Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
　　London, one of the most popular settings in literature, is portrayed in many literary works not only as the centre of power, dreams, expectations, and fears, but also as the city of plurality and multiplicity of cultures. Considering V. S. Naipaul’s The Mimic Men (1967) in terms of the depiction of London, what comes to the fore is that Naipaul’s own background has an undeniable impact upon his illustration of London. Naipaul, as an in-between individual belonging to his hometown Trinidad and also to England, where he received his education, has experienced a metaphorical colonization due to his inner conflicts because of his hybridity. In this sense, in The Mimic Men, he creates his character Ralph Singh, who is struggling with the social and political forces and trying to find a place not only in his own country on the Caribbean Island of Isabella, but also among the English in London as a politician. In the novel, London is regarded as the city of freedom and hopes as well as the city of disillusionments and hopelessness. Therefore, in this paper, hybridity, otherness in London, and the influence of Naipaul’s own biography upon his portrayal of London in The Mimic Men will be explored.
　　Keywords: V. S. Naipaul, The Mimic Men, London, power, postcolonial identity, hybridity, otherness
　　 Inner Colonization of the “Other” in Postcolonial Period
　　Mimicry, hybridity, and internal colonization come to the fore as a consequence of cultural confusion, the conflict between two different cultures, as a result of which people suffer from loneliness, isolation, and alienation. Therefore, individuals torn between their own traditions and the values of another country cannot prove their personal identities, so they become lost and are subjected to discrimination. In this sense, V. S. Naipaul’s The Mimic Men (1967) can be analyzed within the context of interior colonization, the conflict between the colonizer and the colonized, and power struggles.
　　Considering Naipaul’s The Mimic Men, it is obvious that the main character Ralph Sing, who experiences the burden of being the “other” both in his own country and among the “Westerners”, the English, in London is an efficient representative of the postcolonial man who is faced with degradation and the pressure of power employed by the colonizer in the postcolonial period. Thus, in the novel, London is portrayed as the source of power/powerlessness, hope/hopelessness, magnificence/fear, pleasure/distress, dreams/disillusionment, and relief/discomfort. In other words, the city is depicted as both the place of a new beginning and the location of frustration for the colonized. In the novel, the character Ralph perceives London as the centre of power, hopes, and magic, but after experiencing the life in the city he asserts that your position determines your status in the city as it is observed:
　　Here was the city, the world. I waited for the flowering to come to me. The trams on the Embankment sparked blue. The river was edged and pierced with reflections of light, blue and red and yellow. Excitement! Its heart must have lain somewhere. […] But the magic of names soon faded. Here was the river, here the bridge, there that famous building. […] In the great city, so solid in its light, which gave colour even to unrendered concrete—to me as colourless as rotting wooden fences and new corrugated-iron roofs-in this solid city life was two-dimensional. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 23)
　　It is obvious that London is illustrated as both the source of brightness and darkness, because the city makes people excited, hopeful, and amazed; on the other hand, people like Ralph, in other words, internally colonized individuals, after their experiences in London, realize that life is two-dimensional there, so the background and the social status of persons have a considerable impact upon their perception. In this sense, to explain the sufferings of the “other” and the “colonized” in the west, it is worth analyzing the condition of these people in society.
