Dear Editor,
I applaud your excellent editorial ‘Calabashing Naipaul’ (SN June 12) which makes reference to the long rivalry between St Lucian poet Derek Walcott and the celebrated Trini novelist VS Naipaul. I do not know what motivated Walcott to attack fellow Nobel laureate but I don’t think Walcott’s vicious attack on Naipaul in the poem ‘Mongoose’ is necessary. Many of Walcott’s critiques of Naipaul are no longer relevant, as Naipaul has come around almost full circle from his opinions about third world societies, especially India. One should recognize that Naipaul is an accomplished writer penning his views from his personal experiences, especially his travels, and as he continues to travel to observe a changing world, I expect he will update his views on Caribbean society.
I read Walcott’s interview in which he bludgeoned Naipaul in the Jamaica Gleaner aboard an Air Jamaica flight from Barbados to JFK in June. An Afro-Bajan passenger, an English teacher, sitting next to me also read it and we both concluded that Walcott went overboard going after Naipaul.
As your editorial noted, both men are known to have a deep-seated rivalry for reasons not publicly known. But what is well known is that Naipaul has been a far more financially successful literary figure than Walcott, and the Afro-Bajan passenger next to me believes that may be a reason for the intense dislike Walcott has of Naipaul. I believe Walcott’s critique has more to do with Naipaul’s assessment of Caribbean (or Third World) society. Naipaul is a satirist poking fun at Third World people. His novels are loved by most Caribbean students and the readership of developed countries.
Naipaul writes with lucidity and in a straightforward manner, creating numerous humorous characters as your editorial correctly said. Naipaul’s tone is indeed harsh as Walcott observes in ‘Mongoose,’ but he is honest in his descriptions of them. This kind of language attracts a large readership making Naipaul a best seller.
Contrary to what some critics feel, Naipaul is not always putting people or society down. He was indeed critical of Indian society in his early novels. His views were very controversial in India. But his recent writings have praised the progress India has made over the last decade and he has mellowed a lot, speaking with reporters and ordinary people in a mellow tone. I met Naipaul in New Delhi at the Sheraton hotel, where we were both put up for the first Indian Diaspora meeting in January 2004, and we exchanged pleasantries. He was charming and polite and the media
flocked him everywhere he went. He told reporters how impressed he was with the progress India had made in recent years. Analogously, while Naipaul has been critical of Caribbean societies, I believe in time he will come around in his views once he perceives they have made progress. In his trip to Trinidad last year when he was honored by the government, Naipaul moved away from his negative view of Trinidadian society.
A critic of Naipaul has penned that he always pays back his debt, meaning attacks on him. So one should not be surprised if Naipaul responds to Walcott. Instead of attacking each other, Naipaul and Walcott, heroes of the Caribbean, should engage in more constructive writing. They are role models for future literary scholars and should behave accordingly. There is no need for this ongoing rivalry except to expound their brilliance.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
