Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Even though I said I wouldn’t read it, I did and it did solidify my reasoning for not reading the novel. There are inaccuracies about her life right from the first line. it’s expected, but it just doesn’t sit well with me.

I’ve learned about her life, so when the first sentence says

Scandal blew in on the errant wind when I rode into Medina clutching Safwan’s waist.

It make me shake my head, because in the hadith Aisha mentioned this never happened and while reading the prologue, it does paint the picture that Aisha wanted to be with Safwan. In our religion, to even say that is a huge sin, to the point that if you even say they had relations and that Aisha was unfaithful takes you out of the folds of Islam.

It’s paints the Sahabis (companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)) in such a negative light, which was disheartening to read. Ali wasn’t jealous of her, Umar didn’t want to harm her. She didn’t even know what was being said till a month or so after, and when she found out she stayed with her parents and prayed.

I don’t really know what to say. If the topic didn’t offend some Muslims before, reading the prologue will offend Muslim (regardless of what sect you are in). I mentioned before in the other thread that if you write fiction about the Prophets and their wives, you will change it to spice it up. That’s why we stay away from it, because if you write fiction about them, you are saying lies because you weren’t there and it’s a sin and that’s why this book will offend.

Sorry if this doesn’t make sense. I’m honestly at a loss for words after reading the prologue.

Thank you for your insightful reviews! I would like to point out that the Qur’an refers to a “lie” but does not say whether that lie refers to accusations of adultery or of intent. In fact, A’isha, although tempted by another, does not succumb in my book. In writing this novel, I tried to take into account both Sunni and Shia views, particularly of this incident. No worries though: Her honor remains intact! And she grows up a LOT because of this experience.

Just from the prologue, the part I could see becoming contentious is that Jones’ Aisha ran away with another man with the intent to commit adultery, when this is specifically denied in the Qur’an. And the depiction of several of the sahaba in their treatment of Aisha, although that has basis within Islamic historical records (and within the Qur’an).

I can’t disagree with this.

The writing isn’t bad (in fact, I rather like her voice), but starting with the idea that Aisha really did run away with adulterous intentions seems problematic to me.

I’d be curious to see what Jones based this on. Are there alternate versions of Aisha’s history out there that support this, or is it pure fictional invention? If it’s the former, that’s one thing. We all know historical accounts can vary widely depending on who’s doing the telling, and if in one version of Islam there is a belief that Aisha did act in the way and then repented, ok. If this is purely fictional though, it becomes a real problem IMO (but we all know I like my history to be, well, historically based).

I’m not widely read enough in the history of Aisha to be able to render an educated opinion, so I’ll have to rely on those who are.

That said, I don’t see any reason to go to the extreme of protesting the publication of the book. Lots of historically inaccurate, culturally offensive, stuff is published. Just ask any historian or minority you know.

Sorry for the second post, just wanted to make a correction.

Not to mention that Aisha in Islamic tradition (or sunni tradition) is one of the four perfect women who are held up as what all Muslim women should aim to be as wel as one of the Mothers of the Faith (along with Khadijah, Mary, and Asiya (ra)).

She isn’t part of the four righteous women, Fatima, the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) daughter, is. She is highly regarded as a great Muslimah though.

Hmmm. Now I’m thinking I skimmed over the portayal of the sahaba, but it is on record that people accused her of adultery so I let that slide, as it were.

Although (as Popin says) I don’t think she did know everything that was being said straight away. I’ll have to read up on the incident.

Silly mistake on my part.

I did keep wondering about Fatima.

Whether or not this book is faithful to Islam and its history doesn’t matter all that much to me, because I’m not Muslim.  If I were, and my religious leaders said, “Hey, this is a book we consider to be damaging to the faith,” well, then I wouldn’t buy the book and support the author.

It just seems that simple, and it’s too bad the publishing house didn’t have some balls.

