Paul Theroux

I've not read anything by him, but I have to say I'm turned off by anyone who feels the need to write an entire book about what a prick his ex-friend and mentor is. (I don't doubt that Naipaul is a prick, but is a book about it really necessary?)

I've read a fair bit of his stuff, both travel writing and novels. The main attraction for me is that he has a very good, sharp, readable prose style. Too many writers do not. I fully agree that his fiction is not nearly as satisfying as his travel books are. His mind seems to work better when he has tangible subject matter he can observe and push against. When he must organize his observations around imagined characters and events, his stories are competant enough, but they strike no sparks. He just never warms up to them.

Everyone who reads his travel books comes away with a strong sense of the author as a somewhat sour, irritable man. Ultimately we forgive him, because the irritation he feels is often what sharpens his observations and makes them vivid and engaging.

Part of why this works is that his irritation is never aimed at us, his readers. We are his ideal traveling companions. He imagines us at his elbow, listening to his every word. We silently share his tastes, interests and feelings, so he does his best to entertain us and engage us. In real life this would never happen. Inside of a day Theroux would plant his boot on our behnds and go off on his own. It makes for an interesting rapproachment.

None of this would mean squat, if Theroux couldn't write as well as he does. At his best, he works the language with consummate ease and precision. Take that away and he'd be insufferable.

I've only read "Railway Bazaar," and while I loved the idea and enjoyed quite a bit of it I was pretty put off by Theroux's seemingly intense contempt for every single person and culture he encountered on his journey.

Yes. The really odd thing is that he doesn't show the same contempt for his readers. I suspect he pulls this off by imagining his readers are faithful reflections of himself and therefore worthy of his confidence. Then again, Mark Twain had a very low opinion of humankind toward the end of his life and still managed to write a funny and engaging book in Following The Equator, while also freely airing his contempt for many, many things.

Have read just Dark Star Safari and thought it was worth reading but as you say you want to kick him in the shins every so often.

On him, just read this bit in the Guardian on him: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,1121132,00.html

I read that (Guardian story) on the bus this morning. I suspect he felt scared at the time and also thought, 'aha, an anecdote' for future storytelling.

His travel writing and The Consul's File are great and everything, but "The Greenest Island" is one of the best short stories I've ever read.

I really enjoy Paul Theroux's fiction and travel writing. I loved "The Mosquito Coast" and "Milroy the Magician." My favourite travel book of his is "Happy Isles of Oceania." I find that his travel writing is much stronger in his later books.

"Sir Vidia's Shadow" is a brilliant book, probably Theroux's best non-fiction. I don't understand all the anger towards Theroux and this book. He had a 30-year friendship with V.S. Naipaul that Naipaul decided to end when he remarried. Naipaul also told Theroux to write the truth and I think he would approve of what Theroux wrote.

By most accounts, Naipaul is a prick. But he's a excellent writer. Theroux writes about Naipaul as he knew him. Is he supposed to lie and say only nice things about Naipaul?

The books isn't a character assassination. It's the story of their friendship, how it began and how it ended. Naipaul mentored Theroux and Theroux is very appreciative of that. But he's also entitled to criticize Naipaul's character and his writing.

Why do people find "Sir Vidia's Shadow" offensive? Why are they angry at Theroux for writing it?