Rating: 
Summary: Good for Several Rereadings
Review: An opinionated writer is often a pleasure to read. A diplomat is always a bore. SIR VIDIA'S SHADOW contains two writers, fully opinionated, and no diplomats. There is much about VS Naipaul in this portrait by Paul Theroux that is the sort of thing that is normally obscured by diplomacy: ambition, egotism, overbearance, intransigence, candor...Naipaul is a real piece of work, and Theroux shows him in all his glory. Perhaps he went further into the personal than was proper, but that is Naipaul's misfortune, not ours.I've read many other books by Theroux and Naipaul, some good, others less than that. I like the nonfiction of both better than their fiction. But never have I read anything by either of them as compelling as this. I tore through SIR VIDIA'S SHADOW in two sittings. I don't know whether it's due more to Naipaul's charm or the skill of SIR VIDIA'S author, Theroux. They begin in Uganda, sparring, as writers do, over other writers. Theroux mentions his admiration for Nabokov, whom Naipaul rejects: "Forget Nabokov. Read Death in Venice. Pay close attention to the accumulation of thought." This dismissal was surprising because as the persona of Vidia the Great Writer was developed through the book I was reminded constantly of Nabokov, particularly Nabokov's volume of criticism called STRONG OPINIONS. And Nabokov's scorn of Mann was second only to his scorn of Freud. But Naipaul and Nabokov have in common their legendary erudition, their strong opinions expressed elegantly, seldom dipping into vulgarity, their rootless lives lived mostly far from their natal homes, their wary eyes kept peeled for the brutes of the world--Naipaul sees at once that Uganda is on theverge of anarchy and goes around asking the people what they will do when the "crunch" comes. Just five years later the crunch does come in the form of Idi Amin. Coming from Third World squalor himself, Naipaul has no patience for the make believe that constitutes Ugandan government, universities, and newspapers. He marries, 30 years later, the same female about whom he says, in a spasm of vituperation, "What a horrible child!" Then the irony becomes still heavier when Theroux, a lover of children, is harshly abused by the new wife of his longtime friend. Theroux reveal nearly as much of himself as of Naipaul while playing a sort of straight man to his friend's winsome incorrigibility. The pair could hardly be more dissimilar: while Naipaul is driven into a foul mood just by the nearness of African families laughing and playing music on a Sunday, Theroux revels in their society, speaking Swahili, teaching English, and coupling with African women with joyous abandon. Somewhere in Theroux's other writings I'd gotten the impression that he was a bit of a New England puritan. But next to the fastidious Vidia, who is paralyzed with revulsion merely by a workman sitting on his (Naipaul's) bed, Theroux looks positively sybaritic. The writing is so fluid and well-timed that it looks easy. But there is so much, such exquisite renderings of dozens of day-to-day encounters over the course of 30 years, that Theroux must either have the memory of an Intel chip, or the exuberant creativity of the finest writers of fiction, or both. SIR VIDIA'S SHADOW rises far above mere biography or memoir to become a marvellous work of art.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and unusual and wonderful reading
Review: I ordered this book from Amazon a few weeks ago after reading "Half a Life" by V.S. Naipaul. I had read many of Theroux's books - mostly travel and one novel. I found this book riveting and read it straight through this week. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the examination of friendship. Personally, I couldn't have put up with Naipaul's selfishness and inconsiderate behavior. Most people I know wouldn't allow anyone to behave this way for years with us.
But Paul had his reasons. I like Theroux's writing. A good book.
Rating:
Summary: Cracking Vidia
Review: Judging from the reviews Paul Theroux has committed some kind of hubris for scrutinizing his friendship with V.S. Naipaul in book, exposing it to the eyes of any old reader. But where others saw as a viscious indictment of Naipaul, I saw as insightful and honest and interesting account of the lives of writers, the mentor/student relationship, and the paradox of the genius as a human being. Theroux, as usual, flays himself as well as his subject; You certainly cannot accuse him of blindsiding Naipaul with this profile.I think no less or more of Naipaul or Theroux after reading Sir Vidia's Shadow. I belive I KNOW more about both of them, and this adds to my insight while readint their works. I certainly learned a lot about writing,and the writing life, and I was interested in how different and similar Naipaul and Theroux are. Naipaul suffers a book, Theroux channels words like water. Yet they are both similar in many ways. I can see how a fan--in the truest sense of the word, fanatic, won't like this book about Naipaul. Breath everytime you feel a hissy fit coming on, and you'll get through it and know a lot more about Naipaul for it.