DAMN it. I just had a long comment typed out, very carefully worded, and it got eaten. RAR. I’m going to much less careful in this one, so let me say that I’m not trying to be provocative, nor am I setting out to offend anyone. I am asking a real question.

If the topic didn’t offend some Muslims before, reading the prologue will offend Muslim (regardless of what sect you are in).

My question is, in a religion as diversely populated as Islam, is it, in your (Popin’s or anyone else’s) possible to still be a “good” Muslim and not be offended by such a representation? I have known individual Muslims who did not follow the strictures of the Qu’ran quite as literally as they perhaps “should” have (scare quotes only b/c I’m not really sure what exactly they felt was required of them, or to what extent they felt obligated to obey those requirements), and I wonder if something like this would have been as problematic for them as it is for some of our commenters here. (Which is NOT to say that you’re wrong in being offended. If it is offensive to you, it’s offensive to you. Period.) 

I feel like we are often presented a vision of Islam as a monolithic faith, even despite the Sunni/Shi’a divide, wherein Every Believer feels exactly the same way about some things, and based strictly on my own experience of Christianity, I wonder about the truth of that. Thoughts?

A vague disclaimer is no-one’s friend:

a) I’m clearly not an Islamic scholar.
b) I won’t be buying this book but I’m going to come to your house and slap you upside the head if you do.
c) I speak for myself (and probably a large number of Muslims, but don’t quote me on that if large numbers stop by and say I’m full of it)
d) Islam =/= a monolith but fictionalised representations of the Prophet (saws) are widely forbidden and intensely disliked.

I already said some stuff about cultural appropriation in the last post, and my thoughts on that still stand.

I think it’s too bad, I liked the prologue and would buy the book if it was available. This is fiction, so although it may offend people, they don’t have to read it or buy it or even talk about it. It’s not as if the author is saying this is what really happened- isn’t it kind of like religious fan-fic, in a way?

My question is, in a religion as diversely populated as Islam, is it, in your (Popin’s or anyone else’s) possible to still be a “good” Muslim and not be offended by such a representation?

I don’t think so. It’s alluding that Aisha wanted to have relations with Safwan, when she was cleared of any misdeeds from the Quran - which we consider to be the truth and revealed from God/Allah. So as a Muslim, regardless of your feelings towards Aisha, you can never ever, ever, allude that she wanted to sleep with Safwan, because Allah cleared her name in the Quran [24:11-20]

Can you be a good Muslim, but not be offended, sure, but you’d also have to believe that what is written is slanderous to Aisha and wrong.

b) I won’t be buying this book but I’m going to come to your house and slap you upside the head if you do.

*snicker* Hee. I assume you meant you’re NOT going to do that. But if you’d like to, I’ll make you some tea and we can chat while I duck the books you pitch at me. ;)

can never ever, ever, allude that she wanted to sleep with Safwan

Okay. So I assume, then, that the Qu’ran also has the idea of “adultery in the heart” that the New Testament has? In which even the desire to commit adultery is a sin on the level of adultery itself?

Can you be a good Muslim, but not be offended, sure, but you’d also have to believe that what is written is slanderous to Aisha and wrong

Okay, I see that.

I already said some stuff about cultural appropriation in the last post, and my thoughts on that still stand.

So would you feel differently if this novel (or a similarly themed novel) were written by a Muslim? If Rushdie or Pamuk took on a fictionalized account of Aisha for example?

I know that as a Native American I do find myself reacting differently to NA fiction written by NAs than I do to fiction written about NAs by non-NAs. And I can’t help but attribute the reaction to a very personal reaction to the cultural appropriation that I frequently feel is taking place.

  b) I won’t be buying this book but I’m going to come to your house and slap you upside the head if you do.

*snicker* Hee. I assume you meant you’re NOT going to do that. But if you’d like to, I’ll make you some tea and we can chat while I duck the books you pitch at me. ;)

I did mean not. Unless you ask me nicely.