　　 The Position of the Colonized in the West
　　Paying attention to the situation of the Indian, Pakistani, and the other immigrants coming from the East to the West in the 20th century for better opportunities, it is undeniable that they were faced with some problems in England due to the difficulty for them to adapt to the living style, manners, and beliefs of the English (Holdaway, 2003, pp. 137-39). Thus, the colonized turns out to be an individual who has lost his individuality and his sense of belonging to somewhere as Ralph also states: “I could not pretend even to myself to be part of a community or to be putting down roots” (Naipaul, 1967, p. 13). His isolation from society is related to his position in that society; as a man who was brought up in the Caribbean island of Isabella, educated and married in England, he tried to survive on the island of Isabella as a politician, but it is difficult for him to prove his personal identity not only among the English who have the authority but also among the Caribbean people who are not educated enough to appreciate his efforts and who are not ready for the progress the educated colonized can offer. This portrayal efficiently reflects “the power relations between the West and the Orient, [as a result of which] European culture gained in strength […]” (Thakkar, 2005, p. 67). In this respect, one can realize the similarity between Ralph’s background and Naipaul’s biography in terms of their colonial experience and identity problem. Hence, as Thorpe (1976, p. 27) pointed out:
　　A clear pattern of ideas soon becomes apparent to the reader familiar with Naipaul’s work, who sees that many of Singh’s attitudes and perceptions parallel his creator’s. They share a sense of the formlessness of their society, a deep skepticism about its capacity to found a vital culture, a desire for order and form; at many points Singh obviously speaks for the author. […]
　　By creating the character Ralph Singh, Naipaul, who was born in Trinidad, in the southern Caribbean, and received education in England (Lichtenstein, 2005, p. 1), not only reflected the experience of a colonized in his work, but he also shed light on his own condition as an individual who is torn between his own culture and the values of the English. Analyzing Naipaul’s own biography, what comes into view is that he “had become like Singh an uprooted colonial, a permanent homeless exile, wedded to his writing and his desk, seemingly writing about the upheavels and turmoils of the colonial and postcolonial world […]” (King, 1993, pp. 68-69). Therefore, the background of the author contributes to his fiction and to the portrayal of his characters, so while examining the experiences of Ralph and his perception of London, it is impossible not to recognize Naipaul’s own biography. Similarly, Naipaul himself asserted in “Two Worlds” (2000):
　　I travelled in the Caribbean region and understood much more about the colonial set-up of which I had been part. I went to India, my ancestral land, for a year; it was a journey that broke my life in two. The books that I wrote about these two journeys took me to new realism of emotion, gave me a world-view I had never had, extended me technically. I was able in the fiction that then came to me to take in England as well as the Caribbean-and how hard that was to do. (p. 485)
　　In this manner, like Naipaul, his character also suffers from being an “in-between” man. Hence, in a sense, Naipaul can be regarded as depicting himself in the representation of Ralph. Like Ralph, Naipaul also has multiple identities “as a Trinidadian and West Indian writer; as a writer of the Indian/Asian Diaspora; as a British writer; as a writer in the context of the postcolonial tradition; as a third world writer […]” (Tewarie, 2008, p. 1). Paying attention to Ralph’s failure as a politician, it is apparent that it is hard for him to adapt himself to the norms of the west, the life in London and to be accepted in society as a colonial man as recognized in his own words:
　　I see that all the activity of these years, existing as I have said in my own mind in parenthesis, represented a type of withdrawal, and was part of the injury inflicted on me by the too solid three-dimensional city in which I could never feel myself as anything but spectral, disintegrating, pointless, fluid. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 61)
　　It is seen that Ralph, as a politician, suffers from isolation and alienation and feels himself “spectral, disintegrating, pointless, and fluid”, which efficiently demonstrates the miserable position of the colonized trying to find a social status in society. Therefore, he wants to escape from his restricted hometown, the island of Isabella, and plans to go to London in order to find relief, but he can not. Consequently, it is apparent that “The Mimic Men is a novel of ideas, [which dwells on] big questions concerning politics, the meaning of history, the value of writing, authenticity, and identity” (McSweeney, 1983, p. 177). In this outlook, Ralph, effectively represents the suffering of the colonial man and illustrates the contradiction between the powerful and the powerless, western and eastern, past and present, and traditional habits and new customs. This clearly shows that the colonized has been subjected to the understandings and notions of the colonizer, as a result of which they turned out to be “culturally re-shaped” beings who were internally colonized as well. As Medwick (1997) pointed out, like Ralph, Naipaul is also “a man without a country” […] [and] “collapsed” (p. 57), which leads him to draw such a character like himself.
