I
thought V.S. Naipaul’s In a Free State
would be a quick read. It consists of two short stories and a novella, bookended
by two travel anecdotes. I loved the first story. I puzzled
over the second. And I struggled through the third.
The
first story, “One out of Many,” is about an Indian domestic, Santosh, who
accompanies his employer, a government official, from Bombay to Washington,
D.C. His debacle of an airplane trip seems to include every possible thing that
could go wrong for a poor and naïve traveler on his first long voyage. Once in
the U.S., Santosh progresses through several stages: brave exploration, frightened
sequestration, fleeing his employer, finding a new one. He is “in a free state,”
but this freedom is more frightening than exhilarating, a leap into the void
without a safety net. I sympathized with the character’s adjustments and felt
that this story did an excellent job distilling the immigrant experience into
just forty pages.
The
second story, “Tell Me Who to Kill,” sums up one facet of the immigrant
experience this way: “ambition is like shame,” that is, trying to rise “above”
your origins implies that you are ashamed of them. The title expresses the main
character’s frustration with being an island immigrant in London, and the lack of target
for his feelings. “Once you find out who the enemy is, you can kill him. But
these people here they confuse me. Who hurt me? Who spoil my life?” This story
left me scratching my head: is the main character’s companion just a friend, or
are they gay? And what about the repeated murder sequence: is it a memory, a dream,
or a scene from a movie? No way to know for sure.
Finally,
the title novella. In a Free State is the fourth Booker Prize winner, and the third to explicitly address British colonialism. Two white government employees travel through an unnamed
African nation in turmoil: the president’s tribe is out to kill the former
king. Similar to J.G. Farrell’s Troubles,
the main character, Bobby, vacillates between sympathy for the natives and
frustration with them, while confronting another character, Linda, who seems
primarily scornful of them. Both Farrell and Naipaul seem to agree that the
role of the British is to let the natives figure out their path for themselves.
However, I felt the story dragged on and went over my head in places. It seemed
like a series of “in jokes” that maybe only readers of the time or expats in
Africa could understand.
It seems challenging to read these and not feel that you're "supposed" to like them since they won an award. I like that you're not judging the quality, but rather relating your personal response as a sophisticated reader.
ReplyDeleteAh, the idea that something, especially literature, would be over your head makes me chuckle heartily, my friend! But alas, I guess that is why we give ourselves these challenges. Kudos for taking this one on.
ReplyDeleteThanks! :)
Delete