So would you feel differently if this novel (or a similarly themed novel) were written by a Muslim?

I’d feel somewhat different on the question of whether the work was appropriative, yes.

Please do remember, everyone—this is fiction! If my intention was to remain completely true to the historical record, I would have penned a nonfiction book. The story is the thing! And believe me, A’isha is a true heroine, in every sense of the word. Like any protagonist, she makes mistakes and learns from them, and emerges as a woman of true honor.

OK, I have to go and work on my sequel now—which is, by the way, even better than the first book. It alternates points of view between A’isha and her (historically documented) nemesis, Ali, and provides a lot of insight into both of these characters as well as the origins of the Sunni-Shi’ite split.

First, let’s get this out of the way:  Brett Favre going to the Jets I will NOT discuss. 

I, too, want to thank Ms. Jones and Shewhohashope.  It was very brave and generous of the author to share her work, and very brave and generous of the anthropology student (a model of patience!) to share her beliefs.

The Prologue does fascinate me.  I suspect that’s because we Westerners—or, to be more inclusive, many of us who aren’t Muslim—like seeing our leaders humanized.  It usually makes us respect them more, not less.  So, yes, I would read on.  And I would do so knowing I was reading a work of fiction, not a theological treatise or historical biography.

About the writing itself:  If anything balled me up, it was the overuse of figurative language.  I’m a big fan of figurative language, but when the similes and metaphors and images are so elaborate, and come at me so thick and fast that I have trouble following the thread of the narrative, they become obtrusive.

I’m undoubtedly flaunting my ignorance by saying what I’m about to say . . . but hey, that’s never stopped me before.  So, hi-ho and away I go!  I just don’t understand how or why an admittedly fictionalized version of anything can be seen as threatening or insulting.  Fiction is the product of one person’s imagination; it isn’t (usually, it isn’t) being peddled as The Truth.  If someone wrote a novel in which Madonna were portrayed as the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, I wouldn’t find it egregiously offensive.  Egregiously lame, maybe, but not something capable of undermining the tenets of Roman Catholicism.

Here’s how I see it.  Mohamed and the Mothers of the Faith are what they are.  And they are immutable.  Their immutability is strengthened in the soul of every believer every second of every day.  A Christian could say the same of Jesus Christ.  No piddling human, no matter how creatively gifted, can alter fundamental truth.  So why fuss over The Jewel of Medina or Jesus Christ, Superstar or Charlton Heston playing Moses or George Burns playing God Almighty . . . or any of it?  There’s nothing inherently subversive about these fanciful creations, because they cannot alter truth or faith.

Okay. So I assume, then, that the Qu’ran also has the idea of “adultery in the heart” that the New Testament has? In which even the desire to commit adultery is a sin on the level of adultery itself?

No. If you have that desire to commit adultery, but don’t because you remember Allah. You are actually rewarded for it, because you are struggling with yourself to do good.

Sherry, I hope my thoughts didn’t attack you or offend you. I understand it’s fiction and I understand why you wrote your story like this. It just doesn’t sit well with me to ever want to read it though. Sorry.

Just do what the Catholics do.

Put out an official banned book list.

Then the rest of us can ignore it.

If you have that desire to commit adultery, but don’t because you remember Allah. You are actually rewarded for it, because you are struggling with yourself to do good.

So then why is it offensive to say that she might have had the desire? Since she didn’t do it, and was cleared of all wrongdoing by Allah, why is even the suggestion that she may have *wanted* to do it so wrong?

No comments on the prologue (I haven’t decided yet, but I don’t think I’ll be reading it) but I just wanted to cheer for all of us who have engaged in reasoned debate about what was an emotive subject for both sides. Maybe this belongs in the first JoM thread, not this one; if so, apologies for off-topic comment. And I am glad that the prologue is up so that those who want to, can read it.

Please do remember, everyone—this is fiction! If my intention was to remain completely true to the historical record, I would have penned a nonfiction book. The story is the thing!

