Friday Reads – Deep South by Paul Theroux

I have always loved travel books. I devoured them on my year out sailing through the Caribbean, reading most of the books written by writers such as Theroux and Palin, travelling through Africa and along the Trans-Siberian railway at the same time as I was sailing across the Atlantic.

Then, in recent years my focus changed, and I grew to love the travel books of long-distance cyclists, Dervla Murphy being the great example – and I read almost all of her travel books last year, exploring parts of the world that politics and war means I now cannot visit. But still, the theme – visiting strange, exotic places from the crowded, over-hot London tube, or curled up in bed with a cup of tea. I am always seeking out travel books and have read my fair share of incredible ones and also horrendously bad ones – one of which was actually my worst book of 2015!

My latest travel book was Paul Theroux Deep South, in which Theroux notes that although he has travelled the world and written books about it, there is so much of his own country that he has not yet seen, and so he sets off in his car to explore the American south.

Theroux rarely judges outright, he just reports (although often an implicit opinion is in the tone of his words!), and his real skill is with people. He digs deep down into them, gets them to talk, to tell him their stories, and then he quotes them, sometimes in conversations, other times just a few pages of that particular character talking. The other voices in all of his travel books are what makes them so memorable, so much more than just one person’s opinion. Added to this are his beautiful descriptions of place – long, lyrical descriptions of stunning landscapes.

In Deep South, Theroux travels the country  in his own car, beginning by reminiscing on the difficulties of travel in other countries and the ease of travel by car in America – a love letter to American roads.  But the differences in the ease of travel, for Theroux, mask many similarities between the south of America and other places he has travelled. There are frequent references to undeveloped countries he has visited previously – for example, a warning to drive up Highway 61 with “a full belly and a full tank of gas” and not to stop for any reason is compared to warnings Theroux was given when travelling through East and Central Africa. He compares poverty statistics and find that parts of the American south have lower life expectancy than developing countries and similar levels of food instability, amongst other poverty metrics, and he reserves special disdain for those from the American south who go to volunteer in Africa. With regards to a woman who’s son was volunteering in Zambia:

Suppressing a mocking laugh, I remarked to her that parts of Greensboro – the decaying houses, the areas of shacks, the dirt roads, the boarded-up shops, the Indian owned gas station and the moth-eaten Inn Motel, the many idle youths, the odors of wood smoke from burning blue gums and the pong of freshly plowed land, the red roads, the lumber mill – so much here bore a distinct resemblance to places in Zambia I had seen. And this being the case, why wasn’t her son provoked to do anything in Greensboro?

At this point I would like to note that I have read Theroux travel book through Africa, Dark Star Safari, and, like Deep South, I found it fascinating and beautifully written but sometimes overly  simplistic, positing criticisms without even considering either the other point of view, or that there are many, many different factors contributing to the issue.

In Deep South, Theroux attributes a lot of the poverty to globalisation and the resulting decline in manufacturing in the region as companies move elsewhere to make their products more cheaply. He also implicitly criticises American governments for sending millions of dollars in aid abroad, while there are poor Americans often living in much the same conditions.

Much of the book is devoted to issues of race and racism, of systematic discrimination, areas where the KKK still exist and segregated churches and even university sororities. However, this is one area where Theroux doesn’t seem to judge. He merely presents, examining the impact of this on the poverty in th he south through the words of his subjects, but without assigning blame to, as one review put it “the usual suspects: white Republican rednecks”

Deep South is not just a travel memoir, but also contains long  digression, some a review of southern literature (and here, my ignorance, for I had not read any of the books Theroux spoke of, and had not even heard of some of the authors), another an interesting discussion of the origins of the “n-word” and how it came to have the power it holds today. I particularly enjoyed a slightly condescending section on a university course which involved detailed study of the lyrics of the rapper Nas.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, for a book that does not paint a hugely positive picture of the south, Deep South has come in for much criticism, accused of merely peddling well-established clichés about the south of America, with a vitriolic piece in the Washington Post commenting that Theroux observations are:

givens, not discoveries. They have been for decades, and it seems unconscionable that anyone, especially America’s premier travel writer, would burn up thousands of words and gallons of gas to experience so many trampled epiphanies.

To which, I suppose, my first response would be that if these things have been true for decades, and if they are still true, then perhaps it is still worth writing about them, to highlight that things haven’t changed? The Washington Post article doesn’t touch on fact as to whether the cliches Theroux mentions are still true so I can only speculate. And other American book reviewers from the south have had different perspectives, even quoting the same passages of the book, but instead of seeing them as lazy, outdated clichés, commenting that “truer words were never spoken”.  A reviewer in the Charlotte Observer even said that Deep South offered a “fresh perspective on the region” – very different to the Washington Post’s analysis!