Rating: 
Summary: Beware loss of respect for the author.
Review: My first discovery of Thoreux was through his travel novels -- such works as The Old Patagonian Express, and Riding the Iron Rooster. Like many people, I was amazed by his facility with language, his seemingly perfect memory for detail, and his wide-ranging knowledge of literature. I was hooked. I started to doubt my preferences when I read 'The Pillars of Hercules'. I'd purchased two copies, one for myself, another for my grandmother to share my interest in this excellent writer of travel literature. Woe to me! I purchased the copy for my grandmother because she'd toured the Mediterranean, but giving it to her unread was a mistake. The Pillars of Hercules contained several vulgar pages detailing Salvador Dali's bizarre sexual predelictions, the excuse for which was Thoreux's visit to the Dali museum. There were other passages, similar in tone. Then I read Fresh Air Fiend, where Thoreux complained - vociferously - when a fellow author wrote an autobiography and stated he would not be discussing his sex life. How does this apply to Sir Vidia's Shadow? It applies because the entire book is an exercise in the common, a vulgar slog through Thoreux's memories during his days with Naipaul in Uganda. As much about Thoreux as it is about Naipaul, after reading about their misbehaviour the years (Thoreux describing the lust he felt for Naipaul's wife, then repeatedly sleeping with African prostitutes, Naipaul calling people 'infies' - inferiors - and generally acting like a petulant child), I didn't want to meet, much less know more about, either one of them. The revelations were disappointing. After reading Bryson, I know I would enjoy the man. Horowitz, the same. Barry, yes. Thoreux - no. So was this useful to you? If you think me a prude, then you might find the book enjoyable, even if you disagree with me. If you'd just as soon avoid the sort of writing I mention above, then I'm sure you'll find the review equally useful. But if you rate my review 'Not useful' simply because you disagree with it, then you're being dishonest to yourself and others.
Rating: 
Summary: Defense of David Birney as reader of "Sir Vidia's Shadow"
Review: Over last weekend, my husband and I listened to the audiocassette of David Birney reading Paul Theroux's "Sir Vidia's Shadow." Though I've only read short pieces by both Theroux and Naipaul (mostly in The New Yorker) before "reading" this book, I was so intrigued and impressed by what I heard--and that goes for the reader as well as the author--that I decided to check out the reviews and comments in Amazon. com. It was therefore with complete amazement that I read the negative review of Birney's reading in Audiophile, and felt I had to write and cast a vote for the actor. He was absolutely magnificent! He captured wonderfully the voice and accent that I imagine Vidia had, as well as those of the author and the many other characters in the book. In fact, I even commented to my husband as we were listening that while I'd probably have enjoyed the book if I read it in the traditional way, I felt Birney's delivery enhanced the experience immeasurably. As far as the book itself goes, though it did reveal some waspishness on the author's part, and at times more venom than I think he's admitted to himself, I felt it was a powerful description of a relationship and rang very true to me. The book was also full of marvelous similes and metaphors (a piece of praise that might make Theroux wince--and certainly would Naipaul, who so hated the intrusions of academic analysis of writing). Nonetheless, Theroux's descriptive powers--of people,nature, relationships--deserve to be recognized. I also marveled at Theroux's memory of conversations that took place decades earlier. Yet they sounded completely authentic and I can only assume the author has the audio equivalent of a photographic memory. All in all, I felt the audiobook was one of the most successful translations of book to tape I've heard, and hope this review will counter the negative review in Audiophile and encourage others to "read" and enjoy the book as much as we did. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I should add that I'm the author of many articles that have appeared in The New York Times, The New York Observer, Reader's Digest, and many other publications, and also of two published books that will soon be re-issued by the Author's Guild If possible, please FORWARD THIS REVIEW TO ACTOR DAVID BIRNEY.
