From the “Holy Shit” Department comes an article that was highlighted in today’s Publisher’s Lunch and dispatched to me by TeddyPig (Hi Teddy!): the Wall Street Journal reports that Random House is stopping publication of The Jewel of Medina and giving the rights back to the author, six days before the publication date out of fear of fallout from the Muslim community over the book’s content.
The book by Sherry Jones is a work of historical fiction based on the life of Aisha, one of the wives of the prophet Mohammed. Random House paid a $100k advance for the work but when UT Professor Denise Spellberg read an ARC, she denounced the book as a “very ugly, stupid piece of work” (note to authors: Don’t ask her for a cover quote. Ever.) and said, “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.”
Wait, wait, before you pound your head on your desk, there’s more. Ms. Spellberg alerted Shahed Amunullah, a guest lecturer and editor of altmuslim.com, who spread the word to a listserv of Muslim graduate students. From there that email appeared the website “Hussaini Youth,” and within three hours, a person published “a seven-point strategy to ensure ‘the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world.’”
Now you can bang your head.
After Ms. Spellberg had a conversation with an editor at Knopf, an imprint of Random House with whom Spellberg has a book contract, alarm was raised within the company that the book, the author, and the employees of the publisher could be the victims of “widespread violence.” Spellberg followed up the conversation with a letter from her attorney stating that Spellberg would sue if her name were associated with the novel.
The story has set the internet on fire, pretty much, from Galley Cat to political bloggers weighing in. I’m trying to find an excerpt, a copy, anything about this book, because six days before publication must mean somewhere, somehow, someone has a copy and I have an eBay account. You have a copy? Let’s talk.
I must also note that according to the WSJ article, Sherry Jones has signed a termination agreement and her agent can shop the book to other publishers. I hope another publisher brings the book out, and soon, because one hissyfit and the threat of terrorist action should not block anything, let alone a historical fiction novel.
Okay, but as much as the book doesn’t warrant what Spellberg said, Spellberg’s statements don’t amount to terrorist threats.
What exactly was being said by the Muslim students protesting this?
You are, of course, correct in general; I know very little about the language. However, Salman Rushdie’s specific fatwa (or at least the one about him) DID call for his execution. It is, I guess, the fact that this is pretty much the only fatwa that the average American has ever heard of that leads us to conflate ALL fatwa(s) with the one that called for Rushdie’s execution.
Not that I even referred to it, but thanks for the moment of education. You got me swarming around Wikipedia about Arabic language issues. 🙂
However, the fact that you are a Muslim woman and you don’t approve of fiction being written about the Prophet and Aisha —well, I know that there were tons of Christians who got mad about The DaVinci Code, even before it was published, and publishers didn’t take their opinions, either. Even though I don’t necessarily believe that turnabout is fair play, I still see this—as I would have seen a retraction of The DaVinci Code—as an act of censorship of which I do not approve. (Not that my approval means one whit to anyone in the world, either.)
Unbelievable.
“As a Muslim woman myself, I don’t approve of fiction being written about the Prophet (saws) or Aisha (ra). And I don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to protest/express their feelings freely in a non-violent/non-threatening manner.”
No one is debating that, shewhohashope. That this book won’t get published for fear of “major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,†Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.’”. Yeah. That is threatening the lives of people over a story. Many religions have sacred history, we also have freedom of press. If this book will upset Muslims, perhaps they shouldn’t read it?
I dunno, to me, Spellberg’s comments are pretty incendiary. In any case, Random House Group deputy publisher Tom Perry says that the company received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” They postponed publication “for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.” Last month a termination agreement was executed so that agent Natasha Kern could shop the book to other publishers.
So, unless he’s lying through his teeth, the “credible and unrelated sources” part of the quote suggests that it wasn’t simply Spellberg who was saying that publishing the book could be potentially dangerous.
As far as what the Muslim students were stating in their seven point plan to make Jones cave, I have no idea. It showed up on a listserve and then a blogger took it and ran with it. If I’m reading the WSJ article correctly, it was in one of the blog responses that the plan to ensure “the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world,” was proposed.
I mean, most writers want to incite strong reactions—but with their actual words, not the promise (or threat) of them. I just hope to one day get a chance to judge for myself, on strictly literary merits because you know, work of fiction.
Hell, on behalf of those of Scottish origin, I am still awaiting an apology for all the bad jokes made at our expense. I guess we (collective “we”) as an ethnic group/nation have tougher skins.
all97: come on spaminator I’m sure there are more than 97 scots reading this.
I wasn’t talking specifically to you about the ‘fatwa’ issue Stephanie (I get the urge to to spell that with too many ‘e’s because of Meyer) it’s just something that annoys me in general.
