Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.42 AVERAGE
3.42 AVERAGE
Pretty amazing stuff, even from this distance of some decades. I mean, I don't think that Naipaul is as prescient about the realities of post-colonial life as he imagines, but this is still remarkably strong stuff-- there are palpable feelings of dread throughout so much of this, and some of the writing is gorgeous, so many of the images are strong enough to be almost toxic. Right now I'm thinking again about the people in dugouts who ride alongside the barges as they make their way up the river and thinking in awe of the way it is presented. This one is a winner, and even if I think the analysis is flawed, the execution is pretty remarkable.
I wanted to read something by Naipaul, and thought I'd start here. The main character is an Indian man living in central Africa, who becomes a merchant. We see the country he lives in develop over the course of the book. I found it very hard to get into the plot. Frankly, there isn't much of one. I don't know why I should care about these people. I can conjure more compassion imagining such people. I don't get the sense the author likes them either. He certainly doesn't seem to like women. Women don't feature up until late in the book, and then they are treated abysmally by the male characters. I don't get the sense Naipaul is critical of this. If that weren't enough, the plot is slow moving and not very insightful about post-colonialism.
Saw this article on Naipaul: Why is Naipaul so Hated? http://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2018/08/why-is-v-s-naipaul-so-hated/
Saw this article on Naipaul: Why is Naipaul so Hated? http://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2018/08/why-is-v-s-naipaul-so-hated/
It's a "left hemisphere" novel -- so to speak. The writing got a rhythm, which made it hard to put down. But it got this forever observant quality -- the protagonist is like a writer; he lives but he observes; always observing and reflecting, without much immersive emotions. So you got this documentary-like feeling.
It's a masterpiece. It's set in 1960s Africa, times when many African countries finally got their independence from Europe; the changing times, chaotic times. And the author captured the tension, grief, hope, despair, turmoil... all very well. I feel that world is closer to me than any books about Africa I've read (admittedly, not many).
It also got something universal -- universally human, maybe. It's set in Africa but it could be easily in another country, another time. There is something timeless in it.
I never developed any real likings for any character in the novel; but I couldn't put it down. It is an intriguing read.
It's a masterpiece. It's set in 1960s Africa, times when many African countries finally got their independence from Europe; the changing times, chaotic times. And the author captured the tension, grief, hope, despair, turmoil... all very well. I feel that world is closer to me than any books about Africa I've read (admittedly, not many).
It also got something universal -- universally human, maybe. It's set in Africa but it could be easily in another country, another time. There is something timeless in it.
I never developed any real likings for any character in the novel; but I couldn't put it down. It is an intriguing read.
This is not a plot-driven book, but one that encapsulates the various expatriate personalities at play in Central Africa in the 1960s and 1970s through its development of that characters. It primarily shows how immigrants to Central Africa develop isolated pockets of communities that, for them, seem to be "the real Africa," but which really show only their perspective. I don't know if Naipaul meant for Salim, the main character, to be so ignorant to his own blindness about the role he plays and for this book to be a commentary on how immigrants to the area viewed life in Africa. If so, it's fantastic. If not, then Salim is a racist misogynist without his realizing it. Salim narrates his "truths" about life in Africa as if they are just that: truths, all the while oblivious to the lives that are going on around him and the fact that his reality is the norm. He derides those who don't think as he does, and lives his life seemingly free of morals other than those he has set up.
This so engagingly written, and Naipaul's prose is wonderful, for being a novel about a place with an unlikable main character. He has a gift for creating such clearly envisioned characters.
This so engagingly written, and Naipaul's prose is wonderful, for being a novel about a place with an unlikable main character. He has a gift for creating such clearly envisioned characters.
Simply brilliant. So brilliant I immediately reread it. So simple, so nuanced, so brilliant.
É verdade que o tema é a descolonização, o antes e o pós, impactos e efeitos, mas é mais do que isso, é um questionamento sobre aquilo que nos motiva a fixar objetivos, a acreditar em destinos, a procurar mais e melhor. É visto a partir da perspectiva africana, ainda que por um indiano que ali nasceu, servindo o romance para dar conta do seu "coming-of-age".
A escrita de Naipaul é boa mas não surpreende, pelo menos na tradução, já o tom imposto ao discurso esse sim é bastante particular, muito conseguido e coerente ao longo de todo o romance. Não é fácil definir esse tom, diria que é uma espécie de melancolia ausente, no sentido em que as emoções apontam para tristeza e desaire, mas ao mesmo tempo abnegação, permitindo que a atmosfera do livro se eleve, deixe respirar, sem condicionar o sentimento, e sem nunca permitir o definhamento completo da esperança. Como que sabendo que não valendo a pena, vai-se ainda assim fazendo o esforço, ainda que reduzido esse esforço, mas fazendo-o, como que para se manter à tona a respirar na espera por melhores dias. Tenho a sensação que se não tivesse passado por África já algumas vezes, teria dificuldade em conseguir compreender este tom, a mesma dificuldade que senti quando pela primeira vez tentei ver o filme "Terra Sonâmbula", adaptado do livro homónimo de Mia Couto, e que depois dessa experiência vi com outros olhos.
