Nobel Prize winner V. S. Naipaul travels to Africa and reports what he finds. In an acerbic style that angered some critics, Naipaul describes an Africa hopelessly stuck in beliefs in magic and a mythical glorious past. Naipaul begins in Uganda, then goes to Ghana and Nigeria. From there, he treks to the Ivory Coast and Gabon, and ends up in South Africa. Naipaul is critical of evangelical “rock-and-roll” churches and the slow demise of African religions. In South Africa, Naipaul quotes its extraordinary writer Rian Malan who says, “In Africa the white people built themselves a moonbase for their civilization; when that crumbles there is nothing for black or white.” The Masque of Africa is a gloomy assessment that rings true. GRADE: A
I liked Naipaul’s BETWEEN FATHER AND SON: FAMILY LETTERS, which evokes the days when he first went to England to go to college.
I like Naipaul’s work, too, Jeff. But many critics are pissed that Naipaul painted such an unflattering picture of Africa in this book.
A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS and A TURN IN THE RIVER are both amazing books.
Naipaul should have won the Nobel Prize for A HOUSE FOR MR. BISWAS and A BEND IN THE RIVER alone. But, as Paul Theroux found out, Naipaul can be a prickly fellow.
FFB summary?
The last time I did a FFB summary things did not go well, Rick.
Personally, I hated the way he approached Africa. He described it as backward and its people as savages (“people of the forest”). He doesn’t take into account that British colonial powers are to blame for having wreacked havoc, for having exploited them and their resources, and on and on! His discourse is very disparaging and contemptuous towards Africa and its people; It is unfair!!
Mohammed, Naipaul has been criticized for his opinions of various cultures. There’s no doubt that colonial influences still persist in those countries.