally regarded as a top notch writer. That does not give him license to say random stuff though.

by Silhouette Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:55 pm

also, while good/excellent writing is subjective, in north america the required readings in high school and undergrad include many women writers such as harper lee, toni morrison, dorothy parker, sandra cisneros, mary shelly, margaret atwood, alcott, and of course jane austen. i believe there must be sufficient consensus on the quality of their writings and the decision to expose all american kids to their stuff. unfortunately my favorite writer edith wharton isn't part of the mandatory reading list in schools. she's just recommended.

by Silhouette Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:01 pm

artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:He makes three fallacious assumptions. One, that he is a writer par excellence. Two, that women writers cover a limited domain and three, that assuming two is correct one must be the "master of the house" in order to be a good writer.

I can't comment on his talent and skills because I haven't read any of his works.

You cannnot really say the two together. He is generally regarded as a top notch writer. That does not give him license to say random stuff though.

That's because I was referring to writers like Austen, Shakespeare, Bronte, Tolstoy, Hemingway whose names are sorta carved in stone as writers. I dont believe Naipaul is in that league as yet, is he?

by Guest Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:03 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:to be fair there was no need for him to say what he said but when he's right, he's right. I think the point he was trying to make is that most of the literary works of 'great' female writers are in the domain of love, heart, getting married, fucking the gardener etc. they dont generally write fiction/nonfiction with sweeping historical narrative after dedicating themselves to exhausting research etc and that itself makes most of their work 'lightweight'.

Well Laura Hillenbrand wrote Seabiscuit and Unbroken. I have seen seabicuit and read unbroken. While I can't comment if that was a great writing, I liked it... and it after a lot of research and definitely was not lightweight.

by artood2 Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:09 pm

Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:He makes three fallacious assumptions. One, that he is a writer par excellence. Two, that women writers cover a limited domain and three, that assuming two is correct one must be the "master of the house" in order to be a good writer.

I can't comment on his talent and skills because I haven't read any of his works.

You cannnot really say the two together. He is generally regarded as a top notch writer. That does not give him license to say random stuff though.

That's because I was referring to writers like Austen, Shakespeare, Bronte, Tolstoy, Hemingway whose names are sorta carved in stone as writers. I dont believe Naipaul is in that league as yet, is he?

May be not but he is probably better than alot other names you wrote there.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:20 pm

Kris wrote:He is a brilliant writer without a doubt, but the flaw in making assertions like this recent one, is that he makes a broader world view a prerequisite for good writing. While that may be true for his genre, that shouldn't lessen those who specialize in other genres. Austen for instance wrote for a different audience and in that sense, a comparison is unfair.

every writer's writing is informed by his/her own life experiences. naipaul too is often
writing from the standpoint of a displaced immigrant and you could say this is a
somewhat narrow perspective and a very different voice than say someone like
james joyce. so i am not entirely sure what the point being made is.

so why is writing about displacement more important than an african american woman
writing about the travails of being a black woman in pre-abolition america?

p.s: i've read only two of his books -- house for mr.biswas and
bend in the river.

eta: did any of you take the guardian quiz? my score was 5/10. clearly i suck at this.
and i identified sir vidia's own writing as that of a woman. wonder what he'd say about
that.

by Kris Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:17 pm

If you take Naipaul's works, in toto, there is quite a bit more to it than the displaced immigrant aspect. India: A million mutinies now and the works on the islamic world fall outside this realm, by and large. These are two that come to mind right away ( I haven't read VSN of late- I started on one some time ago, but didn't finish it). He brings in historical context quite a bit and is astute in his observations. Be that as it may, the point I was making in my previous post was that his world view is *not* a prereq for good writing, since genres differ and their audiences are not all the same. In that sense, his assertion on that basis is problematic.

I liked his nonfiction works more, altho' his first one 'miguel street' (i think captures the humor of indian life in the caribbean quite beautifully.

by Silhouette Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:32 am

artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:He makes three fallacious assumptions. One, that he is a writer par excellence. Two, that women writers cover a limited domain and three, that assuming two is correct one must be the "master of the house" in order to be a good writer.

I can't comment on his talent and skills because I haven't read any of his works.

You cannnot really say the two together. He is generally regarded as a top notch writer. That does not give him license to say random stuff though.

