It’s a travelogue given the uncertainty of a boardwalk funhouse—all of it made literary by Naipaul’s observant, suggestive (and outsider) mind. Each new spot he visits invites fresh uncertainties and introduces strange interactions. We move through and are moved by the mystery of Africa, it’s competitive cultures and the troubling racial dynamics. You should read this book.

Delightful deconstruction of settler literature about Africa, "Baroness Blixen" in particular!

Shiva Naipaul (VS' late brother) writes with remarkable prescience about variety of conflicts that had yet to be thought of as conflicts when he wrote in 1978-- the environmentalism of the rich, for instance, and the marginalisation of local communities dwelling around conservation reserves.

He is, on occasion, apt to use the particular to illustrate the general, sometimes in ways that distort both. This is an afflication widespread in that generation of travel writers, no matter how perceptive they might otherwise be.(Pico Iyer is often guilty of this, too). Fortunately the tendency seems to have faded in more recent travel writing.

Rather enjoyed the book, these minor irritations notwithstanding.

I am not going to give it any stars. I dont nessicarly hate it but I didn't love it either. For it being a non fiction narrative I enjoyed it. There was a lot of interesting topics. However, I thought the author could of done a better job on some things. For example interacting more with the natives. Second, not portraying everyone he meets as bad or annoying. Also, I did not like the ending. We get that he needs to go back home and that he sees someone he doesn't like. Who does he see and why does it bother him? It's a cliff hanger even though we knew the journey was coming to an add. Plus I fled is a strange way to end a book. But all in all I was impressed I enjoyed it as much as I did. Now to go and write a paper about it. Yay me!

I liked it very much. It taught me a lot about Africa, a continent that holds so many secrets for me...

I didn't look at the author's name when I was deciding to read this book. I read the jacket blurb from Graham Greene and that was enough for me. I was in Kenya in 1973 as a college student, and hung out with a few Sikh fellows while I was there. It was all so interesting, and this book brought that back, with even more context.

Approximate dates

Neither travel journal nor novel, but something in between. Unusual, insightful, raw, and memorable picture of a handful of African countries during the 1970s. Naipaul the man is a fascinating character in himself - his cynicism, bluntness (almost to the point of being rude or socially inept, yet so direct and honest), his eye for really seeing people (similar to Tom Wolfe), his sharp commentaries on society and culture and race are all unheard of, even anathema, in modern writing. Yet this book felt more genuine and truthful than that modern writing would be, especially since the topic was post-colonial Africa.

While the writing style is engaging, and many of the anecdotes are humorous, I found this book lacking in many areas.

It is obviously written from a colonialist perspective and is frequently patronising and dismissive. No effort is made to put what the writer encounters in a historical context. This would be less problematic if the tone were not judgmental.

Blatant hypocrisy raises its ugly head on page 107 -

"I was treated to a modest display of the African's 'deep resentment' of the 'Asian'. (I dislike the term: it was coined as a convenient shorthand to lump together all the peoples of the subcontinent."

and overt racism on p.290 -

"China's [...] disciplined labor [...] cultural identity and its superiority to neighboring nomadic peoples, is far removed from a tribal confederacy of low technical and intellectual attainment".

The vast majority of dialogue is with colonial whites and no attempt seems to have been made to find interpreters to achieve a better balance.

As a travelogue, it's an interesting read, but in the introduction Naipaul stated his intention to write about what revolution, liberation and socialism meant to the people of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania. On this, I believe he fails.

Lazy, one dimensional, mean

Don't know if it's the East Africa focus but my experience of Africa (in the west) was vastly different. Plus i'm not a big fan of M. Naipaul's style and seemingly sweeping generalisations.
Having said that, i gave up on the reading at a point when i felt a little less annoyed by it, so either i didn't want to lose the annoyance, or i didn't want to end up agreeing with him. Either way, it probably doesn't reflect too well on me.

Unflinching in its scrutiny of early independence in East Africa (particularly Kenya and Tanzania) but also excessively phlegmatic about the author’s encounters with red tape and racists. Naipaul’s style flits between conversational and journalistic which keeps this a decent read, warts and all.

Well-written, and witty. Naipaul takes a journey through East Africa, and discovers the reality of the late 70s. Post-colonial Africa isn't that great! Surprise, surprise. But we all knew that. His experiences are both funny and interesting.

I've read other books by him, and his humour is dry...almost perfect! Such a pity he died young, and couldn't entertain us further.