By 
A literary giant has died and the Caribbean mourns. V.S. Naipaul, the Nobel laureate, recipient of a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II and son of the Caribbean soil, was immensely admired for his great prose but who was the man behind the books? Was his revered among those closest to him and did he treat them with the kindness that the public expects from one bestowed with that which only few among the multitude would ever attain?
One needs to be exceptional; to have that ‘extra special something’ to gain thousands of admirers and have global influence over people. To win the Nobel prize for Literature and receive a knighthood is for many the pinnacle of international recognition for exceptionalism. The output-the famous writings, of V.S. Naipaul was regarded by the masses as great although there were of course the critics who considered it ‘less than’. Afterall, how literature is viewed is subjective and depends on the reader.
With regard to his treatment of women, especially those closest to him there was nothing ‘great’ and worthy of emulating. Many cruelties were laid bare in his authorized biography by Patrick French titled, The World Is What It Is. Naipaul’s brutal frankness and disregard for the feelings of his women were boldly illustrated. Nothing was deemed as too embarrassing: he just didn’t care because it was all about painting an authentic image and not a fakery of half-truths and honeyed characterization to make him a saint in the eyes of the public.
He told to his biographer that the more he abused his mistress, Margaret Gooding with whom he spent 24yrs, the more she wanted. He even lamented that on one occasion his hand was hurting badly after beating Ms Gooding and her face was too damaged to be shown in public. Apathetically, he further said that she didn’t ‘mind’ the abuse. This elicited the only reaction from her, to his biography although she was prominently mentioned. She simply responded that she did ‘mind’. Naipaul even crudely spoke about their sex life after dumping her for a new woman. The many episodes with his women are too numerous to list here but can be read about in his biography and the articles from leading outlets online.
Lady Patricia whom he met while he was at Oxford University was his first wife and companion for over 40 years. She was the one who probably suffered the most from his cruelty. She was aware of the other woman because her husband insultingly discussed his escapades and feelings for his mistress with her. From what is revealed she was a broken and beaten figure from years of abuse by Naipaul and apparently had no say in what he did. In one of her diary entries she wrote, “Vidia told me he had not enjoyed making love to me since 1967.” She was merely cook, cleaner and editor of the great man’s books. Summing up the impact of his affair on his wife he said, ‘‘I was liberated. She was destroyed. It was inevitable.” Then he claimed that Lady Patricia accepted the situation and his own sister, Savi was forced to harshly rebuke him.
Even before the biography while she was in remission from cancer and had just undergone a mastectomy Lady Patricia learnt that her husband had been sleeping with prostitutes for years through a magazine article! Naipaul described himself as a ‘great prostitute man’ and proudly related his exploits to the magazine knowing that it would make headlines around the world and not caring that his wife was sick and about how it would affect her. Talk about the greatness of the man.
He was such a cold, narcissistic and emotionally dead person that he was unable to empathize and care about those he tortured with his acts and words. The life that Lady Patricia had with the great V.S. Naipaul reads like a chilling tale of the horrors of a victim with her abuser, certainly not an enviable position. Even while she lay dying from cancer in 1996 he was courting the future Lady Naipaul. He did not spare his dying wife the details of his new conquest. Days later the event of her death failed to provoke feelings of remorse, guilt or compassion in fact, Lady Nadira moved into the house a day after the cremation of Lady Patricia.
Apart from cruelties which Naipaul visited upon his women who were in awe of him, he harboured an inherent dislike of and belief in the inferiority of women. Statements issued from his own mouth over the decades confirmed this and even in his elderly years he remained steadfastly unapologetic about his misogynistic utterances. Sadly, the women who remained by his side and held him he destroyed and the ones who admired from afar were dismissed as unworthy by his generalized sexist statements. He was a giant in the literary world and is an icon for many established and upcoming writers but can he ever be associated with female empowerment and promotion of women’s rights?
The man was a Jekyll and Hyde sort of person. Although many women admired him and wrote glowing tributes over the years he famously put them to shame by stating he considered no female writer his equal in an interview at the Royal Geographic Society! Then to put the cherry on top he pronounced that: “a woman is not a complete master of her house and so that comes across in her writing.” When asked for a comment on these pronouncements the Writers Guild of Great Britain, said it would not ‘waste its breath on them’. A very fitting reply for a misogynistic, narcissistic literary genius.
The international icon Jane Austen was even put on the chopping block. He dismissed her writing as sentimental, a quality considered by him as frivolous and feminine. Then Indian women writers were criticized for their ‘banality’ when writing on British colonialism. While his points are arguable, egomania no matter the ‘greatness’ of the source is never an endearing quality in both men and women.
Although, his parents were of Indian descent and he never spoke poorly, publicly of his mother the reasons behind his contempt for women remain a mystery. He famously said that the red dot worn on the forehead of Indian women means ‘my head is empty’. He was admired for his honesty yet his many illogical outbursts on women were just ravings without legitimate reasons. He criticized women writers as not being his equal yet provided no proof. The red dot on the forehead of Indian women means that they are married. Naipaul of course, knew this as he grew up among people of Indian descent yet he chose to insult without reason.
While many of his pronouncements on various topics can be seen as the un-glossed, politically incorrect reality, there was nothing enlightening, educative or factual about his many comments on women. No reasonable argument to ponder on from the man considered by the masses as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.
He spent his entire life irking people with the full force of his brutal ‘truths’, he revelled in the discomfort and provoked with all his might. Can he be described as ‘peaceful’? Would he have wanted fawning tributes and pitiful dog-like devotion that praised only the sugar-coated characteristics and achievements? His scornful beliefs and cruel treatment of women which he enjoyed revealing could fill several books.
His undisputed greatness in the literary world was firmly cemented decades ago but he was a complex person with sides that were not so ‘great’ which nevertheless should be acknowledged by his admirers as being part of the man. Almost every famous and influential person in the world has attributes that are inconsistent with what made them stand out and be worshipped by thousands if not millions. Reflect on the good and the bad; the complete person, the greatness and the faults. It reflects that entire being like it should; we are all the same.
( A condensed version of my article was published in the Stabroek News, Reflect on the good and the bad of Naipaul). Do check out my post, Empowerment through expression, expressing oneself is food for the mind and a great way to get rid of the bad stuff.
