Could we say that V.S. Naipaul is an unfortunate creation of the British Establishment?
While many would agree with the statement offered, it seems to be a bit of a stinging indictment against Naipaul. There is little doubt that Naipaul reflects the complex and tormenting relationship between individuals that lived under colonial rule and how they viewed it. Indeed, Naipaul does depict much in colonialism that is to be disliked and detested. There is the constant theme of an uncaring society, which is no doubt forged by the fires of colonialism. Another aspect that is integral to his work is the idea of being cut adrift from cultural identity, yet another reminder of the pain of colonialism. At the same time, Naipaul does admire the structure and order that colonialism brought to nations which were mired in chaos. This might be why many would consider him to be "an unfortunate creation of the British establishment." In the final analysis, I think that since Naipaul does spend much of his work analyzing the pain and suffering of individuals who, according to Nobel Prize he earned in 2001, "compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories," he might not be a creation of the British Establishment, but rather a product of it.