Years ago, working in a bookshop and reading reviews for the first time in my life, I learned of a new volume of non-fiction by V.S. Naipaul and decided that I would never read his books. I don’t remember why exactly, but he has been criticized over the years for his depiction of various peoples and his depiction of violence, which might have been highlighted in that review, and many other books and writers interested me more.
Lately, however, I’ve been thinking a lot about how we choose what to not read (when we deliberately choose, but also how our choices are shaped); suddenly, I was freshly curious about A House for Mr. Biswas by V.S. Naipaul, a book I’d once been so sure I would never read.

It’s nearly six hundred pages long, and my progress was helped by the fact that I wasn’t well and Mr. Biswas was a book within my reach. I read all by the last fifty pages while feeling poorly, and it seemed to heighten the main character’s sense of being pressed into a very narrow set of expectations and opportunities. Stuck in bed, I related even more keenly to Mohun’s sense of being stuck, restrained and constrained. Often I would close the book and push it away limply but, just a few moments later, resume. That sense of resignation mirroring some of the events in the story, too.
The book begins ten weeks before the death of Mr. Biswas, which we learn about in the prologue. Of course when this happens, one should adjust one’s anticipation and should attend to the details. But, I didn’t (which is typical, not a factor of feeling foggy-headed) so I didn’t notice the name of his wife, or the other details which could have acted like spoilers, and only halfway into the novel did I remember that he’d probably be dead at the end of it. (How do I miss these things? Partly because I’m intended to get swept away by the story.)
Meanwhile, he’d been a little boy with his first job (minding a neighbour’s young cow), then an older boy, a young man—and, so on: we follow Mohun Biswas through his whole life. And it’s not a very happy life either—not for him, not for anyone around him. And the talk of comedy on the book’s jacket? It’s that sort of dark and bleak humour where you simply cannot believe anything else could go wrong but, then, it does, so that it’s almost laughable, which isn’t quite the same as comic.
Which isn’t to say that his is a joyless story either. Or that there are no moments of beauty: there are many. Consider this incidental event, which begins by highlighting the importance of circumstance: when one bears a heavy load, every incremental movement is impacted.
“It was a Ford V-8 of the early nineteen-thirties, not inelegant, and it might have performed less erratically if it carried a lighter load. Under the weight of children and oranges it sank low on the rear springs, the bonnet was slightly uptilted, and for the steeper climbs the children had to get off. Often the car broke down and then the driver, who knew nothing about cars, asked the children to push. Like ants around a dead cockroach the children surrounded the car (the girls in their dark blue uniforms) and pushed and pulled. Sometimes they pushed for more than a mile. Sometimes they pushed the car to the top of a hill, jumped aside as it rolled down, heard it start, raced after it, as the driver urging them to hurry, sprang inside three at a time.”
The criticism, from scholars and critics, of Naipaul’s depiction of families like that of Mr. Biswas seems to revolve around the desperation and despair stoked by a life of poverty. Not only material poverty but emotional poverty. As a boy, he is famished for not only actual food but for affection and love, and this carries forward into adulthood.


It’s a mean existence, in every sense of that word, and provokes the age-old argument of whether it’s appropriate to allow characters who have experienced injustice to behave badly, whether that decision is exploitative or whether it affords them the equal capacity to make human choices. And Mr. Biswas does not often use good judgement in making decisions—whether because he is only a child (in the beginning) or because his deprivations have skewed his evaluations.
Born with six fingers, that sixth finger is eventually buried in the yard behind the Biswas house Mohun first inhabits as a child with his whole family; it’s the last time they all reside together, and events that transpire there will come to haunt every dwelling he inhabits.
The point is that Mohun isn’t like everyone else and, yet, he is almost unbearably ordinary. And whether his ideas change—about home and where/how we belong, to places and to one another—absorbs a few hundred pages.
“Never, as from the windows of that Buick, did North Trinidad look so beautiful. They noted, as though they had never seen it before from a bus, how the landscape changed, from marsh just outside Port of Spain, to straggling suburb, to hilly country, to country village, to country town, to rice fields and sugarcane fields, with the Northern Range always on their left. They drove along the smooth new American highway, were checked on entering and leaving the American army post by soldiers with helmets and rifles. Then they drove along a winding road overarched by cool trees to Arima, which welcomed careful drivers; and on to Valencia, where the road ran straight for miles, with untouched bush on either side.”
Consider how this expansive description of Trinidad only appears late in the novel. Early on, readers see the land as Mohun sees it, so there is no expanse, only the smallest of streams near the family home, each drop in the water appearing as a minor miracle. There are many characters important to the story, some belonging to different castes and some having come to Trinidad from different countries; these aspects of identity come parcelled with individuals and, only later, are understood to be part of historical events and patterns.
