Naipaul may be an ass for several reasons, but not necessarily for his recent comments about women writers; they seem well-supported by the book world.
According to several reports from this year’s Hay Festival, Naipaul, one of the keynote speakers, was asked if he considered any woman writer his literary match, and he replied, “I don’t think so.” He theorized (among other things) that women’s sentimentality and their narrow view of the world make their writing unequal to his. Now most respectful writers and readers may find no fault with those who’ve rushed to add colorful descriptions to the ones built up over the years of Naipaul, but one may do well to check out the situation for a bit before wasting good cuss on Naipaul.
In a February 2011 Guardian UK article un-mysteriously titled “Research shows male writers still dominate books world,” Vida, an American organization for women in the literary arts, found a bias towards male writers in major publications like the London Review of Books, Granta Magazine, the Times Literary Supplement, and the New York Review of Books. They all feature more works by male writers than female writers. The reason can’t be that there are more male writers than female writers publishing books regularly because that’s not so. Why then are they focusing their review / feature efforts on more male writers than female writers? The situation is far deeper than Naipaul’s narcissism.
For one thing, research consistently shows that more women than men read, especially fiction, and it would appear to follow that the publications featuring / reviewing mostly male writers assume that those are the books readers (majority women) want to read. Sure, writing was once a male-dominated tradition, and many of us women cut our teeth on books written by men. Naipaul was THE most influential writer on me and many of my classmates during our high school years and much of my later education was spent studying the works of mostly male writers. They occupy much of the space in many a canon of literature. But these days, I read differently. And I confess, I haven’t read Naipaul much since high school. I’ve grown beyond the sphere of his influence. That’s my story though. But what is the nature of the book situation today? Do many of us women (Caribbean and otherwise) still read as if we were under the influence of male writers? Have we led the publications mentioned earlier to believe (based on our buying preferences) that books written by men are more worthy of our reading time? Or, are we being encouraged by these major publications to believe that?
Whichever it is, we really can’t place the blame on folks like Naipaul who seem to take pleasure in grinding their gritty heels into soft sore spots. We have to do something about it ourselves. Among other positives in the world of Caribbean books, in the six months that it has been fully online, The CRB has been admirably even-handed in publishing reviews of books by Caribbean men and women, and that should be comforting to Caribbean women writers and readers who may have felt Naipaul’s heel a bit more than others. Geoffrey Philp also consistently showcases the work of women writers, and he has amassed a considerable portfolio of writing by Caribbean women on his blog.
I hope that my Caribbean Women Writers Series, which I’ll run every year, will contribute in some tiny way to highlighting and celebrating the work of women writers from the Caribbean. This year’s series will feature writers like Jean Rhys, Grace Nichols, Lorna Goodison, Jennifer Rahim, Elizabeth Nunez, Marion Bethel, Gisele Isaac, Liane Spicer, Joanne Hillhouse, Debra Providence, Danielle Boodoo-Fortune, Terry-Ann Mahon, Nadine Muschette, Vashti Bowlah, Barbara Jenkins, and more.
See, here’s a fact that may be triggering some of Naipaul’s peevishness: around certain parts we doh have much time to read him any more; we too busy reading other folk . . .women folk, thanks.
Comments