See, *this* I just don’t grok.

If an author doesn’t want to stay true to the historical record, why write about REAL people? I know it’s much easier in today’s market to sell a book based on real people (oh, that we could all be Dorothy Dunnett), but when fictionalizing them, I feel very strongly that the writer has a responsibility to be accurate (I’m looking at YOU, Phillipa Gregory).

Sherry, I hope my thoughts didn’t attack you or offend you. I understand it’s fiction and I understand why you wrote your story like this.

I am not offended, Popin.  I can take it!

Thoughtful and thought-provoking blog post.  The cover of the book was very pretty.

Some questions:

1. Is the author of the book a Muslim herself?  I was assuming ‘not’, but maybe that’s not a given.
2. What is the meaning of “(saws)” behind each reference to the Prophet Mohammed?

I guess I’m confused.

1) It’s historical fiction. I read The Red Tent and lurved it. Never, at any point, did I think this was a true story.

2) It would be against a Muslim’s religion to humanize/fictionalize the live of Mohammed or his wives. But the author’s not Muslim, so she doesn’t have to live by the rules of Islam, so I don’t understand the problem.

3) Jesus has been protrayed as human and weak in very human ways in soooo many books. There has always been discussion (and, I assume, fictionalization) over whether Mary was REALLY a virgin, or whether she just got knocked up. There’s lots and lots of discussion of what Jesus did with Mary Magdalene. Sooo… Adultery isn’t exactly a little Oops! in the bible either. So what? The stories haven’t broken the religion or anythng. People get upset. Sales go up. Life moves on.

4) Again, it’s fiction. How, exactly, is it going to get tangled up with thousands of years of religion and somehow confuse the issue? It’s fiction. It’s. Fic. Tion.

Still confused.

So then why is it offensive to say that she might have had the desire? Since she didn’t do it, and was cleared of all wrongdoing by Allah, why is even the suggestion that she may have *wanted* to do it so wrong?

Mainly because her thoughts are between her and Allah, and unless she openly admitted to having these feelings we (Muslims not everyone else) can’t really say that she had these feelings.

What is the meaning of “(saws)” behind each reference to the Prophet Mohammed?

SAWS is the short form of saying Sallallahu ‘Alayhi Wasallam which means Peace and Blessings upon him in Arabic.

If an author doesn’t want to stay true to the historical record, why write about REAL people? I know it’s much easier in today’s market to sell a book based on real people…

Eee, I don’t know about this, Kalen. She’s not marketing it as anything other than fiction inspired by a historical figure. Asking this question is kind of like somebody asking me why I choose to write women’s porn when I could be writing real books. Because it’s what I want to do. I think it’s a legitimate answer in both cases. The same with, “Why do you write such dirty sex scenes? I know it’s an easy market, but…” There’s a market and people like it and I like it. That’s a good enough answer to any of those questions.

Mainly because her thoughts are between her and Allah, and unless she openly admitted to having these feelings we (Muslims not everyone else) can’t really say that she had these feelings

So it basically goes back to the perception that any fictional account of any of the holy figures of Islam are equal to telling lies about those figures.

Do these strictures apply to other historical figures of less import (i.e., not prophets, say, but important imams or something), or are they specifically limited to fictional depictions of the Prophet Muhammed, his family, and other key prophets? I mean, is there, in your sense, a general disapproval of historical fiction as telling falsehoods about real people?

Of course I put A’isha in the action! She’s the protagonist! She’s got to be there! That’s the constraint of writing from first-person POV. Imagine how dull it would be to read a summary from her a month later of what she heard happened, or an account of someone else telling her everything that happened while she was at her parents’ home. That’s what you do with historical fiction—you alter the details, when needed, in service of the story. The fact is, this DID happen (if you believe every word of a history conveyed orally for centuries before ever being written down) and Ali did encourage Muhammad to divorce her, and the rest no one really knows!