That's because I was referring to writers like Austen, Shakespeare, Bronte, Tolstoy, Hemingway whose names are sorta carved in stone as writers. I dont believe Naipaul is in that league as yet, is he?

May be not but he is probably better than alot other names you wrote there.

which ones do you regard as equivalent or superior to him, i.e. amongst the ones i mentioned?

by charvaka Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:04 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think naipaul is suffering from the male equivalent
of menopause.

Haha, good one.

by artood2 Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:10 am

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think naipaul is suffering from the male equivalent
of menopause.
Haha, good one.

not too far from reality

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/books/review/Packer-t.html?ref=vsnaipaul

by charvaka Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:20 am

This is a bit much. I guess if he was seeking attention with his comments, he got it. Beyond that, this is just garden-variety sexist unkil-wisdom, dressed up in intellectual garb.

by Kris Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:27 am

Theroux sheds similar light on VS in 'In Sir Vidia's shadow'. The guy has a tortured core, no doubt.

by charvaka Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:42 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:eta: did any of you take the guardian quiz? my score was 5/10. clearly i suck at this.

I tried taking the test. It was complete guesswork, with absolutely no indication which is which, so I gave up after the first two.

by artood2 Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:54 am

This is the result of guardian quiz:

You scored 7 out of a possible 10

Not bad, but you're no Sir Vidia.

by Another Brick Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:21 am

scored 7 on 10. but i read only a line or two before deciding the gender of the writer, so it was all guesswork.

if there was one thing that i was sure of then it was the 8th passage. unnecessary punctuation was a giveaway.

edit - i have never ever read a book written by a female writer. not that i have read many books in my life. i think that female writers would bore me to death with their writing on sky, golden cage, flying, breaking shackles, freedom, power of womanhood and unrealistic ideas of romance.

by Guest Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:42 am

You scored 6 out of a possible 10

Sloppy thinking. You clearly need to read more books by men.

by Guest Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:48 am

You scored 4 out of a possible 10

Sloppy thinking. You clearly need to read more books by men.

********
whatev

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:36 pm

since i started this thread, i've been reading the middle passage. very dark and pessimistic book but with a razor sharp clarity. naipaul's views on the west indies is much like this forum's members' views on rashmun. he notes nothing positive about the place, and votes everything down.

by garam_kuta Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:38 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since i started this thread, i've been reading the middle passage. very dark and pessimistic book but with a razor sharp clarity. naipaul's views on the west indies is much like this forum's members' views on rashmun. he notes nothing positive about the place, and votes everything down.

Isn't this the one where naipaul says that millions/thousands of men were chained and brought from Africa but not even a single African original name has remained showing that the de-culturization was total/complete.

on nothing was worth writing about westindies history - naipaul claims history is written around achievements and nothing was accomplished in the westindies; everything had to come from remote places and that all was borrowed - I am not sure whether he makes any passing remarks -positive or negative- on calypso and steel drums ! anyways those're his value judgments and as derek walcott put it, he was marching to different drums! those pre-internet days- today any person who writes a good blog on winning over his/her personal struggle is an immense accomplishment in their own personal history, I should think! one need not crave for recognition of overestimated collective accomplishments

by Bittu Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:40 pm

*fart*

by Kris Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:55 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:since i started this thread, i've been reading the middle passage. very dark and pessimistic book but with a razor sharp clarity. naipaul's views on the west indies is much like this forum's members' views on rashmun. he notes nothing positive about the place, and votes everything down.

>>> In one of his works, he mentions that he made a promise to himself that he would leave trinidad within 4 years and that his only regret is that it took him 6 years to accomplish that. Apparently, he wrote this promise down in one of his school textbooks and for years in his room in england, with the heater going, he would have nightmares about being back in tropical trinidad. When I first read this, I thought this type of writing was for effect, but after reading his other works concluded this could very well be true. Lack of originality in trinidad/ west indies is a recurring theme with him. I think he also makes reference to the gov't publishing a list of jobs a man could have and these was a definite number (like 50 or something). Naipaul's take on it was that any society that coughed this type of statistic up was limited in its idea of human possibilities. For all his brilliant writing, the one big problem I have with his world view is that it doesn't acknowledge people/societies can change. Difficult as that may be, to rule that out seems overly harsh.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:43 am

yeah most of you and garam kuta say is from the book i am reading, the middle passage.

by Sponsored content