Naipaul consegue recriar a atmosfera africana no fio das páginas, o languido fundido com a tristeza, mesclada com a vontade de continuar a lutar ainda que devagar. É verdade que Naipaul não mede as palavras, é muito direto, roça o racismo, e há mesmo quem não lhe perdoe, mas nada do que é dito pode ser retirado de contexto e colocado na boca do autor. Escrever de modo politicamente correto seria bom para os críticos europeus, mas nunca conseguiria chegar ao âmago, e dar-nos a sentir o que verdadeiramente se sente no interior daquele continente. Aliás o que mais me impressionou na leitura foi exatamente ler a África pelos olhos de um não europeu e de um não-africano, existe uma espécie de imparcialidade que se cola aos personagens de Naipaul que nos permitem ver o que até aqui não tínhamos visto noutras obras com a África em pano de fundo.
“Quando se deu a independência, o povo da nossa região enlouqueceu de raiva e de medo – toda a raiva acumulada durante o período colonial, todos os medos tribais que entretanto tinham estado adormecidos. A gente da nossa região tinha sido muito maltratada, e não apenas pelos europeus e árabes, mas também por outros africanos; e quando veio a independência, recusaram-se a obedecer ao novo Governo instalado na capital."
Houve um momento em que quase fechei o livro, quando o protagonista desata a bater na amante, algo que se cola a algumas histórias que entretanto circularam a propósito do próprio Naipaul. A julgar pela descrição realizada, acredito que o autor o tenha feito nesse seu passado, mas não podemos, mais uma vez, descontextualizar as ações. Não posso de forma alguma defender o autor, mas não posso esquecer o que é viver numa sociedade que aprova e incentiva esses comportamentos.
Inevitavelmente o rio de Naipaul faz-nos recordar as trevas de Conrad, ainda que num tom distinto como já referi acima, e por isso difícil de aproximar. Naipaul sendo melancólico nunca permite a total negrura, não tem soluções, mas nunca fecha a porta, acredita claramente no ciclo da vida, sente-se ao longo de todo o livro, pela boca dos seus personagens, uma crença no princípio budista de que “Tudo é Impermanente!”.
Publicado no VI
(https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-curva-do-rio-1979.html)
A escrita de Naipaul é boa mas não surpreende, pelo menos na tradução, já o tom imposto ao discurso esse sim é bastante particular, muito conseguido e coerente ao longo de todo o romance. Não é fácil definir esse tom, diria que é uma espécie de melancolia ausente, no sentido em que as emoções apontam para tristeza e desaire, mas ao mesmo tempo abnegação, permitindo que a atmosfera do livro se eleve, deixe respirar, sem condicionar o sentimento, e sem nunca permitir o definhamento completo da esperança. Como que sabendo que não valendo a pena, vai-se ainda assim fazendo o esforço, ainda que reduzido esse esforço, mas fazendo-o, como que para se manter à tona a respirar na espera por melhores dias. Tenho a sensação que se não tivesse passado por África já algumas vezes, teria dificuldade em conseguir compreender este tom, a mesma dificuldade que senti quando pela primeira vez tentei ver o filme "Terra Sonâmbula", adaptado do livro homónimo de Mia Couto, e que depois dessa experiência vi com outros olhos.
Naipaul consegue recriar a atmosfera africana no fio das páginas, o languido fundido com a tristeza, mesclada com a vontade de continuar a lutar ainda que devagar. É verdade que Naipaul não mede as palavras, é muito direto, roça o racismo, e há mesmo quem não lhe perdoe, mas nada do que é dito pode ser retirado de contexto e colocado na boca do autor. Escrever de modo politicamente correto seria bom para os críticos europeus, mas nunca conseguiria chegar ao âmago, e dar-nos a sentir o que verdadeiramente se sente no interior daquele continente. Aliás o que mais me impressionou na leitura foi exatamente ler a África pelos olhos de um não europeu e de um não-africano, existe uma espécie de imparcialidade que se cola aos personagens de Naipaul que nos permitem ver o que até aqui não tínhamos visto noutras obras com a África em pano de fundo.
“Quando se deu a independência, o povo da nossa região enlouqueceu de raiva e de medo – toda a raiva acumulada durante o período colonial, todos os medos tribais que entretanto tinham estado adormecidos. A gente da nossa região tinha sido muito maltratada, e não apenas pelos europeus e árabes, mas também por outros africanos; e quando veio a independência, recusaram-se a obedecer ao novo Governo instalado na capital."
Houve um momento em que quase fechei o livro, quando o protagonista desata a bater na amante, algo que se cola a algumas histórias que entretanto circularam a propósito do próprio Naipaul. A julgar pela descrição realizada, acredito que o autor o tenha feito nesse seu passado, mas não podemos, mais uma vez, descontextualizar as ações. Não posso de forma alguma defender o autor, mas não posso esquecer o que é viver numa sociedade que aprova e incentiva esses comportamentos.