Naipaul patrols the narrative as vigilantly as these American soldiers: he observes, he authorizes readers’ access, he tends the boundary between civilized and wild spaces. This is his fourth novel, and it took three years to write. He apparently never revisited it after he finished its final proof in May of 1961. I’m glad that I didn’t know that it’s based on his own father’s life; at times I found myself wondering whether some of these characters were composites, because their experiences were often tense and sometimes tragic, and knowing that there were corollaries for each of them would have had me thinking more about biography than fiction. However, learning this in hindsight did leave me more curious about both the actual family’s experiences, and more curious about his process of writing fiction based on family history too. (His sense that writing it “destroyed memory” rather than preserved it, for instance. Wikipedia)
Ten years later, he would win the Booker for In a Free State, which the jury describes as five interconnected tales about “alienation, disruption and racial tension in a perilously unpredictable world”. All those qualities are also evident in the story of Mr. Biswas. He would go on to write even more non-fiction than fiction, about Asia and Africa as well as the Caribbean, about history and belief and literature, and various relationships between all those. Reading his bibliography, it really feels like a “body” of work.

In just this single novel, however, I see why some have levied accusations against Naipaul’s stories; violence, for instance, is a part of almost every relationship in this novel, and there is always at least one creature with power over one other creature, eventually wielded via backhand, palm, or fist. But where some have suggested that Naipaul condones this behaviour, I see it as represented but not excused. And I see the misery and the disadvantaged characters, but I don’t see that Naipaul claims that Mr Biswas represents all Trinidadian men or his family all Trinidadian families.
I want characters in my reading to be believable, to feel real, and Mr. Biswas does (in part, it seems, because he was real, once—his story being that of VSN’s father along with other family members). He makes some foolish choices, and sometimes he is thoughtless and sometimes he is cruel.
If you’re looking for a best friend, keep the applications coming. If you’re looking for a good story, Mr. Biswas has one to tell you. I wish I hadn’t made a snap judgement years ago, which kept me from reading it for myself all this time.
I read a biography of Naipaul years ago (https://andrewblackman.net/2010/04/the-world-is-what-it-is-by-patrick-french/) and it made him come across as a quite repulsive human being in many ways, and yet also understandable and shaped by his environment, in particular the racism he encountered when he first arrived in Britain. I still find him a brilliant writer, but many of his books are marred by his prejudices, his mean-spirited view of human nature and his cruelty towards his characters. Interestingly, his first book (Miguel Street) is very different and gives an idea of what kind of writer he might have been if his life had been different.
Thank you for linking to that, Andrew, it was so interesting to put all that together with my fledgling understanding of his views (for instance, of the violence in the marriage he describes in the novel, which was apparently a fictionalised portrait of his father’s marriage, and the on-again-off-again nature of that relationship). I wonder if Miguel Street was more heavily edited, in the way that (sometimes) first novels can be treated with a heavier editorial touch (that’s less common after an author is solidly on a publisher’s list), or if it was solely his racialised experineces after having attended Oxford and having relocated to England, that impacted the work so dramatically. Either way, I remain curious, because I don’t think his views are all that unusual…t’s the open and public expression of them that seems to stand out in the literary landscape?
I remember when this book came up in my Internet Reading Group back in the late 90s-early 2000s and I was interested but didn’t get to it. And then a few years on I read Naipaul’s arrogant (at least that’s how they came across) statements about women writers (and particularly Jane Austen) as being sentimental. Not only did that sound arrogant but it sounded like someone who doesn’t read very closely. So, I think I have a book of his on my TBR but I’ve never been tempted to put it ahead of others.
That said, I don’t understand why scholars and critics criticise his depiction of families, and the desperation and despair stoked by a life of poverty. If he depicts it well, isn’t that a good thing, a useful thing? What are they criticising?
Oh, yes, those sorts of statements are just the sort of thing that would have gotten him banned from my stacks (literal and metaphorical stacks) at that juncture!
The other criticisms I’ve read were about how his depictions of life in the colonies was negative; some that it was churlish to speak badly of colonization after you’d come to England and had all its advantages there, some that telling such miserable stories perpetuated stereotypes about everything being ugly and depressing there. I’ve got few details, because I don’t want to look too closely right now, in case I do read something else.
It all smacks a little of the “I don’t want to read about uncomfortable topics” argument. And a little of the “who do you think you are” argument. So part of me questions the criticisms. But he also seems to have been so wholly immersed in patriarchal systems that he cannot conceive of a woman’s writing be worthwhile, and not recognising such a systemic bias suggests he might have other significant blind spots too.
Complex eh? I don’t agree with all those criticisms, as you’d expect. For example, I reckon you can benefit from something but still question it. As you say a little of the “who do you think you are”. However, the blind spots re women’s writing, I find harder to forgive because they smack of prejudice and a closed mind. But … still, I might like his writing.
Also “but…still”–I might yet find that my initial decision (whether instinct or rooted in a different kind of prejudice) to NOT read his books might prove to have been a solid choice.
I hope you are feeling better now Marcie. I had noticed that your blogging lilfe had gone a little quiet.
Somehow, somewhere a copy of this found its way onto my TBR. I guess cause it was an award winner, but until now I knew about the writer or any of the concerns about his writing. I did look at this as an option for the 1961 club, but its doorstopper status defeated me.
Maybe one day.
Only just this weekend did I manage to get some things caught up to where theyd’ been before I get sick, so I think my energy is fnally returning (thanks to fewer coughing fits overnight…better rest, I’d say).