Theroux himself (in the article linked to below), said that he was well aware of all the positive things about the south, it’s rich cultural history, art galleries, sports teams, gardens, historical memorials, and the areas which had great economic prosperity, but he wanted instead to purposefully ignore all of  those,with the explicit aim of examining rural poverty in the deep south – he wanted to ignore the tourist routes and instead see the side of the deep south where 20% of its inhabitants lived below the poverty line.

This long article, written by Theroux, will give you a good taste of the book! Or, if course, read it for yourself – I would recommend it, despite the fact that, not being from the U.S. and having very little knowledge of it, I can’t weigh in on the controversy myself!



  1. Mmmm… Have you ever considered that things haven’t changed because the people who live in the deep south are happy. Most city folk simply can’t understand how people can live without the life that they love. I would be miserable in London. I would be Miserable in Chicago, New York or any big city for that matter.

    Out in the sticks we are free. Free from the bustle and clutter of the city. Free of some pompas blowhard politician making rules about how much salt he or she thinks we should eat. You have plenty of great travel stories, sure, but every day of my life is spent doing as I see fit… and that is a good thing. There is no greater good. There is my neighbor. His name is Bennie. He is old, and we look out for him. Make sense?

    • I wasn’t expressing any judgement? And also when I said perhaps if these same old clichés (paraphrasing, not my own words) were still true, I was speaking more about the poverty that Theroux writes of, of families living in one room without enough food, no heating, electricity etc. Very different from you from what I’ve read in your blog! And I can tell from your blog that you are very happy in your life and never expressed any need whatsoever that that should change and have no idea why it should or what it should change to. The main clichés I think they speak of are poverty and racism – and I won’t be apologetic about thinking both of those are bad things!

      • You weren’t and I didn’t take it that you were expressing judgment. The way I took it, the author of the book passed quite a bit of judgment but that’s neither here nor there. I was merely responding to the consternation of why nothing is done about it… As far as the one room and no heat, that does happen but it’s usually personal choice that leads to those problems. There are a few things that simply can’t be fixed. Lazy is one of the more confounding. 😉

        If my comment came of short or anything other way than simply trying to explain what it’s like to live here, it was not intended that way. Poverty, well we could write books on that one, we’ve spent 16 Trillion dollars on poverty in the last 50 years and we’re no better off. Racism, as far as that goes, you and I are on the same page.

      • Sorry for misunderstanding – although you did say “have you ever considered” and “make sense?” Which is kind of directing it at me rather than the author of the book / the authors of the reviews! I was interested in that the author of the book did pass judgement on a lot of things, but also didn’t pass judgement on others where I would have thought he would… If that makes sense! I also would disagree with you that real poverty is usually born out of personal choice. In some cases, okay, but I think it is a much more complex issue than that! As is suggested by, as you say, the amount of money that has been spent on it over the years.

      • Yep, I can see how that could put someone on the defensive. The “Make sense?” you can blame on my wife. She uses that all of the time and makes it sound so nice I’ve been desensitized to the other way that’s used. My bad.

        That’s an interesting take on poverty. You should meet some of my friends who have lived it. Straight up homeless under the bridge poverty. See, I see the whole thing differently. I think it is simple. I think intellectuals and politicians like to make it complex. Job security.

        That’s just me though.

      • Oh no, making the issue complex is the job security. The more messed up we think things are, the more they are needed, the more they mess things up, the more they’re needed. It’s a beautiful thing when you really think about it. Liberals around here have been claiming for a hundred years that the problem is we’re not liberal enough. We need more liberalism! Then, when they get it and it turns out crap, they just wait two weeks and say the problem was, we didn’t go liberal enough. And people buy it. That’s job security.

      • Nothing fixed has fixed it. I’m surprised, you don’t have poor people in the UK?

        US politics is a funny thing. The bureaucracy is almost entirely leftist (90% to 10%) so even when the righties are running things the government is still a function of the left, so it’s not quite that simple. That said, it gets much better when we have a good economy, so typically when the right is running things, yes, it does get better because the economy always does better (at least here) when it’s not being messed with.

      • Oh no of course we do! My question was just whether, if you see liberal politics as the reason things haven’t gotten better poverty-wise in the U.S., whether they did get better with a non-liberal government. Which you have answered! No need to be condescending 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s