Jason- Naipaul- 2/7

            3. Raymond position as a historian seems to become somewhat ironic as the novel progresses. Initially, Salim portrays, or at least conceives, of Raymond as a direct link to the events and past of the development of the country’s “new situation” with the Big Man. Because of this, Raymond seems to be a kind of primary source for historical recording of the country. Raymond’s presence in Africa prior to independence seems to color him as a kind of authentic historical link from the region’s past. So it would seem that he would be an authentic and truthful chronicler of the country’s changes. Though Salim begins to recognize later on that Raymond is very much disconnected from Africa. It becomes clear that Raymond’s favor with the Big Man is diminishing by the day and that in the few articles he’s managed to publish, it seems Raymond only grasps the surface of what he sees. His viewpoint is based on newspaper reports, letters, and archives and not first hand accounts. Salim mentions at one point that Raymond misses the mark almost entirely in one article and that even someone like Metty would have had a more accurate or insightful few words to say. The implication seems to be that knowledge, which would be common to any African, is completely lost on Raymond. Given this, and Raymond’s apparently undying loyalty to the Big Man, the opening novel would seem to paint Raymond as an inactive figure, someone who is allowing himself to become nothing. The notion of history, memory, and lies as European seems to enter the equation in that Raymond is attempting to chronicle the progress of a “nation” that does not measure itself in terms of progress. Many parts of Africa, particularly the bush, are described as, or at least implied to be, unchanged. The bush perpetually reclaims spaces that were either political, commercial, residential, etc. and wipes the slate clean. In this sense, a sense of “history” doesn’t really factor in to a conception of Africa since things have basically stayed constant and just “carried on” as they always have. A “history” of Africa would then be a kind of European construct, or lie, that couldn’t entirely conform to or accurately portray/capture the area’s nature.