Just because the historical record doesn’t say something happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. As for portrayals of Ali and Umar, remember—this is A’isha’s point of view. She didn’t get along with either of them. So of course she’s not going to speak of them in glowing terms.

I’m not trying to justify my work here. Just hoping to help ya’ll understand why I changed what I did. My book is true to history, but not every single detail. I have placed A’isha at battles she isn’t listed as having attended, too, because the story is from her point of view and I felt I needed to tell what happened at the battles. I gave her a sword, although there is no record of her having wielded one, as a metaphor of her growing strength and courage—and also to illiustrate that, in the early years of Islam, women fought in battles alongside men.

If you have that desire to commit adultery, but don’t because you remember Allah. You are actually rewarded for it, because you are struggling with yourself to do good.

Of what value is Aisha’s purity if she was never tempted? Can it not be argued that because she was tempted to commit adultery, and did not, that she is more “perfect”? That is, the fact that she passed a test of her convictions and belief in Islam is to be admired more than if her faith had never been tempted at all…

We all know historical accounts can vary widely depending on who’s doing the telling, and if in one version of Islam there is a belief that Aisha did act in the way and then repented, ok. If this is purely fictional though, it becomes a real problem IMO (but we all know I like my history to be, well, historically based).

Mainly because her thoughts are between her and Allah, and unless she openly admitted to having these feelings we (Muslims not everyone else) can’t really say that she had these feelings.

Okay, I hear you. But if Muslims have historically been dead set against the very idea that Aisha would have been tempted (something only she and Allah would know), it stands to reason that if she was tempted, that possibility has either been ignored or quashed.

Or, put another way, how can anyone—even those who were there—other than Aisha herself, say for sure she wasn’t tempted. But that in itself seems to be a huge objection for many—that because she was cleared of wrongdoing by Muhammad, it follows that she never had the thought. Insisting she never thought about it is, IMO, just as much a lie as saying she might have—which is to say, neither are lies, just opinions.

I liked it.

I’m going to buy it.

And I won’t be afraid to be seen reading it, either.

:)

If an author doesn’t want to stay true to the historical record, why write about REAL people? I know it’s much easier in today’s market to sell a book based on real people…

Eee, I don’t know about this, Kalen. She’s not marketing it as anything other than fiction inspired by a historical figure. Asking this question is kind of like somebody asking me why I choose to write women’s porn when I could be writing real books. Because it’s what I want to do.

This is one of those things we’ll simply have to agree to disagree about . . . purposefully altering history in the service of a fictional story chaps my hide.

This is one of those things we’ll simply have to agree to disagree about . . . purposefully altering history in the service of a fictional story chaps my hide.

Another one? *g* Strange, how we like each other so much! We’re just classy like that, I guess.

I’m not trying to justify my work here.

I don’t think you need to, Sherry!  As Victoria and I have (perhaps rather stridently) been emphasizing, IT’S FICTION.  You’re exercising POETIC LICENSE.  You haven’t misrepresented yourself or your book, which is a NOVEL.  You simply used the historical record as a springboard—something untold numbers of fiction writers have done and continue to do.

It would be against a Muslim’s religion to humanize/fictionalize the live of Mohammed or his wives. But the author’s not Muslim, so she doesn’t have to live by the rules of Islam, so I don’t understand the problem.

Maybe because a Muslim would find it sinful for anyone to write, regardless of the author’s religion?  I think that as Americans, we often find ourselves looking at behavior we don’t approve of and thinking “Well, as long as they don’t hurt anyone or break the law, I’m not going to say anything about it.”  Not every culture takes that approach to things they see as wrong.  Someone who sees fiction about a religious leader as wrong is perfectly entitled to think of it as wrong no matter who the author is.  It can offend the conscience whether it was written by a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

I have to say, I’ve been somewhat disturbed by how dismissive some are being of the opposition to the book.  It strikes me as profoundly insensitive to other cultures to paint them as unreasonable for objecting strenuously to something they see as heretical.  This happens in American media all the time – virtually every time another country has some sort of uprising, the protesters are painted as crazy, drunk, or unreasonable, as though only Americans (or only Western societies) are allowed to have nuanced reasons for objecting to their government’s actions.  The people commenting in this entry who have a problem with the book have been calm and respectful about their objections, and yet I can’t help but feel that their objections are being dismissed because it doesn’t fit within the perspective of those who don’t find the book offensive.

