Paul Theroux had an event in San Fransisco yesterday, and I was so excited about attending. I'd first read his books about a year ago, when my mom got a copy of "The Great Railway Bazaar" at the Palo Alto Library Book Sale, and I was incredibly impressed by the funny, witty, observant author.
And then I went to his talk yesterday. And was incredibly disappointed in the man. He was still funny (though the best zinger of the night came from the interviewer). But he wasn't the open minded, welcoming person I had expected.
Most of the talk centered around his new book, "Deep South" (which I haven't read), and he was talking about his inspiration to write it. And he talked about being in Africa, about how depressing it was there, with every person he met wanting to come to the US and drive taxis here in search of a better life. Why not, he asked, teach or do something else to make Africa better? I suppose that would be a fair question - but it is so lacking in self awareness. How does he think the US was populated? He is not a descendent of the Native Americans who lived here, but of the people who travelled from Europe looking for a better life - land, freedom - the same things, now, the immigrants from other parts of the world are looking for - so how can you deny to them, what your own ancestors got so many years ago?
Then some commentary on how corporations love to work in dictatorships - because all they have to do is work with one person who gets things done. First of all, I don't think this is true- yes, its true that one person has all control; but its also true that that one person can nationalize or throw you out at anytime for any reason, which would make it an incredibly risky proposition, compared to a place which has a working legal system. And he recommends that NGO's should not work in these dictatorships - so that the people can experience the worst, and they will rebel. Well, take Syria for example. There has been rebellion there, and now its just all out fighting from every direction. Is that what he wants for the rest of the continent?
His comments on outsourcing, seeing only the negative effects of globalization and trade - its all well and good, when US is the exporter I suppose, not so good when others compete. He lacks logic, and is all driven by emotion for the last thing he saw which moved him, and for something close to home, which he thinks should be just as it was fifty years ago.
Someone asked him about his friendship with VS Naipaul, why the friendship broke down, how they patched up. He described it as being due to the jealousy of Naipaul's second wife, who was suspicious of the first (dead) wife's friends. And the reconciliation due to his own magnanimity, being moved to pity an old and frail Naipaul. What an extraordinary ego.
I am disappointed, because from the book I read, I expected a deeper more nuanced person. And what I found was a more articulate version of Donald Trump. Far from a great thinker, he is now a person who is better off introducing himself as the uncle of Jennifer Aniston's husband, and in a century he will only be remembered as the frenemy of a Nobel Prize winner.
And then I went to his talk yesterday. And was incredibly disappointed in the man. He was still funny (though the best zinger of the night came from the interviewer). But he wasn't the open minded, welcoming person I had expected.
Most of the talk centered around his new book, "Deep South" (which I haven't read), and he was talking about his inspiration to write it. And he talked about being in Africa, about how depressing it was there, with every person he met wanting to come to the US and drive taxis here in search of a better life. Why not, he asked, teach or do something else to make Africa better? I suppose that would be a fair question - but it is so lacking in self awareness. How does he think the US was populated? He is not a descendent of the Native Americans who lived here, but of the people who travelled from Europe looking for a better life - land, freedom - the same things, now, the immigrants from other parts of the world are looking for - so how can you deny to them, what your own ancestors got so many years ago?
Then some commentary on how corporations love to work in dictatorships - because all they have to do is work with one person who gets things done. First of all, I don't think this is true- yes, its true that one person has all control; but its also true that that one person can nationalize or throw you out at anytime for any reason, which would make it an incredibly risky proposition, compared to a place which has a working legal system. And he recommends that NGO's should not work in these dictatorships - so that the people can experience the worst, and they will rebel. Well, take Syria for example. There has been rebellion there, and now its just all out fighting from every direction. Is that what he wants for the rest of the continent?
His comments on outsourcing, seeing only the negative effects of globalization and trade - its all well and good, when US is the exporter I suppose, not so good when others compete. He lacks logic, and is all driven by emotion for the last thing he saw which moved him, and for something close to home, which he thinks should be just as it was fifty years ago.
Someone asked him about his friendship with VS Naipaul, why the friendship broke down, how they patched up. He described it as being due to the jealousy of Naipaul's second wife, who was suspicious of the first (dead) wife's friends. And the reconciliation due to his own magnanimity, being moved to pity an old and frail Naipaul. What an extraordinary ego.
I am disappointed, because from the book I read, I expected a deeper more nuanced person. And what I found was a more articulate version of Donald Trump. Far from a great thinker, he is now a person who is better off introducing himself as the uncle of Jennifer Aniston's husband, and in a century he will only be remembered as the frenemy of a Nobel Prize winner.
