When I learnt to write I became my own master, I became very strong, and that strength is with me to this very day.
V. S. NaipaulRead
What I felt was, if you spend your life just writing fiction, you are going to falsify your material. And the fictional form was going to force you to do things with the material, to dramatize it in a certain way. I thought nonfiction gave one a chance to explore the world, the other world, the world that one didn't know fully.
Interpretation
Writing fiction can distort reality, while nonfiction allows for genuine exploration of the world.
V. S. Naipaul suggests that writing exclusively fiction can lead to a distortion of truth, as the need to dramatize and shape narratives might overshadow authentic experiences. In contrast, he advocates for nonfiction as a medium that encourages a deeper understanding and exploration of the world, allowing writers to engage with reality and its complexities in a more truthful manner.
In practice
In a speech about the importance of truthful storytelling, this quote could serve as a reminder for writers to seek authenticity.
When I learnt to write I became my own master, I became very strong, and that strength is with me to this very day.
It is wrong to have an ideal view of the world. That's where the mischief starts. That's where everything starts unravelling.
If you decide to move to another country and to live within its laws you don't express your disregard for the essence of the culture. It's a form of aggression.
One must always try to see the truth of a situation - it makes things universal.
His ignorance seemed to widen with everything he read.
I think when you see so many Hindu temples of the 10th century or earlier disfigured, defaced, you realise that something terrible happened. I feel the civilisation of that closed world was mortally wounded by those invasions the old world is destroyed. That has to be understood. Ancient Hindu India was destroyed.
The poet gives us his essence, but prose takes the mould of the body and mind entire.
A classic,' suggested Anthony, 'is a successful book that has survived the reaction of the next period or generation. Then it's safe, like a style in architecture or furniture. It's acquired a picturesque dignity to take the place of its fashion.
Lots of people can write a good first page but to sustain it, that's my litmus test. If I flip to the middle of the book and there's a piece of dialogue that's just outstanding, or a description, then I'll flip back to the first page and start it.
People often ask me why my style is so simple. It is, in fact, deceptively simple, for no two sentences are alike. It is clarity that I am striving to attain, not simplicity. Of course, some people want literature to be difficult and there are writers who like to make their readers toil and sweat. They hope to be taken more seriously that way. I have always tried to achieve a prose that is easy and conversational. And those who think this is simple should try it for themselves.
If one believes that words are acts, as I do, then one must hold writers responsible for what their words do.
I suppose books mean more than people to me anyway
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.