And I’m not calling for this book to be banned or burned or not to be printed, and I’d be uncomfortable if it was (I assume this book is coming out anyway), I just think you can go further to express your feelings than ‘not reading the book’ and stilll not be a terrorist.
re: Spellberg’s comments, it really dpends on how she said it. There is a line between making a veiled threat and believing that this book would be dangerous and warning the publisher and making it up as a threat to stop the book being published. I can’t really judge based on what little I know of her.
Yes, I’m interested in that, too. And kind of bewildered. It sounds as if Spellberg decided (by herself? because someone else told her?) there was a risk of violence from extremists, and Random House panicked. Which just sounds kind of…hysterical. And not necessarily to do with real terrorism at all (surely Spellberg isn’t an official spokesperson for extremists—or even for Muslims in general?), but rather people’s fear of terrorism.
Yeah, I totally got that, but since I didn’t actually know the piece of information, I was thanking you anyway.
(Also, I am going to be seriously pissed if Stephenie Meyer manages to change the standard spelling of ‘Stephanie’ permanently.)
How can you protest a book, other than not buying it, without calling for it not to be printed (or obviously harsher actions)? I guess organizing a boycott. Other suggestions? If you’re writing letters to the publisher, wouldn’t you be calling for it not to be printed?
Darn. I wrote that before I read Barb’s comment.
But still, unless Spellberg is actually acting as a spokesperson for a terrorist organisation (which I presume she’s not), it’s not a terrorist threat.
Just thought I’d belabor that point a little. 🙂
How about if you don’t approve of it, you don’t read it? When is it suddenly acceptable to have people running around and censoring what others read and write because of what YOU believe? I don’t like it no matter who does it.
I have no issues with people being offended by ideas they don’t like or agree with. But I do have issues when those people use threats to stop OTHERS from being exposed to those ideas.
Certainly radical Islam is not alone in this. Conservative Christians did the same thing when Passion of the Christ came out (and another interesting corrollary is that most of the protesters hadn’t seen or read the material they tried to censor then either). The political spectrum from right to left has done it as well. It’s tiring in all guises.
Your beliefs are just that, YOURS. Do not seek to force them on me.
Spellberg is the problem here and not the book or the genre. She seems to have gotten her panties (probably white cotton granny) in a wad. Perhaps she is one of those who can not make the distinction between fiction and fact. Apparently she thinks fiction means “accurate historical annotations”.
Or, the cynic in me wonders, maybe she has a book of her own on the same subject? (Agreeing with another cynic above me somewhere in the myriad of comments.)
There is all this talk of this being censorship, but is it really censorship if the book can still be published through other sources? It’s not like the government is banning it from print or sale. Now, if she goes to other publishers and they don’t want to touch it with ten foot pole, it’s still not censorship, IMO. That comes closer to the book being blacklisted.
My God, that’s some wonderful publicity.
So because she is a woman, and not well-known (*ahem* practically no one outside effete literary circles had heard of Rushdie before the Fatwa Bruhaha), and isn’t writing “big, important, capital “L” Literary books”, her right to free speech and freedom of expression is less than Rushdie’s?
Niiice.
I think Spellberg was doing a humane act, maybe, by telling the publisher about her fears for them and for the author, if the book were published. However, she sided WITH the thought police when she contacted Muslim students, obviously, to alert them to this “blasphemy. ” What did she think they were going to do with this information? Have a polite debate about freedom of speech vs. respect? The woman should be fired for encouraging those agents who would destroy freedom of speech.
I wish the Muslim world would devote the same intensity to fighting terrorism that they do to fighting what they perceive as assaults on their religion. It would go a LONG WAY to reassuring people that Islam IS a religion of peace if there were rallies, worldwide that burned the effigies of TERRORISTS.
I think you’re in luck. Breaking Dawn apperars to universally reviled, and I’ve decided that I’m going to keep spelling Stephanie this no matter how the person in question’s parents have decided to flout societal convention.
That’s pretty much it. Mainly just make your objections public.
And I’m not sure if Lauren Dane is referring to me (it seems unlikely) but I’ve already stated my position on this subject.
Now I’m not sure what you guys think of me.
Was it any way not obvious that I was – not being sarcastic, exactly – stating a truth that I don’t agree with?
I’d be a lot more willing to believe this if the timeline of events as spelled out via the WSJ didn’t seem to indicate that she contacted the visiting professor before she contacted the publishing house.
STUDENTS. You place the word ‘Muslim’ in front of ‘Students’ and suddenly it’s Al Qaeda?
Pfft.