　　 Multiculturalism and Mimicry in Postcolonial Era
　　It is observed that the colonial men cannot escape from becoming “mimic men” who imitate the culture, philosophy, and life style of the colonizer, so as King (1993) asserted, “[Mimic Men] […] [is about] the cultural confusion, mimicry of cultural behaviour that occur when different groups are brought together and society is in a period of change” (p. 65). Therefore, Ralph has a very important function in the novel in terms of his cultural, social, and political position in community, because by means of him, “the serious treatment of colonial, [and] cultural emptiness” can be noticed (Pritchard, 2008, p. 436). Especially after his return to his island, Ralph tries to improve the situation in his own country and comes to the fore as an idealist who wants to offer service to his own nation. On the other hand, although he attempts to contribute to his own country, the English people are indifferent to his concern, so he is faced with humiliation when he asks help for his own government, and his disillusionment is clear after he is humiliated by one of the English ministers:
　　It was a brief, humiliating meeting. […] His manner indicated clearly that our game had gone on long enough and he had other things to do than to assist the public relations of colonial politicians. […] I said, “How can I take this message back to my people?” “My people”: for that I deserved all I got. He said: “You can take back to your people any message you like.” And that was the end. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 268)
　　Taking Ralph’s failure as a politician into account, what is emphasized by Naipaul is that Ralph cannot succeed in improving the position of the colonized. Since he is the “other” in England, he turns out to be a hopeless and frustrated man though London was the source of power, hopes, and a new beginning for him when he first came to the city, consequently his perception of the city changes after he is faced with degradation and disappointment as it is seen:
　　I had walked as a tourist about the Minister’s city. Now I played, but helplessly, knowing my own isolation, with visions of destruction. […] How easy it was to dwindle in this city! […] Where now the magical light? I walked about the terrible city. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 268)
　　It is certain that Ralph starts to perceive London as the source of disillusionment, fears, isolation, and helplessness. It proves that the experiences, background, and the psychological situation of the character influence his feelings and opinions about London. He himself is aware of the fact that the colonized people like himself can achieve happiness and order neither in their hometowns nor in London and other Western cities. In this sense, there appears a dilemma for the “other” because of the impossibility for him to achieve contentment both in his country and in the west, therefore, as Ralph himself indicates, he fails to be a successful politician like the other colonial politicians:
　　The career of the colonial politician is short and ends brutally. We lack order. Above all, we lack power, and we do not understand that we lack power. […] For those who lose, and nearly everyone in the end loses, there is only one course: flight. Flight to the greater disorder, the final emptiness: London and the home counties. (Naipaul, 1967, pp. 10-11)
　　Lack of order and power is depicted as the common points of the colonial politicians who are unable to realize their vulnerability in front of the powerful colonizer. It justifies that there is no opportunity for the colonized men to prove their identities and to achieve their targets in politics; consequently they have no alternative but to leave their countries and to go to London or to other countries. In this manner, Naipaul very effectively portrays the condition of the “other” and demonstrates the impact of multiculturalism upon different cultures, so “his practice of revisiting places written about earlier—Africa, India, the West Indies, non-Arabic Islamic countries, and South America—underscores the abiding strength of his interest in cultures and government of the Third World” (Greenberg, 2000, p. 214). In this perspective, Ralph reflects the burden of being a colonized and becoming an in-between man who tries to discover order and to get rid of the chaos in his life. Nevertheless, as Ralph also emphasizes, the colonial man is faced with more disorder after their flight: “So quickly had London gone sour on me. The great city, centre of the world, in which fleeing disorder, I had hoped to find the beginning of order” (Naipaul, 1967, p. 22), so escapism does not save him and makes him more uncomfortable and dissatisfied. This proves that “[o]ne of the terrible things about being a Colonial […] is that you must accept so many things as coming from a great wonderful source outside yourself and outside the people you know, outside the society you’ve grown up in” (Naipaul, 1971, pp. 57-58). Thus, the colonized, accepting the understanding coming from the “outside”, loses his own identity and turns out to be a “mimic man”.