Rating:
Summary: Big and Witty and Full of Scorn
Review: Paul Theroux met VS Naipaul in Uganda, where the former was teaching English literature (and ducking 'Nam ... can't blame him for that) at the university in Kampala. The history of the ensuing friendship is the bedrock of this curious memoir. In many ways "Sir Vidia's Shadow" is typical Theroux: Although there are the many (and well-publicized) jabs at "Sir Vidia," Mr. Theroux comes off as hardheaded and difficult as he does in his other books. Naipaul, of course, comes off far worse. Monomaniacal, misogynistic, racist, cheap, mean, unbearably arrogant and annoying pretentious, with his old Oxford archaisms and his "Nye-Powell" Anglicization, Sir Vidia seems to be the man we always feared he was. Theroux, in fact, seems to be his only friend. Likewise, Naipaul appears to be among the author's few friends - which is the book's saddest aspect. For those who've read and enjoyed the work of both men, who've recognized how each came to affect the eye and writing of the other, it's a shame to witness egos tearing apart such an interesting literary relationship. (Theroux blames the split on Naipaul and his new wife, the insufferable Pakistani half-wit, Naira. As is often the case, the truth is less complex: Pure ego was the culpit.) A few of the Theroux's points harm his premise: He chides Naipaul for literary vainglory: "This sort of book has never been done before. This is a new form;" and yet Theroux himself states that a memoir like "Sir Vidia's Shadow" has never been done. Further, he claims Naipaul's recent writing is silly and unreadable. Naipaul has never published anything silly or unreadable. Theroux also hints that he's achieved a sort of literary parity with Naipaul. He hasn't. As good as Theroux is, VS Naipaul is the finer writer; Naipaul has the bigger and better expressed ideas; and Theroux benefited more from knowing Sir Vidia than the other way around. But the book is fascinating, funny and well done.
Rating:
Summary: A dip into Narcissus' pool
Review: Paul Theroux writes memoirs about his travels--no travelogue, they are instead very internalized impressions and reactions to what he experiences. And Theroux writes fiction (Mosquito Coast, Half Moon Street, Waldo.) In many of his memoirs he writes about his love of literature and his respect for a number of authors, including V.S. Naipaul. Now, we get a rare view of the intimate friendship between Naipaul and Theroux, something he had previously only alluded to. This is perhaps Theroux's best book. It is not "enjoyable"--reading it is like having a slight headache or sitting on something rather uncomfortable. That's because Naipaul (Vidia to his friends) is a true pain. He dispenses enigmatic advice ("Never keep a diary.") He makes outrageous pronouncements ("Women of sixty think of nothing but sex") and he is a hypocrite. He renounces sex. That is, he renounces sex with his long-suffering wife Pat, but keeps a mistress. This behavior is classic narcissism. Like most narcissists, Vidia has a lot of allure--he's a fascinating character, a celebrated writer. He fostered Theroux from a budding novelist to a respected, much-published author of note, probably for the pleasure of having a disciple. But when the surprise comes at the end of "Sir Vidia's Shadow" it is hardly a surprise, yet, it hurts. Theroux took the expected spanking for publishing a memoir such as this. Friends accused him of betrayal. Journalists tried to trump up a feud, where none existed. Critics came down hard. But I think "Sir Vidia's Shadow" is brave and honest--the difference between his writing and Naipaul's. Well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent and fair portrait.
Review: Paul Theroux's "Sir Vidia's Shadow" has taken quite a beating in some quarters. Many feel Theroux betrayed V.S. Naipaul by writing this memoir, but the fact remains that this is Theroux's story as much as it is Naipaul's. This book has been attacked for being nasty and unfair, but is actually an evenhanded and penetrating look at writing, friendship and human frailties. Theroux meets Naipaul in Uganda in 1966. Over the next 30 years, they remain friends through wide distances, triumphs and failures, divorces and deaths. Naipaul emerges as an extraordinarily compelling character. Perceptive, brilliant, egocentric and obsessed with writing, he abuses and uses his friends, family and professional acquaintances. He is also generous, needy and sometimes kind. What we end up with is a portrait of a supremely gifted but infantile man who is a fascinating but sometimes repugnant human being. Theroux is brutally honest not just about Naipaul's faults, but his finer qualities. He uses that same objectivity towards himself as well. In the end, "Sir Vidia's Shadow" betrays Theroux's hurt feelings after Naipaul terminates their relationship following his second marriage; it does not display meanspiritedness. This superb memoir is a gripping read, from the first page to the last. The story it has to tell is well worth reading, and Theroux writes beautifully (as ever). All in all, I highly recommend "Sir Vidia's Shadow."