(I’ll probably have to clarify what I’m saying here at some point, but it’s going to take a while)
Anyone else being hit with the irony that in all likelihood, her name forevermore will be linked with the novel?
My husband also made the very astute observation of, “You know, if I’m Random House, I consider canceling her contract too because a) perceived conflict of interest and b) why would you want to do business with someone who’s just threatened to sue you?”
I love that man.
I think you might be referring to The Last Temptation of Christ. Gibson’s Passion was the darling of Christian Conservatives (it was screened in mega churches all over the U.S.).
shewhohashope:
I didn’t take your statement as sarcasm. I thought you were serious. It looks like I wasn’t the only one. That’s one of the major problems with online communication.
I didn’t comment on it, though, because perhaps you are more fundamental (hate that word) in your beliefs, and you believe that a woman’s literary work is not as important as a man’s, or that man in particular.
Seeing as to how you are at this site, though…I’m not sure what I was thinking, because no way could I reconcile beliefs of that nature and surfing the web to smartbitches.com. 🙂 Knee-jerk reaction, possibly, since I have met women that believe that way.
spamword: appreared21…noooo…actually, appearing my full 30 today, and hot and tired, to boot. but thanks for the compliment.
Passion of the Christ was vilified in varying levels of irate screeching by the Jewish community, as many of the images therein were considered anti-Semitic.
If you were being obvious, you might have stated, 1) that you thought Rushdie’s publisher ought to have declined to publish his books, the same way Jones’ publisher has, or 2) that despite your objections to the subject matter of Ms. Jones’ book, you supported her right to freedom of expression. You did neither.
If you weren’t saying she had less rights than an award winning male writer of literary fiction, you should have m ade it clearer.
Certainly radical Islam is not alone in this. Conservative Christians did the same thing when Passion of the Christ came out (and another interesting corrollary is that most of the protesters hadn’t seen or read the material they tried to censor then either). The political spectrum from right to left has done it as well. It’s tiring in all guises.
I’m pretty sure you mean The Last Temptation of Christ, movie and book.
I’m gonna out myself here as a conservative Christian. TBH, that stuff (Dan Brown and Kazantzakis (sp?) didn’t bother me because, hey, truth is truth, no matter what a person may say, or write, or film, or whatever. Besides, neither of those works seem all that irreverent to me. I don’t see the problem with peaceful protests (signs, petitions), and boycotts. I don’t see the problem with letters to the editor, or TV interviews in which people discuss how horrible the work in question is (so long as they read it). It’s good to have a discussion of religious beliefs, esp. in our society, which sometimes needs a reminder. It can be a good thing, really, for a religiously controversial work to come out—it gets everyone talking in my religious community, and generally inspires people to weed out sinful aspects of their lives, and resolve to try and keep themselves and their families more “separate from the world.” But, speaking only for Christians—if we’re not happy with religious disrespect and immorality, then we need to get busier “working from the inside,” trying to bring others to Christ, rather than ranting and raving about a book or a movie. Because if enough people commit their lives to God, then a lot of this stuff will disappear without our having to protest it. IMHO.
And it’s Barb for the win! Turns out Dr. Spellberg is the author of a feminist book about Aisha, wife of Mohammed. Jones read Spellberg’s book, liked it, and suggested Spellberg be asked for a quote.
That, to me, is so telling.
spam filter: point 86….no, I think I’m done for now
WHUT.
I don’t know where to begin.
And Salman Rushdie is a man writing Seriouis Literary Fiction [TM] and a Booker Prize winner. This lady is a) a woman b) I don’t quite recall her name even now and c) is writing genre fiction, and romance at that.
As a
(a) woman,
(b) whose name you’ve never heard, who is
(c) writing ROMANCE-AT-THAT …
I gotta say I’m not just delighted with the thought I deserve less free-speech protection than
(a) a male,
(b) who has a name you are capable of remembering, and
(c) is writing Terribly Important Literary Stuff.
I do not approve of blackmail,
or religions jockeying for special privileges,
or giving power to oafs with rocks.
If we allow thugs to squelch the publication of a
ROMANCE-AT-THAT
their demands will escalate till they reach some sort of writing you feel should not be censored.
Or possibly not.
Was it any way not obvious that I was – not being sarcastic, exactly – stating a truth that I don’t agree with
Nah, when you put “TM” after Serious Literary Fiction, I got you. Thought it was funny, actually
Am I the only one who thinks that this only makes her book more likely to sell when it does come out…..and it WILL come out. You say you’re pulling it because of some vague “threat” and everyone goes into an uproar and DEMANDS to see it published, etc, and then when it IS finally published it is a bestseller. And nobody will give a damn whether it is well written or not.
