When he died in 1996, Laurens van der Post was a celebrated polymath: war-hero, writer, explorer, mystic, Jungian, behind-the-scenes diplomat and sage to Mrs Thatcher and Prince Charles. He was a secular saint.
After this biography, Post should be most famous for one skill: storytelling. His books and stories (of the bushmen of the Kalahari, of his friendship with Jung, of his diplomatic importance) may be inspiring. They are also largely fabricated. Jones' account reveals Post as enchanting, ambiguous, inspiring, complex, misleading, sometime admirable, sometimes risable - and sometimes as a shockingly culpable fabulist and liar.
"After his death doubts soon began to spread as to whether this story presented a true picture. Was his knowledge of the Kalahari Bushmen, whom he prized as the last example of all that is untainted in humanity, as extensive as he led us to believe, and did the Bushman stories he so loved to tell come mainly from books? His standing as some kind of secular saint certainly suffered with the emergence of an illegitimate daughter whose mother he had seduced when she was 14. And his claim to have effectively brokered the Lancaster House agreement on Zimbabwean independence was deflated by those who had actually been there. His intimacy with C. G. Jung has also to be qualified."
Since when did having a strong dislike for an author qualify one to write a biography of the author? How a quality publisher like Simon & Shuster got fooled this way is beyond me. Yes, Van der Post, hid a lot about his life, but that just revealed to me that he was more of a loner than I already thought. That he was such a womanizer was a bit of a shock - he covered that well - but not unwelcome. From even this book I think it's clear that the women involved were all glad to have met him. That he often exaggerated and embellished in his writing, was already clear to me from his writing. But to portray him as a fraud is to have completely misunderstood Van der Post - did he not spend 3 years in a Japanese prison camp? Was he not an expert on Africa, warning about racism and defending African people when few others were? Did he not meet Jung? Is his book 'Jung and the Story of Our time' not a major work that has yet to be fully appreciated? The impression I got from this book is that, for some reason, Jones harbored a deep resentment of Van der Post, maybe only because he knew himself to be much the lesser man. Some members of the family tried to block the book. I'm sorry they failed.
I read a few of the van der Post books but had difficulty in getting into it. I just couldn't relate to it, especially when I recognized some plagiary from a book published(German researcher) in 1875(thereabouts) on the Bushmen culture. Then a few years later this book, "Storyteller: The Many Lives Of Laurens Van Der Post" was published and it came as no surprise, although still mindblowing. Jones did his research extremely well.
"After J.D.F.Jones's authorised biography, he will be remembered for one main skill: storytelling. His books and stories (of the Bushmen of the Kalahari, of his friendship with Jung, of his diplomatic importance) may be inspiring. They are also fabricated.
This spellbinding account of a famous man reveals [him] as enchanting, ambiguous, inspiring, complex, misleading, sometimes admirable, sometimes risible - and sometimes as a shockingly culpable fabulist and liar...the result - not least because Jones has organised this mass of material of material so well, and written his account so beautifully - reads like a thriller and a Gothic romance in one. Laurens van der Post told lies, and told tales, and Jones has here brilliantly told the tale of his lies - and of his achievements. It is an unputdownably good read." - A.C.Greyling, Financial Times