　　 The Impact of Naipaul’s Biography Upon His Depiction of London in The Mimic Men
　　The link between Naipaul and his character can be seen throughout the novel, so “[t]o understand Naipaul and his writings, it is necessary to understand his past. Naipaul’s continuing and never-ending journey in exile is actually a desperate response to the fate that has befallen him” (Pathak, 2008, p. 14). Thus, the impact of Naipaul’s colonial background plays a very important role in his novel as well. Like his author, Ralph also finds it hard to behave like a Western and to be accepted by them, therefore, Ralph is the representative of many frustrated colonized people. It is undeniable that “The Mimic Men captures the experience of the internal and external migrations of post-indentured East Indians in their search for political authenticity […]” (Phukan, 2007, p. 137). In this outlook, Ralph’s failure in politics and the discrepancy between his own values and the society’s cause him to lead a chaotic life in which he attempts to find order, yet he fails, and this also influences his way of writing as Kelly (1989) underlined it:
　　His narrative moves in non chronological fashion between his life in the West Indies and England, between the past and the present, childhood and adulthood, fantasy and reality in a ruthlessly matter-of-fact and desperate attempt to piece together the fragments of his life, thereby arriving at a clearer understanding of himself. (p. 89)
　　By writing his experiences, he aims at finding order in his life, replacing the disorder with order or re-constructing his identity; nevertheless it is impossible for him to escape from chaos despite his writing, his autobiography. The ups and downs in his colonial life and the disorder in his mind have a great impact upon his non-chronological writing style and his perception of London, so this confusion comes from nothing but his colonial background. Therefore, “Naipaul’s Trinidad childhood and the prejudice his immigrant Indian family faced as well as Naipaul’s paralyzing depression as an outsider in England” (French, 2008, p. 576) can be seen in Ralph’s life in a similar way as well. Though he changes his environment, and tries to find order and comfort in London, he can not find relief and happiness in the city, so he stresses: “[…] I travelled about England and the Continent with no purpose, not even pleasure. After each of these journeys I came back more exhausted than before, more oppressed by a feeling of waste and helplessness […]” (Naipaul, 1967, p. 49). The more he tries to reconcile his own colonial past and his present situation, the more “oppressed” and “helpless” he becomes. Ralph’s suffering is based on his failure to find a place in society as a person who has a colonial origin, therefore, he finds it difficult to combine his past with his present in London as he states:
　　In London, I had no guide. There was no one to link my present with my past, no one to note my consistencies or inconsistencies. It was up to me to choose my character, and I chose the character that was easiest and most attractive. I was the dandy, the extravagant colonial, indifferent […]. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 24)
　　His failure to reconcile his past with his present in London because of the impact of colonialism makes him indifferent towards his condition and life, so he chooses to be the “dandy, extravagant colonial” due to emotional distress. Being one of the colonized people “who foresaw the postwar spread of cities, the destruction of the open spaces between settlements[…]” (Naipaul, 1967, p. 69), it is impossible for him not to realize the colonial individual’s loss of freedom and opportunities, so he feels himself belonging to nowhere. Like Ralph, Naipaul, the author also “[…] find[s] himself at home in neither Trinidad nor England nor India […]” (Trivedi, 2007, p. 30), which displays the destructiveness of dislocation. In this respect, it is obvious that Naipaul aims at portraying the situation of “mimic men” among the Westerners by illustrating the hopes, fears, and disillusionments of these people in London and by demonstrating the efforts of the colonized in the postcolonial society to re-shape their manners in accordance with the understanding of the colonizer. Similarly, Ralph, in London, is aware of the fact that he is a “mimic” man and, to discover the greatness and the power of the city, he has no choice but to imitate the Londoners, so it is apparent that:
　　[M]imicry [...] is a strategy by which Caribbean writers of different backgrounds seek to interrogate the European literary and cultural traditions which not only give shape to their own work, but also continue to exert considerable influence over the hybrid societies of the Caribbean region. (Huggan, 1994, p. 643)