Inevitavelmente o rio de Naipaul faz-nos recordar as trevas de Conrad, ainda que num tom distinto como já referi acima, e por isso difícil de aproximar. Naipaul sendo melancólico nunca permite a total negrura, não tem soluções, mas nunca fecha a porta, acredita claramente no ciclo da vida, sente-se ao longo de todo o livro, pela boca dos seus personagens, uma crença no princípio budista de que “Tudo é Impermanente!”.
Publicado no VI
(https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-curva-do-rio-1979.html)
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Beautiful, multi-layered story, set in an unnamed African country, but very simular to the Congo or Zaïre in the time of dictator Mobutu. The storyteller, Salim, is of Indian origin, and takes over a shop in a town, deep inland, (by a bend in the river), just after independence. He observes the waves of unrest and uncertainty and the rise of a Great Man in the capital.
You can read this novel as a lucid political story (the making of a gruesome dictator, and how different people cope with it), a fine psychological story (the search for its own place in life and the desillusions accompanying it), an exploration of the African soul (though Naipaul can be very stereotypical about that), and a study on cultural interaction or non-interaction.
This novel reminded me of the better work of Graham Greene, but without the morality-layer. There also was a bit too much of Conrads 'Heart of Darkness' ("the horror, the horror") in it. I know he hasn't a good reputation when it comes to racism and other issues, but I definitely have to read more by Naipaul!
You can read this novel as a lucid political story (the making of a gruesome dictator, and how different people cope with it), a fine psychological story (the search for its own place in life and the desillusions accompanying it), an exploration of the African soul (though Naipaul can be very stereotypical about that), and a study on cultural interaction or non-interaction.
This novel reminded me of the better work of Graham Greene, but without the morality-layer. There also was a bit too much of Conrads 'Heart of Darkness' ("the horror, the horror") in it. I know he hasn't a good reputation when it comes to racism and other issues, but I definitely have to read more by Naipaul!
Brilliant by any objective standard. This is my third book by Naipaul, and I see much kinship with Orwell. There is that same pervasive sense of disillusionment, the same skewering gaze, international perspective, and attention to small but telling details. The decline and ruins of empires and governments are thematically paramount in the writing of each. Both share a ruthlessly efficient writing style; reduced to its barest, most essential elements. To it all, I would add that Naipaul's is the greater intellect, and he has a keen eye for uncovering ethnic and societal differences. All of this is why I read him.
But he lacks Orwell's social conscience, and so where Orwell is my favorite author - the prototype of a modern commentator - my appreciation for Naipaul's work never extends beyond the intellectual. Absent in A Bend in the River, an otherwise brilliant novel about the gradual erosion of a post-colonial society's civic institutions, is any sort of compassion for the downtrodden. His treatment of female characters is openly misogynistic. Often, the brilliant but cynical eye for societal dysfunction veers into racism. There is no heart.
Yet for all of this, against the backdrop of often hyperbolic discussions of colonialism in the media, here is an uncommonly subtle and complex look both at what it has done to a society, and how the reaction to its legacy can turn oppressive. It will be some time before I can fully organize my thoughts around it. Certainly, Salim is not the most sympathetic of characters, but that's kind of the point. Other reviewers have pointed out that he's both selfish and spineless, but in a society marred by ethnic hostilities his meekness is what allows Salim to fly under the radar, and thus survive. That it also prevents him from taking any sort of independent control over the direction of his life goes without saying; such are the chances for those left in the wake of an empire.
My sense is that his deep character flaws (probably not strong enough of a word), and those of his novels described above, has caused Naipaul's work to fall out of favor given current sensibilities. But the reader avoids him at their peril. He is a gifted writer, and among the greatest chroniclers of empire. A Bend in the River would be a great place to begin a study of his work.
4/5
But he lacks Orwell's social conscience, and so where Orwell is my favorite author - the prototype of a modern commentator - my appreciation for Naipaul's work never extends beyond the intellectual. Absent in A Bend in the River, an otherwise brilliant novel about the gradual erosion of a post-colonial society's civic institutions, is any sort of compassion for the downtrodden. His treatment of female characters is openly misogynistic. Often, the brilliant but cynical eye for societal dysfunction veers into racism. There is no heart.
Yet for all of this, against the backdrop of often hyperbolic discussions of colonialism in the media, here is an uncommonly subtle and complex look both at what it has done to a society, and how the reaction to its legacy can turn oppressive. It will be some time before I can fully organize my thoughts around it. Certainly, Salim is not the most sympathetic of characters, but that's kind of the point. Other reviewers have pointed out that he's both selfish and spineless, but in a society marred by ethnic hostilities his meekness is what allows Salim to fly under the radar, and thus survive. That it also prevents him from taking any sort of independent control over the direction of his life goes without saying; such are the chances for those left in the wake of an empire.
My sense is that his deep character flaws (probably not strong enough of a word), and those of his novels described above, has caused Naipaul's work to fall out of favor given current sensibilities. But the reader avoids him at their peril. He is a gifted writer, and among the greatest chroniclers of empire. A Bend in the River would be a great place to begin a study of his work.
4/5
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Well written but felt like a bit of a chore