Afternoon:
15°c
'Women writers are different, I can tell, they are unequal to me'
Rob Parsons1 Jun 2011
As a Nobel Prize-winning author, VS Naipaul's writing about British colonialism has often sparked fury.
But the 78-year-old raised hackles last night when he dismissed all women writers as "unequal" to him and criticised their "sentimentality".
The Trinidad-born writer said: "Women writers are different, they are quite different.
"I read a piece of writing and within a paragraph or two I know whether it is by a woman or not. I think [it is] unequal to me." Asked to elaborate, he said this was due to their "sentimentality, the narrow view of the world".
He added: "And inevitably for a woman, she is not a complete master of a house, so that comes over in her writing too.
"My publisher, who was so good as a taster and editor, when she became a writer, lo and behold it was all this feminine tosh. I don't mean this in any unkind way."
Speaking to Evening Standard editor Geordie Greig, Naipaul was asked if he considered any women writers his equal. He replied: "I don't think so."
The former Booker Prize winner - who has been described as "the greatest living writer of English prose" - has ruffled many feathers since he came to England aged 18 to study at Oxford University.
However, he appears to enjoy the controversy. Regular interviews with his authorised biographer Patrick French led the latter to describe him as bigoted, arrogant, vicious, racist, a woman-beating misogynist and sado-masochist.
Knighted in 1989, his writing angered many post-colonial countries when he described them as "half-made societies". Naipaul has also been involved in an angry feud since 1996 with American author Paul Theroux.
The pair's friendship spanned three decades but came to an abrupt end after travel writer Theroux discovered that a book he gave to Naipaul had been put on sale for $1,500.
They appeared to bury the hatchet after shaking hands at the Hay-on-Wye Festival over the weekend.
However, at an Intelligence Squared event at the Royal Geographical Society last night, Naipaul said: "He gave his name, it was a great courtesy. If he hadn't I would have wondered 'who is this person who is shaking my hand?'
"Then he said his name and instinctively I said 'I am glad we can put an end to all this nonsense'. I shook his hand back. I was very glad to do that."
During a 90-minute talk covering all aspects of his literary career, Naipaul slated the work of Jane Austen, and said he "couldn't possibly share her sentimental ambitions, her sentimental sense of the world".
Reader views (21)
Somehow with my own experience, I agree with his remark about women's "sentimentality, the narrow view of the world". And I think it is just natural and that may be the beauty of a woman and she should not lose it trying to be equal to man... that will make an ugly being neither man nor a woman. And we know that it is very true for a man, why not for a woman.
- Athula Siriwardhane, Sri Lanka, 07/10/2011 03:52
Report abuse
Somehow with my own experience, I agree with his remark about women's "sentimentality, the narrow view of the world". And I think it is just natural and that may be the beauty of a woman and she should not lose it trying to be equal to man... that will make an ugly being neither man nor a woman. And we know that it is very true for a man, why not for a woman.
- Athula Siriwardhane, Sri Lanka, 07/10/2011 03:48
Report abuse
As a lowly unequal woman who has read a lot can i commend to this 'superior' man that he read Suri Hustvedt to name but one or Joyce Carol Oates or Joan Didion, He could go further back and read Mary Shelley, there is much for him to identify within that piece of work, Frankenstein.No doubt Mr Naipaul was at launch of Playboy Club he and Hugh have a lot in common, ignorance narcissism and like all idiots the oppression of women.
- mpc, london, 06/06/2011 19:49
Report abuse
it is interesting that "Bernadette, Toronto, 04/06/2011 04:25" could not tell that "anonymous, kano, nigeria, 03/06/2011 05:51" is a woman!
goes to prove naipaul's point as simplistic generalization if not buffoonery.
- anonymous, kano nigeria, 05/06/2011 13:10
Report abuse
He can think what he wants to think.
But he's wrong - and that's the end of it.
I don't think sentimentality is reserved for women; some of the sappiest and most deeply emotional and moving poetry was written by fellas.
I don't think sentimentality is a negative attribute in writing. It's important to convey mood and humanity in your words so that your writing may transport and capture the reader.
I don't think women have a narrower view of the world than do men. We only have one pair of eyes and we can only point them in one direction at a time. The fact that he is unable to grasp the merits of women's writing suggests his worldview is vastly narrower than that of most people, male or female, that I have ever met.
- Miriam Reynoldson, Australia, 04/06/2011 05:06
Report abuse
Just because someone has been knighted means nothing.
I find it interesting people sign themselves anonymous or just bloke after their comments. Are you ashamed?
Who cares what this idiot has to say? Having some education does not give anyone the right to degrade others for ANY reason .... and so ... I won't.
Enough said.
- Bernadette, Toronto, 04/06/2011 04:25
Report abuse
I think he is a fine writer, but his hatred and fear of women is apparent in his work.
- Genevieve, Oakland, California, United States, 03/06/2011 22:06
Report abuse
Women writers can hardly be expected to share David Sexton's sentiment, if you can use that word 'sentiment' in the same context with the name of this diplorable misogynist. How could a knighthood have been bestowed on this insecure egomaniac especially given his condemnation of some of the most notable writers in the literary world? Further, his chauvinistic view of women and women writers in particular, is not only the product of a backward intellect, but an ungrateful epitaph to the wife whom he so ill used despite her unerring fidelity and support of him in the early days as a struggling writer, and even later when he had achieved notoriety as an author.