　　Naipaul, focusing on the concept of “mimicry” in his The Mimic Men, emphasizes that in London, Ralph and the other hybrids turn out to be mimic men or “mirror men” (Walcott, 1974, p. 6) trying to behave like the inhabitants of London, mimicking their living styles, manners, and adopting their understandings in order to be accepted by them. This reality is also stressed by Naipaul’s character Ralph:
　　We, here on our island, handling books printed in this world, and using its goods, had been abandoned and forgotten. We pretended to be real, to be learning, to be preparing our selves for life, we mimic men of the New World, one unknown corner of it […]. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 175)
　　It is clearly observed that Ralph is aware of the fact that many immigrants like himself try to be like the powerful colonizer in order to be respected and to find a status among them, therefore, though they feel themselves inferior in the west, they know that they have no choice but to have an interaction and communication with the Westerners. In this respect, Ralph’s relationship with Sandra, in other words his marrying an English woman is very important, because his wife Sandra, who “had no community, no group, [who] had rejected her family, [who] saw herself alone in the world, who was determined to fight her way up, [and who] hated the common” (Naipaul, 1967, p. 53), is a vehicle for him to be involved in the English culture, and not to deal with the chaos of London. Moreover, Sandra, like Ralph, does not feel belonging to somewhere, and this shows that the partners suffer from the same torment despite the differences between their cultural origins. So as to fill his emotional emptiness, he marries Sandra, but fails to eliminate his colonial identity because of “his inability to be part of or to lose himself in someone or some group beyond himself (King, 1993, p. 69) as he himself highlights:
　　Was it the house? It was one of those large timber town houses of the old colonial period, slightly decaying in spite of its modern kitchen. We both thought it attractive but for some reason we had never succeeded in colonizing it. Large areas of it remained empty; it felt like a rented house, which soon has to go back to its true owner. (Naipaul, 1967, p. 84)
　　It is obvious that colonization influences even their marriage so excessively that they cannot feel that the house belongs to them, in other words, they could not become successful at colonizing the house, as a result it turns out to be a “rented house”, which is regarded as a building that must be sent to its real owner. Therefore, as McSweeney (1983) suggested, the impact of “homelessness, the absence of society or community, the sense of inauthenticity and loss” (p. 154) can be observed throughout the novel, so Ralph feels as if he were“shipwrecked” (Naipaul, 1967, p. 32), which “describes his Isabellan predicament as a kind of East Indian castaway and his sense of abandonment in London […]” (Thieme, 1987, p. 127). This proves that there is a contradiction between “the London already known from the outside” and “the experienced, perceived one”, which shows that the already imagined and expected is different from the really seen and experienced as observed:
　　The already visualised, the previously “known”, is itself a kind of prism through which the Caribbean migrant perceives the actuality of the metropol, resulting in a sense of disjuncture between the seen and the preconceived “scene”similar to that noted in the earlier colonial accounts. (O’Callaghan, 2005, pp. 491-492)
　　Thus, it is recognized that there is a great discrepancy between what Ralph dreamed about London before his period in the city and what he experienced in London, as a consequence for Ralph, the city was the centre of magic, dreams, hopes, and power before his experiences, whereas after being involved in the city he perceives London as the centre of disappointment, hopelessness, and chaos. Therefore, the experiences of Ralph represent the condition of the colonized in the West and reflect the expectations, dilemmas, and frustrations of the “other”in the postcolonial era.
　　 Conclusions
　　Finally, it is clear that Naipaul’s The Mimic Men questions the concepts of colonization, otherness, mimicry, and the psychology of individuals in exile, and it is obvious that the experience of a colonial man in postcolonial world is illustrated in the novel. In a sense, London is portrayed as the source of harmony, expectations, brightness, and energy. On the other hand, considering Ralph’s perception of London, it is seen that London is the city of disorder, disillusionment, darkness, and lack of power. It proves that like the author Naipaul, the character Ralph suffers from his hybridity, multiple identity, and his inner conflict, therefore London turns out to be the city of both majesty and distress in the novel.
