Naipaul is a tremendous writer. Born in Trinidad, with Indian ancestors, Naipaul has sharp eyes on the colonial stuff.
After reading A Bend in the River, I turned to Half a Life. Both novels are set in the background of colony, and I am so impressed by Naipaul's honest and distinctive observation.
The snobbery revealed between different classes is so real. Half-black Eurasians could bully those all-blacks so naturally. In A Bend in the River, the colonial state suffers after independence. Leaders toyed their countries by guns and bombs nonchalantly. Hong Kong readers, like me, would be amused to the deja vu.
Half a Life is a model of concise English. Sentences kept short and clean. Nevertheless, the story flows. Naipaul is a witty guy, the upper portion of Half a Life is especially hilarious. The characters in the book are usually of mix-raced, or mix-casted. The clashes among castes and races are coolly reflected to readers.
Some people, like Edward Said, criticized Naipaul of offering no help to the suffered colonies. It may not be the responsibility of Naipaul. To me, one of the factors to judge upon a writer's work is their ability to reveal the truth. And truth has different faces. Naipaul is a master to present the dark side of it.
Requesting writers to improve the disadvantages is over-zealous. They are neither social workers nor humanitarians.
沒有留言:
張貼留言