Well, it was the only book I could reach at the time; that’s also how I read the bulk of Catch-22 last year, so either I should quickly put Ulysses there, or I should pull one of Bill’s favourite Heyer’s right now!
I’m not tempted to read Naipaul (despite you devoting a whole post to this one book) but I am reminded that he was an important teacher to the ‘Makerere generation’, those east African writers like Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o who attended Makerere university in the late fifties and early sixties. Which dates makes me wonder if A House for Mr Biswas was written there.
His Wikipedia page describes the exact place he was living in, in Lonodn, but of course scraps could/would have been written elsewhere before that time. I haven’t been reading as much African lit since I started reading more South American lit unfortunately. #choices /sigh
I think what intereste me more than VSN’s writing (this novel reminded me of Rohinton Mistry’s A Fine Balance, and I have been thinking of rerading that, and might rather have done so, on the other side of so much time with Mr Biswas) is how we as readers have responded to it (do respond to it), and how our expectations impact the way we receive stories that underscore or challenge the “typical” stories of suffering in “faraway places”. So I might read another for that reason, depending on what pops up second-hand.
I remember my English teacher recommending this but I’ve never got to it because its such a chunkster. I do find VSN’s reputation unpleasant so it’s interesting to hear how you found this one.
I also had the idea that he was argumentative? Which stood out even in an era when it was expected that people would hold diverse opinions and disagree about some things; of course, now I can see that that might have been propagated because he spoke about things that others wish he’d have left unsaid. (However, I don’t have enough experience to have an informed opinion… just musing aloud.)
I’ve always steered clear of this author for the reasons you’ve outlined in your opening. but I’m really glad you got so much out of this one. Reservations aside, the core story does sound very compelling…
Books with the theme of home do appeal to me generally, but it’s only in the past few years that I’ve become so curious about how we choose what we read (and don’t read) in the course of our bookish lives.
How interesting that this book was within your reach even after you told yourself you’d never read him! I’ve not read him and can’t say that I feel any pull to at this moment, but who knows what the future holds? I appreciated reading your thoughtful review.
It’s kinda mysterious, doncha think? The combination of details that collide to take a longago backlisted title into your stack? Let alone a title that you once were convinced you’d never read. The Club year, a second-hand copy “right there”, it being around hen I couldn’t fetch myself an alternative…
A lovely thoughtful review.
I first starting reading Naipaul around when he won the Nobel prize. I’d known people who liked Mr. Biswas and had read it before, but one of my first Naipauls was A Bend in the River, which I absolutely hated. The reviews I saw were positive, but I found it sour and with a tendency to blame the victim. It’s not so much the portrayal of violence that I would object to–obviously that exists, and its mere portrayal doesn’t indicate approval, but quite possibly it’s opposite. But A Bend in the River seemed to me to see no hope in colonial life. A Bend In The River is vague about the country it takes place in, but it is sort of Uganda (under Idi Amin) and that was a terrible place and time of course, but the novel struck me as one-sided.
It was only some years after that I returned to Naipaul and read A House for Mr. Biswas. A Bend in the River still colored my reading of Biswas, though, and every place I felt unjustified despair and contempt I was annoyed. I don’t think that was entirely fair, but that was the way I felt. I don’t think those thoughts were meant by Naipaul when he wrote Biswas (though I do think they were meant by the time of A Bend in the River).
There’s only one or two others I’ve read, but my favourite Naipaul was his second, The Suffrage of Elvira, a comedy about an election in Trinidad.
Blaming the victim… that’s something I came across while reading about Mr Biswas after I’d finished (after learning from Wikipedia of the genesis of the story). It’s really interesting to think about, because I can see certain elements of that. And overall VSN doesn’t seem to focus on the systemic elements (whether of colonization, or of class, etc. with little commentary on Mr B’s family’s brahmin status, for instance) which is evidence for that theory. But I also think developing the character of Mr B with integrity means that VSN couldn’t automatically grant him that perspective; caught in the cycle of poverty, sometimes the day-to-day grind obscures the view of broader exploitative systems.
Seeing a neighbour steal from his family at a crucial point in his young life, he’s invited to view threats as being located in a known villain rather than some vague ‘system’. The closest he gets, to recognising systemic injustice/oppression, is when the man comes and offers to file a lawsuit against a local man who isn’t paying what he owes to Mr. B and he comes to realise there is soemthing like a conspiracy at work: men with some money only pretending to care about the concerns of men without money, who are actually working for the benefit of the men with the most money. But I think, even as his view of Trinidad only gradually expands, he cannot see systemic injustice during his lifetime, and it’s complicated by the fact that sometimes he is simply naive or stubborn or foolish.
But I don’t really have an opinion yet, having read so little. And what you say is true, about both the time that elapses between publications and about the era/region depicted in a certain work changing the author’s perspective and intent. There’s very little in the library up here, so my next venture will be driven by second-hand luck, but I will watch for “earlier” options (and approach ABitR with caution. heh)
Sounds like you had a wonderful experience reading this, and I’m glad it finally arrived with you at the right time!
It really is strange how we move away from and towards certain books, and how a challenge/event can be just the right push at the right time.