Transcultural Narratives of Contemporary Postcoloniality
Edited By Nirmala Menon and Marika Preziuso
In addition, the collection addresses in at least two significant ways the question about «beyond postcolonialism» and the future of the discipline. First, by questioning and critically examining some foundational theories in postcolonialism, it points to possible new directions in our theoretical vocabulary. Second, it offers an array of reflections around disparate geographies that are, equally importantly, written in different languages. The value that the authors place on languages other than English and their choice to focus on the effect that multiple languages have on the present of postcolonial studies are in line with one of the aims of the collection – to make the case for a multilingual expansion of the postcolonial imaginary as a necessary imperative.
Chapter 6. Lamming vs. Naipaul: Writing Migrants, Writing Islands in the British Literary Field
Writing Migrants, Writing Islands in the British Literary Field
Within the field of Caribbean literature, V. S. Naipaul and George Lamming are often positioned in diametrically opposed poles (Hulme 124). On the right is Naipaul: apolitical and skeptical of his mother-region, a consummate literary stylist who has been a recipient of ongoing attention since the publication of his first major work, The Mystic Masseur. On the left is Lamming: politically engaged, a vocal advocate of the potential of his people, an iconoclastic writer who has garnered comparatively modest popular success. Where Naipaul’s fiction and non-fiction releases have continued, effectively unabated, since the 1950s, Lamming’s production rate peaked in the early 1970s and has steadily decreased ever since. Where Naipaul’s private life has continually been made public through regular reviews, accolades, and biographies—Patrick French’s The World Is What It Is the most notable and graphic of the latter—Lamming’s personal life has been largely disconnected from his literary career.
The last few decades of postcolonial criticism have only entrenched the apparent opposition between the two figures. Postcolonial scholars have, in the main, shunned Naipaul as a Caribbean Uncle Tom and embraced Lamming as an author correctly aligned in an ongoing representational struggle.1 Critiques of Naipaul’s writing from a postcolonial perspective are widespread and mostly focus on challenging his asserted identity as an acute observer of formerly colonized sites. Rob Nixon’s 1992 book, London Calling: V. S. Naipaul, Postcolonial Mandarin is an ← 79...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.