Rating:
Summary: A bit more of the Theroux biography
Review: Regular readers of Paul Theroux, who have found sketchy details of his life in his travelougues, will find "Sir Vidia's Shadow" to be of some help in further illuminating Theroux's life, and his writing. Those looking for the poison pen letter described in many reviews will be less satisfied, I think. Many readers seem to be looking for further evidence of Theroux the Misanthrope: One reviewer notes that Naipaul was probably "his only friend", which is an odd assumption given the number of friends who pop up around the world in Theroux's travel books. Most of this book is, as Theroux himself states, the story of a friendship, probably the most important one in Theroux's professional life. The end of the friendship, and Theroux's disappointment and anger, really occupies a very small part of the final chapter. And yes, I do think that final chapter could have benifitted by some editing out of some of Theroux's more bitter and critical judgements of Naipaul. Both are fine writers- certainly two of the finest of the modern era. Naipaul has, perhaps, somewhat greater ease and fluency with language, and Theroux the greater imagination and openess to other cultures. Both have produced classics as well as less-than-classic work. In his more recent book on Africa, Theroux quotes Nadine Gordimer as saying that the book is really about Theroux, and not Naipaul, and that it was good he wrote. Yes, it's a somewhat self-serving quote, but it's accurate. And there's something universal in the story, something that every reader has probably experienced. Reading it put me in mind of a number of past friendships- close ones- that seemed to end abruptly, and without good reason. Or so it seemed at the time. Regardless, it's still excellent writing of the sort expected from Theroux, and still exemplifies the lessons Naipaul taught him, most importantly: Tell the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Shadowy
Review: There is something of Graham Greene in "Sir Vidia's Shadow," Paul Theroux's account of the end of his relationship with Nobel laureate V.S. (Vidia) Naipaul. What sustains the friendship between these two expatriate authors over 30 years? What eventually destroys it? How do place, class, calling, ideas, politics, and pheromones factor in their story? What is friendship anyway? These themes of Theroux also inspire Greene's "The End of the Affair." Two authors -- one established, the other just starting out -- meet in Uganda in 1966. Naipaul, the established one, is crabbed, dismissive, paranoid, needy, fussy, rule-bound, misogynistic, cheap, but immensely talented and eager to mentor. Theroux is accepting, ingratiating, adventuresome, admiring, and willing to pick up every check. Like partners in a bad marriage, they complement each other. Over the years, as friends, they support each other through the usual crises of life. As artists, they read each other's work and carry on a dialogue about writing, books, and other authors. Their shared interest in the writer's craft sustains their friendship, despite their personal differences. Naipaul's wife Pat also supplies some glue. Naipaul treats her shabbily, but Pat nevertheless "loved him -- loved him without condition -- praised him, lived for him, delighted in his success in the most unselfish way.... Possibly there was an element of fear in it -- the fear of losing him, the fear of her own futility and her being rejected.... She was discreet. She was kind, she was generous, she was restrained and magnanimous; she was the soul of politeness, she was grateful; she was all the things Vidia was not." (312) Theroux, who would acquire and lose a family of his own during the course of his relationship with Naipaul, desires Pat almost from the start. Naipaul rejects Pat's body, like a piece of undigestible sinew, in favor of prostitutes and other secret lovers. When Pat dies and Naipaul immediately remarries, his tactless new wife drives a wedge between old friends. Or does she? "Sir Vidia's Shadow" -- part memoir, part biography, part domestic drama, part psychological study, part literary criticism -- is not so clear. Perhaps Theroux, the author of 22 books, simply outgrows his sycophant's role: by book's end, in fact, dueling faxes replace dutiful lessons over lunch, and Sir Vidia's shadow shrinks literally to nothing. Perhaps there is something more, a context to the friendship that, though hinted at, goes unverbalized, thus clouding the book's focus. In fact, Theroux's portrait of Naipaul is extensive, but Naipaul is an independent -- a secretive -- man, and Theroux's portrait of himself is more limited, more guarded still. Besides Graham Greene, in other words, there is something of Henry James in "Sir Vidia's Shadow," but it is James without the information to clearly distinguish the protagonists from the victims.
|