- P Miranda, London, England, 03/06/2011 17:33
Report abuse
naipaul has his own sentimentality --in fact an awful lot--dealt with in sombre tones and tackling of world history along anglo-colonial. in his life however, such as this festival where he said these things, there s a sense of humour, a jesting, troublemaking finger poking (come to think of it, regarding the english woman he abused for decades, it is nearly impossible not to insult the slavishness of a woman\(or man) so beholden to one). but of course that was just one woman. for him there were others and the women where 'other'--just like he continually insisted asian and africa were 'other'. his obsession with arrival and otherness -otherness by virtue of belonging to a group...all of this is highly sentimental stuff. but he is a keen writer. one would have preferred a bit more than just the describing of things...
there s sentimentality when he thinks and boasts that there's none and there is humour were the public exhibits such shock over his every whim or comment...
- anonymous, kano, nigeria, 03/06/2011 05:51
Report abuse
Well, they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity....but I will never read anything by this ignorant and arrogant eeejit. Too busy writing ...my work may well be 'tosh' but certainly never sentimental.
- Raven Dane, Chesham, UK, 02/06/2011 19:26
Report abuse
I am actually not surprised that Naipaul would make a comment like this. He seems to hate all people, apart from himself of course. I am a Trinidadian, but have never been a fan of his work. Being forced to read, A House for Mr Biswas at school, I hadn't read another work by him until a Bend in the River,a few months ago. His narcissism and sense of self-importance seeped through the pages. The way in which he writes about women and especially Africans were at once objectifying and disparaging. I almost felt sorry for him in The World is what it is, his Biography. But this recent outburst has only reaffirmed my my opinion of him as someone whose deep-seated bitterness seems to stem from his early years, growing up in rural, pre-independent, Trinidad.
- Marlise Andrews, Bankside, London., 02/06/2011 17:50
Report abuse
A man who has always had a grossly inflated sense of his own importance, bolstered by knighthoods etc. Basically malicious, petty and second-rate (at best)
- MikeS, London, 02/06/2011 11:59
Report abuse
Surprising how many of those who have been quick to claim offense by his remarks respond in frankly racist terms. It is an interesting rather than an offensive proposition that one can accurately determine the sex of the author by reading a text. As for egoism, if that in an author were cause for offence, we should simply stop reading literature altogether.
- Bloke, Lambeth, 02/06/2011 09:48
Report abuse
I entirely agree, Jonathan Begg.
A common worksmith devoid of spirit, consumed by ego. A bully with words.
His language is totally offensive and probably illegal. It certainly breaks the House Rules on this site. Why can he do it, and I can't? How on earth is he tolerated in literary circles?
Are his books published merely because he does abuse people.
- jilli roberts, Hobart Australia, 02/06/2011 07:20
Report abuse
A common worksmith devoid of spirit, consumed by ego. A bully with words.
Stop giving this man accolades, platforms at writing festivals, interviews.
His language is totally offensive and almost illegal. How on earth is he tolerated in literary circles? A man with this sort of character does not deserve a knighthood, awarded no doubt to a token colonial"made good".
I suspect his books are published merely because he does abuse people. Take away the abuse and what is left? Boredom.
- Jilli R, Hobart Australia, 02/06/2011 07:09
Report abuse
He is praised for his courage, while risking precisely nothing.
As an Afro-Indian, he occupies a particular religious sanctuary, where he is free to speak the truth about different racial cultures, in a way that would simply get the rest of us clapped in jail.
- Jonathan Begg, London W2 4RD, 02/06/2011 00:58
Report abuse
Hahahaha, thats funny
- Belinda, Brisbane, Australia, 02/06/2011 00:52
Report abuse
This porky little male chauvinist obviously chooses to ignore the Bronte sisters, Virginia Wolf, Mary Renault, Anne Tyler to name just a few first class female writers. He would probably like to claim that George Elliot was a man, not a woman who had to publish a masterpiece under an assumed name because of people like him.
- Joe Blow, Wales, 01/06/2011 23:11
Report abuse
Having just bought his 'Letters between a Father and Son', I think "Vido" is the one who is sentimental. "I feel the urge to write a long letter home. For the past two days, I have been thinking more and more about home", or "Dear Pa, believe me when I tell you how happy I am that you are writing". Maybe "Vido" is the one who is sentimental but doesn't want to accept it. He started to almost cry at the Hay Festival when talking about his father, very moving but equally very sentimental. His letter read very similarly to Jane Austen in fact. His disrespect for women is his disrespect for the emotional aspect of his own nature. As for a "narrow view of the world", "Vido" has only written about the same theme, perhaps he could try to write a modern 21st century novel using the marvellous prose that he is a master of. That would prove his "grand" vision of the world.
- Anna Francis, Wimbledon, 01/06/2011 20:16
Report abuse
He's dead right, women aren;t anything like this pompous egotistical spiteful man.....thank goodness
- Bill Isaac, London England, 01/06/2011 15:16
Report abuse
What an over-inflated fool. The proof's in the pudding - how many people have read his works or even heard of him compared to:
Jane Austen, the Brontes, JK Rowling, Lynda La Plant, Catherine Cookson, Jackie Collins, Agatha Christie.............
- Claire P, London, 01/06/2011 13:14
Report abuse
