Empire Podcast, Episode 315:

Controversy, Colonialism, & V.S. Naipaul
Host: Goalhanger | Date: December 11, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode delves deep into the life, work, and controversies of Sir V.S. Naipaul, a Nobel Prize-winning writer whose incisive explorations of postcolonial identity, displacement, and empire have sparked both admiration and condemnation. Hosts William Dalrymple and Anita Anand are joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer Benjamin Moser for a candid discussion of Naipaul’s impact on literature and his complex personal legacy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. V.S. Naipaul’s Roots and Early Life

• Origins in Trinidad

  • Born in rural poverty in colonial Trinidad in 1932.
  • Family descended from Indian indentured laborers, brought to Trinidad due to upheaval in India and British colonial policies.
  • Moser describes Trinidad as "a background of no background" ([07:09]).
  • The island, post-colonization, was “scraped” clean of its indigenous population, becoming a labor camp of Africans and Indians ([07:45])—an unusual and rootless society.

• Struggles with Language and Identity

  • Naipaul relates to English as both colonial inheritance and alienating force.
  • He illustrates the disconnect by recounting reading Wordsworth’s ‘daffodils’—admired but never seen in Trinidad ([10:20]).
  • Anita reflects: "All the poverty and badness of Trinidad, far away, with a population of half a million, I was given the ambition to write books, and specifically to write novels..." ([11:44]).

2. Character and Reputation

• A Divisive Personality

  • Both Dalrymple and Moser share stories of Naipaul's kindness, especially toward younger writers ([05:04]), while Anand found her only interview with him “terrifying and appalling” ([04:45]).
  • "He was kind of a legendary monster... for me he was nothing but lovely" – Benjamin Moser ([05:04]).

• Sense of Displacement

  • Naipaul referred to himself as “doubly or trebly displaced” ([14:48]).
  • His writing is often described as cold or bleak, but Moser disagrees: “I never find it bleak or cold at all. I find it extremely alive and absolutely fascinating.” ([15:03])

3. Breaking New Literary Ground

• No Precedent for His Writing

  • Moser: “There was no precedent for somebody from Trinidad writing a high art novel in English” ([17:29]).
  • Culture shock on arrival in England; descriptions of postwar London as bombed-out, cosmopolitan, and poor ([16:25]).
  • Early comic novels like “Miguel Street” and “The Suffrage of Elvira” receive special praise for their warmth and humor ([19:27]-[20:11]).

• Naipaul’s Place Amongst Immigrants

  • Despite being part of the Windrush generation, he remained an outsider, not fitting in with either working class immigrants or the British elite ([21:01]).
  • He was vocal against racism early in his UK life, even appearing on television—a side less known in later years ([21:48]).

4. Controversy and Critique

• Accusations of Racism and Snobbery
  • Anita notes the use of racially loaded language and moments that made her recoil ([23:22]), with references such as “hubshis” (Indian equivalent of the N-word, [23:47]).
  • Naipaul often caricatured himself in public: “If Zadie Smith... was a white liberal’s dream, VS Naipaul was the nightmare” – Patrick French quoted by Dalrymple ([24:19]).
  • Naipaul dismissed his critics and “white liberal pieties” ([24:19]), while also being harsh toward Rastafarianism (“He called Rastafarianism a disease” – Dalrymple, [25:06]).

5. Non-Fiction Masterpieces & Their Reception

• “The Middle Passage”

  • Commissioned by the Trinidadian government but provided a withering, unvarnished view of the Caribbean ([28:53]).
  • Moser argues it’s fair precisely because Naipaul refuses to flatter or romanticize, instead critically examining postcolonial societies’ struggle after the British Empire ([28:53]-[31:04]).
  • “If you talk to West Indians now…he’s still a writer that any West Indian writer has read and read extensively” – Moser ([29:38]).

• “The Loss of El Dorado”

  • A devastating, detailed account of the brutality of colonial rule, including slavery and genocide ([31:04]).
  • Inspired by Naipaul’s discovery in the British Library of the nearly erased history of his homeland’s indigenous people ([31:41]-[32:40]).

