V.S. Naipaul`s ''Columbus and Crusoe'' (1967) is a persuasive example of the latter effect. Using Bjorn Landstrom`s book, ''Columbus,'' as his starting point, Naipaul argues that Columbus was a man of staggering ''banality'' in scope and motive. He wanted gold and wanted it with a hubris that made his name. And that`s pretty much all Columbus had to offer, Naipaul claims. The adventurer`s ''egoism is like an exposed deformity.'' To remedy it, ''romance is something we ourselves have to supply.'' Columbus` story conspicuously lacks a hero. Thus, he`s the substitute, the woeful stand-in. In a mere four pages, the buffet of Naipaul`s opinion is full and fierce. And in the wake of it, who could think about history in quite the same fashion?