A Bend In The River

Rating:
Summary: A slice of life in post-colonial Congo
Review: Naipaul gives us a story that could as easily be narrative history as fiction. A factual description of post-colonial Congo is provided from the unique perspective of a naturalized Indian resident of several generations. The narrator, having grown up in Africa, is closer to the events, people and soul of the continent that the colonial straglers, but yet is constantly reminded in every aspect of day to day life that he is not OF Africa. The rise and fall of order adn prosperity in the town at the bend in the river is instructive to anyone with an interest in the inner workings and psychology at work in the centre of the dark continent. Four stars only because, like an earlier reader, I aggree that my interest fell off somewhat during the second half of the book. Regardless, the narrative style is sweet and makes for an easy and enjoyable read, highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: "Africa has no future"
Review: Naipaul in one of his typically politically-incorrect interviews said these very words about the continent. A BEND IN THE RIVER is therefore a gloomy book and offers a pessimistic view of Africa. If Conrad had not already taken the title, then this book could easily have been called HEART OF DARKNESS. That's not a coincidence either as Naipaul is frequently compared to Conrad in terms of literary style and theme. The setting is the same also. Although A BEND.. takes place in a fictitious African country it can be read as either Congo or Uganda as it is based on his visits to those countries in the 1960's.

The principal character and narrator of the story is Salim, an Indian and Muslim. Indian merchant families like his have been living in the coastal area of the country for generations. The blacks live inland. Salim decides to move to a small, formerly-quaint colonial town in the interior to set up shop and sell cloth. He is immediately at a loss, in conflict, confused - a man in search of an identity in a country in search of itself. Salim must contend with the rapidly changing social, economic and political environment of the newly independent country while at the same time sort out his own world view in the face of the contending opinions of the other characters. There is the influence of the Big Man - and simply because he is president for life - his interests must be served. There are others: a Belgian priest; Raymond, the white speech writer for the Big Man; Yvette, Raymond's wife; Mahesh, a disillusioned Indian, and finally, the most unlikey important character - Ferdinand. He is a simple boy from the "bush", who, in this upside-down country, becomes Governor of the town after the nation is "radicalized" by the Big Man.

The newly-independent former-colony and the various cultural and political influences of the inhabitants are the foils for two of Naipaul's favorite themes. First is his affinity for, and identity with, dispossessed persons. Dispossessed in the personal sense of the word - no home, no country, no identity - a nobody. Following from this personal sense of rootlessness and anomie is Naipaul's un-romantic and oftentimes very critical assessment of the ability of developing countries to sustain the hopes and dreams of their people. This is ably summed up by Ferdinand. "We are all going to hell, and everyman knows this in his bones...everyone want's to make his money and run away. But where?"

Naipaul's prose is direct, not symbolic, so many students of Post Colonial literature have had a field-day dissecting Naipaul's various literary allusions and castigate him as a conservative and supporter of neo-colonialism. If that's your area of interest and particular world-view then you will definitely not enjoy A BEND.. If on the other hand you simply like well written, slightly satirical novels with finely-detailed characters and are inclined to not take writers or your reading material too seriously then this is a book you'll definitely enjoy.

Rating:
Summary: provocative if flawed
Review: Naipaul's writing strikes me as journalistic Marquez, save with a more psychological approach to magical realism: people who think anything will change in Africa, where big men dominate and foreign sycophants fawn over them, might as well be hunting for golden treasure with magnets. But where Marquez's literary eye reveals a love for even his most absurd creations, Naipaul strikes me as mostly tired and bored by them: Africa will remain Africa.

The intriguing perspective of a middle class Indian in Africa is the element easily overlooked; Indian merchants in the region, like Lebanese merchants in West Africa and Chinese in much of Asia outside China, played a disproportionate role in many economies until, as in Uganda, they were expelled or fled the local conflict. The choice of subject as an objective outsider need not be taken as a literary device.

Earlier reviewers compared Naipaul to Conrad; facial similarities of geography and image selection aside, the comparison is misplaced. Conrad's use of ugly images in Africa is intended to explore human inclinations and to challenge colonialism. Naipaul's use of ugly images in Africa is intended to challenge post-colonialism and to imply that people are essentially the same power-grabbing, egomaniacs there that they've always been, modern slogans notwithstanding.

Read if you want your grim perspectives on 'dem poor ignurant black folks fightin' der wars Africa to be reaffirmed. Reaffirming such views, of course, played into the hands of those who stood back and watched Rwandans die, simply accepting that tribal peoples were 'just like that,' so why bother exercising responsibility.

If, like me, you don't accept such a simplistic view, best to skip this book and head towards Wole Soyinka.

Rating:
Summary: A Fine Work, More Relevant Than Ever
Review: This novel is a poignant and psychologically penetrating study of the complex relationship between the personal and the political. At a time when Americans are feeling less insulated from the violence and disruptions of world politics than they have been in decades, "A Bend in the River" is perhaps more topical and relevant than it was when first published. Naipaul tells the story of an Indian in Africa, one of many Asian immigrants who constituted much of the commercial class in the former colonies. With social upheaval comes xenophobia and a man who was pointedly apolitical finds his world unravelling, and ultimately destroyed, by forces that he had failed to acknowledge before it was too late. Unlike the majority of novels that attempt to engage with political themes, "A Bend in the River" is complex and never descends to either travelogue or position paper. Naipaul's characters are believable, and their relationship to the larger world is always personal and individual. Naipaul demonstrates how the concrete facts of individual lives can illuminate the abstractions of politics and power in compelling ways. For those who are only now becoming aware of Naipaul, this book is an excellent place to begin.

Rating:
Summary: Men Without A Country
Review: _A Bend In The River_ is Nobel Prize winner V.S. Naipaul's effective, if at times ponderously written, study of major disruptions faced by non-black inhabitants of post-Colonial Congo. Naipaul tells his story from the perspective of Salim, a Muslim shopkeeper, whose family emigrated to the Congo from the east coast of Africa many years before. Under the radicalization program of the "Big Man," Salim's business is confiscated and placed into the hands of a semi-illiterate, womanizing, drunkard. Salim's position is reduced to manager and part-time chauffeur to the new owner.

Among those caught up in the "revolution" are Salim's European friends, Reginald and his wife, Yvette. Formerly in an important position of influence with the African "Big Man," Reginald suddenly becomes a persona non grata. In addition, many non-indigenous people are forced to flee their beloved adopted land after threats of arrest and possible bodily harm.

Naipaul has received criticism for racism for allegedly siding with the former European colonialists and in his negative portrayals of the native Africans. On the surface Naipaul may appear to be somewhat one-sided in the book by not touching on any civil rights abuses the Europeans may have previously perpetrated against native Africans. The only evidence of subjugation Naipaul mentions in the book is of Africans having in the past to address European colonialists as "monsieur" or "madam." In fairness to the author, it must be recognized that _A Bend In The River_ is a work of fiction told from the standpoint of a recently disenfrancised Muslim, whose post-colonial experiences would necessarily embitter him and cause his feelings to be skewed. Naipaul has, after all, not pretended to have written a non-fiction record akin to the history of British India, or of pre-Pol Pot Cambodia, or of post-Tito Yugoslavia in which the atrocities of the previous eras should and must be balanced against those of contemporary times.