• “An Area of Darkness”

  • Naipaul’s first book on India; hugely controversial and critical of post-independence decay ([33:04]).
  • He was nostalgic for a lost Indian heritage, openly proud of his Brahmin ancestry ([33:23])—but harsh on both Hindu and Muslim civilizations; viewed them as partly responsible for India’s repeated conquests ([36:36]-[37:29]).
  • Dalrymple critiques Naipaul’s vision of Indian Islam, arguing it overlooks localized, syncretic traditions such as the Sufi shrines ([38:46]).

6. Legacy and Disputes

• Feuds with Other Writers

  • Famous spats with Salman Rushdie, Edward Said, and Derek Walcott ([41:33]-[42:09]).
  • Derek Walcott, however, was someone Naipaul admired.
  • Edward Said criticized Naipaul for being dismissive of national liberation movements ([42:39]).

• Memorable Reflections on Art vs. Artist

  • Linton Kwesi Johnson’s summary: “He talks a lot of shit but still writes excellent books” ([43:50]).
  • Moser: “At the end, a writer is not his work but his legend… and I think that is his fate.” ([41:18])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|---------|-------| | 05:04 | Ben Moser | “He was kind of a legendary monster and for me he was nothing but lovely.” | | 11:44 | William Dalrymple | “All the poverty and badness of Trinidad, far away, with a population of half a million, I was given the ambition to write books, and specifically to write novels...” | | 15:03 | Benjamin Moser | “I never find it bleak or cold at all. I find it extremely alive and absolutely fascinating.” | | 17:29 | William Dalrymple (via Moser) | “There was no precedent for somebody from Trinidad writing a high art novel in English.” | | 23:47 | William Dalrymple | “It’s the Indian equivalent of the N word. Humpshee…” | | 24:19 | Patrick French (quoted by Dalrymple) | “If Zadie Smith…was a white liberal’s dream, VS Naipaul was the nightmare.” | | 29:38 | Ben Moser | “He’s still a writer that any West Indian writer has read and read extensively. It’s really the first time that they have a writer of this stature coming from within the society.” | | 35:46 | William Dalrymple | “Very bad man. Very bad man.” (Chennai airport security’s reaction to ‘An Area of Darkness’) | | 36:51 | William Dalrymple | “There’s a passage in ‘Area of Darkness’ where he talks about the continuity and flow of Hindu India ever shrinking… and the Mughal ruins, only speak of waste and failure.” | | 43:50 | Linton Kwesi Johnson (quoted by Dalrymple) | “He talks a lot of shit but still writes excellent books, which I think is a very good final quote.” | | 44:31 | Ben Moser | “I still think that the world was lucky to have him… the legacy is, it’s very troubling, it’s very deep, it’s very upsetting in a lot of ways. But to me, I don’t know another writer who offers a more complete key to the post colonial world.” |

Chronological Timestamps for Major Segments

• Naipaul’s Early Life & Family Displacement: 03:00 – 10:20
• Relations with Other Writers & Notables: 17:29 – 21:48, 41:33 – 42:09
• Discussion of “The Middle Passage” & “The Loss of El Dorado”: 28:53 – 33:04
• “An Area of Darkness” and Critiques of India: 33:04 – 39:57
• Debate over Representations of Colonial & Postcolonial Realities: 39:57 – 43:50
• Reflections on Legacy and Final Appraisal: 44:08 – end

Tone and Noteworthy Moments

The tone is candid, passionate, and rigorous—often deeply personal, reflecting the hosts' and guest's experiences with Naipaul both as a man and as a writer. They maintain a balance between admiration for his literary genius and clear-eyed recognition of his many personal and ideological provocations.

Conclusion

This episode provides a nuanced, in-depth look at V.S. Naipaul’s role as both chronicler and critic of the postcolonial world. Through literary analysis, anecdotes, and critical reflection, Dalrymple, Anand, and Moser illuminate Naipaul’s enduring importance despite—or because of—his divisive reputation. Listeners are left with a portrait of a complex genius: rootless and uprooting, savage in critique, yet a source of inspiration for generations of writers navigating the tangled legacies of empire.