2010 Reading #42: The Suffrage of Elvira by V. S. Naipaul
Books 1-10.
Books 11-20.
Books 21-30.
Books 31-40.
41. When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World: The Rise and Fall of Islam's Greatest Dynasty by Hugh Kennedy.
42. The Suffrage of Elvira by V.S. Naipaul. Back in my (extended) days as an undergrad, while I was trying out Comparative Lit as a major, I took a survey course with a post-colonial focus. The instructor included A Bend In the River basically, it seemed (and still seems) to me, so that he could rake Naipaul over the coals for being what Edward Said referred to as "a witness for the Western prosecution." I don't know that I entirely grokked what the instructor was getting at then, but neither was I impressed; the book was dull and preachy, and I more or less crossed Naipaul off my list of authors I needed to read. A friend, though, pressed this book on me recently, and I decided to give the author another shot. It's the story of democracy's advent in Trinidad and Tobago, centering around the election in the district of Elvira. It's meant to be comedic, but sadly most of the humor went right past me, predicated as it was upon the implied ignorance and corruption of Elvira's residents. I think now that what Said and that instructor were trying to say was that Naipaul's work implies that colonialized nations aren't qualified to run themselves, and by extension, that independence and self-governance are a bad thing. To be fair to Naipaul, his misanthropy seems to encompass pretty much everyone, not just the political amateurs of Elvira; he might argue that humans in general are just inept and not to be trusted. But the focus of this book is on the occupied and not the occupiers, and it made me deeply uncomfortable.
Books 11-20.
Books 21-30.
Books 31-40.
41. When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World: The Rise and Fall of Islam's Greatest Dynasty by Hugh Kennedy.
42. The Suffrage of Elvira by V.S. Naipaul. Back in my (extended) days as an undergrad, while I was trying out Comparative Lit as a major, I took a survey course with a post-colonial focus. The instructor included A Bend In the River basically, it seemed (and still seems) to me, so that he could rake Naipaul over the coals for being what Edward Said referred to as "a witness for the Western prosecution." I don't know that I entirely grokked what the instructor was getting at then, but neither was I impressed; the book was dull and preachy, and I more or less crossed Naipaul off my list of authors I needed to read. A friend, though, pressed this book on me recently, and I decided to give the author another shot. It's the story of democracy's advent in Trinidad and Tobago, centering around the election in the district of Elvira. It's meant to be comedic, but sadly most of the humor went right past me, predicated as it was upon the implied ignorance and corruption of Elvira's residents. I think now that what Said and that instructor were trying to say was that Naipaul's work implies that colonialized nations aren't qualified to run themselves, and by extension, that independence and self-governance are a bad thing. To be fair to Naipaul, his misanthropy seems to encompass pretty much everyone, not just the political amateurs of Elvira; he might argue that humans in general are just inept and not to be trusted. But the focus of this book is on the occupied and not the occupiers, and it made me deeply uncomfortable.