I’m not a Muslim, and I don’t know as much about Islam as I should.  But I find this insistence that “it’s fiction, it shouldn’t be a problem” incredibly offensive.  Does that excuse blatant racism in fiction?  I don’t mean a racist character in a period where racism was accepted, I mean fiction where the underlying message is that racism is good.  Does “it’s fiction” excuse using fiction to push a sexist agenda?  I don’t think a book fitting either of those descriptions would be getting this kind of attention if the same thing happened to it.  And like Kalen Hughes, I’m very uncertain of whether this book is cultural appropriation, something I personally find objectionable.  A non-Muslim could probably write on this subject matter in a respectful way, but the fact that the author rather blithely states that because it’s fiction she didn’t intend to stay true to the historical record – as though one couldn’t write fiction and be accurate at once – doesn’t bode well for me.

Did I come across as blithe? Sorry—I didn’t mean to. What I should have said is, this is MY interpretation of how things might have happened. It’s not mean to be the definitive version. It’s MY artistic vision. That’s all.

Of course people have the right to be offended about anything. I’m offended by lots of things. And, of course, as an American, my reaction is “live and let live.” I’m not sure what other reaction I’m supposed to have about a book written by an American for a US publisher. (Assuming I have my facts straight.) I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t take offense with the book. I’m arguing that offense is no reason not to publish the book.

Racist fiction? Print it the fuck out, just don’t expect me to buy it. Sexist agenda? I’m sure there have been lots of those on the bestseller lists and nary a death threat made.

People may not like the slippery slope argument, but I honestly think it applies. My books are offensive to lots of people. I know, because I’ve gotten the emails from them. I’m sure they’d be offensive to entire countries, if I could get that kind of distribution. And? I’m not volunteering to pull my books because they’re sinful in other people’s religions.

I don’t understand the argument. And yes, I admit to being shaped by my background and life and beliefs and attitudes and memories.

as though one couldn’t write fiction and be accurate at once

Huh? Then it would not be fiction obviously it would be recreation or analysis.

I have to say, I’ve been somewhat disturbed by how dismissive some are being of the opposition to the book.  It strikes me as profoundly insensitive to other cultures to paint them as unreasonable for objecting strenuously to something they see as heretical.

They can object to it all they want. But it’s at the point where they insist that I, and Sherry Jones, and everyone else live according to their beliefs that I start having a problem. That doesn’t make me dismissive. It makes me not Muslim, and last time I checked there was no law against that.

I’d say it would reflect better upon Muslims in general if all those who objected simply took their concerns public and instead of pressuring the author or publisher to withhold the book, expressed their religious objections and asked people not to buy it. I guarantee you if this had been the main reaction, Ms. Jones would have gotten far fewer sales than she almost certainly will now.

I don’t mean a racist character in a period where racism was accepted, I mean fiction where the underlying message is that racism is good.  Does “it’s fiction” excuse using fiction to push a sexist agenda?

Um, I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, if that fiction could not be shown to be likely to incite violence against an identifiable group, it would still be perfectly legal to publish it—not just in the U.S., but even here in left-leaning, enlightened Canada. That doesn’t mean racist material is pretty. Just that in a democracy, people are legally entitled to express themselves.

I’m very uncertain of whether this book is cultural appropriation, something I personally find objectionable.

You find it personally objectionable. Please do not dictate what things I have to find objectionable.

