The WSJ ran a disturbing piece today on fear and censorship in the publishing world, specifically fear and censorship when dealing with Islam and all things related to Muhammad.
Of course we’re talking about extremists here, not the majority of the Muslim world that is too often shoved under the label “Radical Islam” whenever extremism makes news. But stridency works, both as a headline-grabber and a deterrent. The most recent example: Sherry Jones’ The Jewel of Medina.
It seems the publishing world has not forgotten the Rushdie fiasco, and is now self-censoring lest they offend those easily offended. I can’t treat this as flippantly as I’d like, because my life is not in danger as a result of what I’ve written, and I’m not sure how I’d respond if put in the same situation as Jones’ publisher, Random House. I do know that canceling books for fear of offending someone–even if that someone is a group of crazies armed to the teeth–runs counter to everything important about art.
Put simply, The Jewel of Medina is a novel about the prophet Muhammad and his harem. A few months ago the author, Sherry Jones, went blurb hunting and contacted professor Denise Spellberg of UT Austin. According to the WSJ, Prof. Spellberg–who teaches Islamic history–hated the novel, calling it a “very ugly, stupid piece of work.”
Technically she did give it a blurb, though it needs some skillful blurb editing:
“Very…work.”
- Professor Denise Spellberg, UT Austin
But Prof. Spellberg didn’t stop there. She then contacted the editor of a popular Muslim website, and warned him about the dangers of Jones’ book. Panic ensued. Misinformation spread. And extremists–bored out of their minds, unhappy, and forever searching for offense–launched a campaign to get this book pulled.
Incongruous reactions to fiction always point to something repressed in the heart of the critic. Prof. Spellberg sounds like no exception. Maybe she has ulterior motives (read the article to find out about her own soon-to-be published book on Islam) and is searching for attention in a media-saturated market. Who knows. Who cares. Prof. Spellberg isn’t the story here. Though this quote by her is:
“I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.”
Actually Prof. Spellberg, you can. Sacred history is fair game. Eveything is fair game, because sacred is relative. If I want to write a story where Moses throws a gang-bang at the base of Mt. Sinai–complete with donkeys and leather–and it offends you, then stop reading it. Let the marketplace of ideas take care of itself. “Offensive” work is empowered by those who take offense, and the best response is to counter with your own ideas. But to squash the work? To act the presumptive elitist and take it upon yourself to protect the world from the evils of a novel?
Ridiculous. You are ridiculous, Prof. Spellberg. Almost as ridiculous as Random House, which in the end, citing fear for its safety and the safety of its employees, canceled publication of the book. I’m hoping this turns out the way American Psycho did, with much ado about hair gel and rape/murder fizzling into a non-event, a decent book, and a great movie.
Comments on this entry are closed.