Nah. That is too cynical even for me.
.
Hah—that was my first thought too when I read the article!
Free publicity for both writers—a “you stab my back, I’ll stab yours” kind of situation. Me, cynical? Nah.
Maybe I should strive to be less ambiguous.
I can see that you don’t mean to be rude, but consider how hurtful it is to constantly have people assume that you are extremely conservative (at best) and a crazy fundamentalist/terrorist (at worst) because of your faith.
(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)
It’s true that there are people from every religion that get very upset when anyone writes about their history. In terms of turning a sacred history into soft core pornography I thought of The Red Tent, which got a lot of undies in a major bunch. The difference is, it got published. I agree 100% with those who say that the solution to being offended by a book is simply not to read it, but I think the difference in reaction here is because people obviously fear angry Muslims in a way that they simply don’t fear angry Christians. I think that’s unrealistic.
Here in America we’ve never had the sort of violent protests that happened after the flap about the Danish cartoons. For a whole bunch of reasons I won’t bore you with I don’t think that’s likely to change. And if you look at recent history the average American not living in LA or NY has much more to fear from right wing “Christian” extremists, either of the lone nut variety or militia members, than they do from Islamic terrorists. So I agree with the person who said this smacks of hysteria.
For the most part yes. But it is also extremely Catholic in imagery and many of the scenes are Catholic in origin. There were some fundamentalists who disliked the movie because it was made by a Catholic.
I’m Catholic myself. I read the Da Vinci Code when it first came out, before the big brouhaha began. It did offend me in some parts. However, I can appreciate it as a work of fiction, that is meant to entertain.
Jo
I assume you haven’t read my clarification, but why on earth am I reading smart bitches trashy books, unless I am in fact a woman of at least average (I hope) intelligence who loves romance novels?
[And I remember your name perfectly well. It’s evident that false amnesia is not the comedic gold I thought it was. Except for Leah no-one agrees with me.]
Considering the report stated that she already signed the termination agreement, reconsidering is going to involve a new contract and possibly going to auction against other houses who will no doubt want to grab the publicity for themselves.
Very expensive proposition, that, especially since Jones will have been able to retain any moneys already paid to her as a “kill fee.”
I… uhhh… I really don’t know how to describe my reaction to your words without it turning into a diatribe.
I have committed my life to God. However, my commitment is not to the Christian God. The idea that people seek to convert others just so they don’t have to listen to ideas that run counter to their own is extremely distasteful to me. I am secure enough in my religious beliefs that I don’t need to convert others or protest something that may be “blasphemous”.
Hell, fiction writers use Gods that I worship all of the time in their books in ways that make me cringe, but I do not call for a boycott or protest. Heck, there are some books that have Pagan Gods as the villains that I personally enjoy very much because the book was well-written and entertaining.
Leah, you make me smile.
One point I find interesting is how she appears to conflate her views about Aisha (and presumably Mohammed) with Truth. All histories, even autobiographies, are in some sense “historical fiction”.
For example, you can relate a historical fact, say, “William the Conqueror and his army invaded England in 1066”, but as soon as you attempt to chronical the reasons behind the invasion or what exactly happened once the army landed, you’ve left “factual” behind. For one thing, no matter how objective you try to be, everyone brings their own personal biases to an issues. This colors everything from what will or will not be considered as a valid source, but also the interpretation of the information the source provides. Secondly, even eyewitnesses to an event can be inaccurate, prejudiced, ill-informed, or simply mistaken. Therefore, all historians must go into a project with the intent of sifting through available material as objectively as possible, while always being aware of their own biases. However, I would guess that many of you have seen instances where you’ve read something and the author’s preconceived notions are readily apparently to everyone but him/herself. So while they may present their ideas with authority and with the personal belief that they are as close to the Truth (as they know it) as they can be, the truth is that all history is relative and therefore, in a sense, historical fiction. It’s just that some histories are more fictional than others.
shewhohashope you raise a good point with this statement:
“(and no-one else is boggling at the statement about muslims being an indistinguishable mass of murderers and crazies. No-one?)”
Yes, I read some of these comments and my mind did ‘boggle’. Sorry I didn’t speak up.
Truth is I fear and speak out against intolerance in any form, and I responded first to what Sarah posted first and then misunderstood your comment.
I do agree with you that publishers will be more apt to protect Very Serious Literary Works from censorship-by-oaf than Just-a-Romances.
I want to see this protection spread across even minor works. (Though a $100K advance argues this is NOT a minor work.)
I think we are in agreement on this … nu?
And certainly I am equal opportunity in demanding that oafs of all religions and national stripes should be prevented from heaving bricks.