I find the general reaction to this action by Random House both baffling, and terribly sad.  The people who have expressed problems with this book have, in general, been respectful.  Those who are attacking Random House for actions that A) hardly amount to banning, and B) they should have taken from the moment the manuscript came across their desks, have not, in general, been nearly as respectful.

For a blog where we were nearly to a woman demanding that Caddie Edwards publishers take our indignation seriously, to be so dismissive of others legitimate criticisms ... I just have no words. 

What bothers me most though, is the attacks being address towards the professor.  I don’t know her personally, I do however know a number of female Islamic and Middle Eastern scholars.  They’re generally tough cookies.  I wouldn’t be so prepared to dismiss her as a nut just because she took vocal actions against this book.

Am I totally comfortable with her tone?  No.  Am I uncomfortable with the actions she has taken?  No.  Not at all. 

In an age of cross promotion, it is not unreasonable of her to contact her own publisher (an imprint of Random House) and give them a heads up that she did not want her name or book associated with this one.  This is not just about ego.  I have a friend today who is desperately trying to do research in Turkey before the fall semester because she fully expects not to be allowed into the country again once her next book is published.  And Turkey is hardly an extremist country.

I fail to see how writing to a list serve of graduate students is out of line.  Academics discuss books on mailing lists all the time.  My inbox currently has 10 such emails in it right now.  It’s part of modern academic communication.  She communicated her discomfort.  Perhaps more strongly than I would have, but I am not an expert on the subject and books in my field are never going to provoke calls of religious offense.  Perhaps my reaction is different than others because the operative words I read in the accounts were “muslim graduate students”. 

There have been a lot of ugly accusations of censorship flying around about this book, but I’ve yet to see anyone question how healthy it is for our society to attack university professors for commenting within their field of expertise.

This is one of those things we’ll simply have to agree to disagree about . . . purposefully altering history in the service of a fictional story chaps my hide.

Another one? *g* Strange, how we like each other so much! We’re just classy like that, I guess.

We remain friends because we respect each other and agree on the fact that we can disagree on stuff like this and both still be good people. *grin* That and I love you more than ice cream.

I have to say, I’ve been somewhat disturbed by how dismissive some are being of the opposition to the book.  It strikes me as profoundly insensitive to other cultures to paint them as unreasonable for objecting strenuously to something they see as heretical.

At a certain point I throw up my hands and simply state that sometimes our cultural starting points are simply too far apart for any mutual understanding to be achievable. Many Americans/Westerners believe strongly in a separation of church and state, and that someone’s ability to take offense (whatever the reason) simply isn’t a good enough reason for censorship. This mindset simply doesn’t see the logic/reason grounding the opposition to the book. The American/Western response is Fine, don’t read it. I don’t think this is a question of sensitivity, it’s simply an example of extreme incompatibility.

The fact that the author rather blithely states that because it’s fiction she didn’t intend to stay true to the historical record – as though one couldn’t write fiction and be accurate at once – doesn’t bode well for me.

This raises the issue of the accuracy of the “historical record”—which, in general, is more full of gaps and conflicting academic speculation the further back in history one goes.  That record becomes additionally clouded (and let’s be brutally honest about this) when religious belief is applied to it.

How much, really, is known, beyond the shadow of any doubt, about the lives of the figures portrayed in Ms. Jones’s book?  Or about any person, for that matter?

There’s a fascinating book called Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture (1974) by anthropologist Marvin Harris that attempts to untangle taken-for-granted matters of faith from historical likelihood and cultural reality.  Ashley Montagu liked the book.  That, and the title, were enough to make me dive in.  It was very thought-provoking and informative.

Jesus has been protrayed as human and weak in very human ways in soooo many books. There has always been discussion (and, I assume, fictionalization) over whether Mary was REALLY a virgin, or whether she just got knocked up. There’s lots and lots of discussion of what Jesus did with Mary Magdalene. Sooo… Adultery isn’t exactly a little Oops! in the bible either. So what? The stories haven’t broken the religion or anythng. People get upset. Sales go up. Life moves on.

