'Naipaul needs a psychiatrist'

That's what one of the women we spoke to said about the controversial author, who recently declared women writers to be inferior to him, and went on to deride English novelist Jane Austen for 'sentimental concerns'

Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul's love for courting controversy is legendary.

The Trinidadian-British novelist of Indian descent, better known as VS Naipaul, once famously described post-colonial countries as 'half-baked societies'.


V S Naipaul

Another time, he compared the 'calamitous effect' of Islam to colonialism, and on a separate occasion deemed that 40 years ago, Indians were not intellectual enough to read his books, besides judging novelist EM Forster and economist John Maynard Keynes to be 'homosexual exploiters of the powerless'.

This time around, the focus of Naipaul's scorn is women writers.

In an interview at the Royal Geographic Society, earlier this week, the Nobel Laureate came off as decidedly sexist, when he was quoted as saying, "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."

The 78-year-old attributed this presumed failing of women writers to 'sentimentality, the narrow view of the world'. "And inevitably for a woman, she is not a complete master of a house, so that comes over in her writing too."

Sir Vidia, as he is also known, praised one-time friend and editor, Diana Athill, often credited for shaping his work during his days as a struggling writer, for being 'so good as a taster and editor', but churning out 'feminine tosh' when she took to writing herself.

The caustic writer, knighted in 1989, seemed to hold special contempt for celebrated author Jane Austen saying he "couldn't possibly share her sentimental ambitions, her sentimental sense of the world".

With reactions to Naipaul's comments ranging from outrage and disgust to dismissal, we decided to ask Indian women, who make a career from words, what they think of Sir Vidia's supposedly misogynist tirade.

What women authors have to say

Shobhaa De, author and columnist:
Talent has no gender. Naipaul has fed off controversy all his life. He is an 'agent provocateur' and a brilliant one at that. He is entitled to his rather unfortunate take on women writers... ignore him!
Talent has no gender. If he hits the headlines by rubbishing Jane Austen, does it take away from Austen's gift to enchant readers? Naipaul sounds like a petulant, insecure old man with an enormous chip on his shoulder.
But he IS a genius! I am a great admirer. And shall remain one.
His jaundiced view about the writing abilities of women reveals his deep hatred for the female voice a voice that is being increasingly heard across the world. I consider it his loss. Of course we are sentimental and proud of it! The scary part of this controversy is that Naipaul probably means every word!
He sounds like a pretty miserable, loopy eccentric, who has lost the plot completely so out of sync with modern thinking! So medieval in his outlook. Bechara Naipaul. All I can say is, "Get well soon!"

Rupa Gulab, author and freelance writer
Naipaul needs a kick in the pants
Naipaul is just an arrogant f'''er and he's always been one.
If he had been asked about a male writer, who he might consider his equal, he would have said the same.
In fact, a lot of male writers write male tosh. Naipaul, as is well-known, was earlier married to an English woman who he treated very badly.
Just because he did not allow his wife to be the mistress in his own house, he thinks all women are submissive.
He clearly hasn't had, and badly needs a woman who can kick him in the pants. Naipaul makes controversial and nasty remarks, because it makes him feel powerful. What he really needs is a psychiatrist.

Milee Ashwarya, senior commissioning editor, Random House
He is being unfair to women. This incident proves that Naipaul wants attention. Because he is not talking about a particular author, he is being unfair to women. Perhaps he is living in a different world. While I am okay with him not appreciating Jane Austen's writing style, I am not okay with his blanket statements concerning women authors.

Nandita Puri, author
He suffers from an inferiority complex
I have always found Naipaul to be extremely racist and sexist. If you read his biography you will find the way he deals with the women in his life very disturbing. These statements prove how insecure he is about himself. His mind is warped, and it shows in his writing too. You will also see how he has always tried to wear the pants in his house, and somewhere he has failed to be the ultimate boss, and so is suffering from an inferiority complex.

Sampurna Chatterjee, author and poet
What about 'masculine tosh'?
How can one even react to something like this? And why just feminine tosh? There's so much masculine tosh out there as well. It's bad writing that is sentimental and it has nothing to do with gender. I can't offer any insights on the peculiarities of this author and I wouldn't even want to dignify his statements with a comment. It's beneath debate.

Au00a0wife beater
When Naipaul married college sweetheart Patricia Hale, it seemed like the perfect start to a Happily Ever After tale. However, it wasn't to be. Naipaul admitted to being a 'prostitute man' while being married to Hale, also carrying on a long-term affair with another woman. On one occasion, Naipaul spoke about physically abusing his wife, and is quoted as saying, "I was very violent with her for two days with my hand; my hand began to hurt. She didn't mind at all ufffd Her face was bad. She couldn't appear really in public. My hand was swollen." Patricia succumbed to cancer in 1996 after being married to Naipaul for 41 years. Prior to her death, Naipaul proposed to Pakistani journalist Nadira, who he married two months after Hale's death.

'No comment'
British writer Patrick French, and biographer to VS Naipaul, is alleged to have described the novelist as "bigoted, arrogant, vicious, racist, a woman-beating misogynist and sado-masochist". In an e-mail to Mid Day, French said that he had sent an official clarification to the newspaper concerned, saying: These are not my words, and seem a misleading and reductive way to characterise both VS Naipaul and my biography of him, The World Is What It Is. French, however, refused to comment on Naipaul's latest statements.

Two women in recent history who could make naipaul eat his words
We wonder what Naipaul has to say about two women winning the 2011 Griffin Prizes (Canada's most prestigious poetry award). Canadian poet Dionne Brand won the $75,000 National award for her book Ossuaries and US poet Gjertrud Schnackenberg won the $75,000 International award for her Heavenly Questions.
Interestingly, Brand has analysed Naipaul's writings on India. "Many read Naipaul as spiteful... But in some ways I read Naipaul as spitefully sorrowful," she was quoted as saying.

1989
Year in which V S Naipaul was knighted

2001
Year in which VS Naipaul won the Nobel Prize in Literature for "having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories".

2008
Naipaul was ranked 7th on the list of World's Best writers