　　 References
　　French, P. (2008). The world is what it is: The authorized biography of V. S. Naipaul. London: Picador.
　　Greenberg, R. M. (2000, Summer). Anger and the alchemy of literary method in V. S. Naipaul’s political fiction: The case of The Mimic Men. Twentieth Century Literature, 46(2), 214-24. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0403/is_ 2_46/ai_67315273/
　　Holdaway, S. (2003). Victimization within constabularies in England and Wales: The legacy of immigration. International Review of Victimology, 10(2), 137-56.
　　Huggan, G. (1994, Fall). A tale of two parrots: Walcott, Rhys, and the uses of colonial mimicry. Contemporary Literature, 35(4), 643-660. Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org/stable/1208702
　　Kelly, R. (1989). V. S. Naipaul. New York: Continuum.
　　King, B. (1993). Macmillan modern novelists: V. S. Naipaul. London. Macmillan.
　　Lichtenstein, D. P. (2005, March). A brief biography of V. S. Naipaul. Literature of the Caribbean, 8. Retrieved from http://www. postcolonialweb.org/caribbeannaipaul/bio.html
　　McSweeney, K. (1983). Four contemporary novelists: Angus Wilson, Brian Moore, John Fowles, V. S. Naipaul. London: James Price Press.
　　Medwick, C. (1997). Life, literature, and politics: An interview with V. S. Naipaul. In F. Jussawalla (Ed.), Conversations with V. S. Naipaul. Mississippi: Mississippi University Press.
　　Naipaul, V. S. (1967). The mimic men. New York: Vintage.
　　Naipaul, V. S. (1971, Dec.). V. S. Naipaul: A transition interview by Adrian Rowe-Evans. Indiana University Press, 40, 56-62. Retrieved from http://www. jstor.org/stable/2934130
　　Naipaul, V. S. (2000, May). Two worlds. Modern Language Association, 117(3), 479-86. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/823146
　　O’ Callaghan, E. (2005). Views and visions: Layered landscapes in west Indian migrant narratives. Third World Quarterly, 26(3), 487-95. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993839
　　Pathak, S. (2008, Sept.). V. S. Naipaul: Helical Journey of an author and man. Journal of English Studies, 3(3), 14-19. Retrieved from http://papers.ssr n. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1264923
　　Phukan, A. (2007, Fall). Landscapes of sea and snow: V. S. Naipaul’s The Mimic Men. Journal of Caribbean Literatures, 5(2), 137-52.
　　Pritchard, W. H. (2008, Fall). Naipaul unveiled. Hudson Review, 61(3), 431-40. Retrieved from http://www.hudsonreview.com/au08pritchardWEB.pdf
　　Tewarie, B. (2008, March). V. S. Naipaul as critical thinker. Arts Journal. Critical Perspectives on Contemporary Literature. Art and Culture of Guyana and the Caribbean, 4(1/2), 61-76. Retrieved from http://www.uwi.edu/Files/PlanningOffice/VS%20Naipaul%20as%20Critical%20Thinker.pdf
　　Thakkar, A. (2005, Apr.). Ambivalence and the crisis of the mimic man: Centrifugal irony in Juan Rulfo’s “Luvina”. Journal of Iberian and Latin American Studies, 11(1), 65-89.
　　Thieme, J. (1987). The web of tradition: Use of allusion in V. S. Naipaul’s fiction. London: Dangaroo Press.
　　Thorpe, M. (1976). V. S. Naipaul. I. Scott-Kilvert (Ed.). Essex: Longman.
　　Trivedi, H. (2007, Fall). Locating Naipaul: Not English, not Indian, not trinidadian. Journal of Caribbean Literatures, 5, 219-32.
　　Walcott, D. (1974, Feb.). The Caribbean culture or mimicry?. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 16(1), 3-13. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/174997