To Victoria Dahl: Actually adultery is a big Oops in the Bible. 

Adultery is defined as the commission of voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person (man or woman) and someone who is NOT his or her spouse (regardless of whether that person is married or not).  It’s prohibited because it is a breach of the promise between that man and woman, and, in broader terms, a breach of the promise made towards (if not literally to) the spouse’s family and the promise to the community, whose stability relies upon its members to live by the group’s agreed-upon mores and faith.

The same voluntary sexual intercourse between two people who are NOT married (to each other, or to other individuals) is only an affair, and does not pose the same threat to the community, and as such, historically (anthropologically?) speaking it has been frowned upon, discouraged, but not as villified.

I don’t think this is a question of sensitivity, it’s simply an example of extreme incompatibility.

Agreed!!! *g*

I’m not a muslim, but I am a middle eastern studies major, which made me sit up and pay attention not only at the subject matter of the book but the controversy surrounding it.

It was interesting to read the various takes on it, and I can appreciate why it would be uncomfortable and controversial for muslims.  Still, I think it deserves to be published.  And to be read in its entirety and judged then, and not be censored—yes, censored, because of fear of violent outrage against it.  That’s just wrong, and the publisher should reconsider.

Of course, I just love historical fiction, especially that written from a first person POV, because that is my favorite to read and write in.  The language was powerful, and I just enjoyed it.

I can find out true history for myself, that’s not the reason I read historical fiction.  Heck, even nonfiction can be historically inaccurate and factually biased; I believe it falls upon us as individuals to investigate the truth and history.  Besides, I believe something like this provides fodder to discuss such history, and how or if it should be written about.

I am so disappointed that this book won’t be going on sale.  I really do want to read the rest of it. I hope the author finds another (and better) publisher, stat, or releases it as an ebook, or self-publishes if need be—because I’d be the first to queue up and buy!

Hi, everybody!

I just wanted to take a second and express my admiration for the way everybody’s been commenting. I think it’s terrific that everybody is expressing their opinions, explaining their reasoning, and respectfully disagreeing with other people if they do in fact disagree.  It’s very heartening to read.

Rational, respectful discussions! The Internet can has them!
JD

I am so disappointed that this book won’t be going on sale.

ARRRRGGH.  It’s not censorship for a private enterprise not to publish something when it returns the rights to the author.  She’ll find someone to publish it, of that you can be without doubt, but no one should force Random House to do it.

Should Random House have done it this far into the process?  No, not really, but they should have sent it to a specialist in the field before it got to this point.  They were sloppy and ignorant at the start of the process, not at the end of it.

There are ways they could have stopped it from seeing print, they didn’t take any of them.

It’s not censorship for a private enterprise not to publish something when it returns the rights to the author.  ...
Should Random House have done it this far into the process?  No, not really, but they should have sent it to a specialist in the field before it got to this point.

I agree entirely. Except.. For me the *attempt* at censorship is not on the part of Random House, but on the groups demanding that the book not be published. Does a censor have to have institutional power for it to be censorship? I’m asking that question honestly, because I’m not sure.

For me (as an American *g*) there is a big difference between a group trying to keep people from buying a book and a group trying to keep a book from even being published.

It was interesting to read the various takes on it, and I can appreciate why it would be uncomfortable and controversial for muslims.  Still, I think it deserves to be published.  And to be read in its entirety and judged then, and not be censored—yes, censored, because of fear of violent outrage against it.  That’s just wrong, and the publisher should reconsider.

No book “deserves” to be published. Publishing is a business, not a charity. What’s at issue here isn’t where Jones’ book “deserves” to be published, but whether a company should change their mind about publishing a specific work based on threats and intimidation, and I’ll go to the mattress that Jones’ and her book have been treated in a manner that I find despicable.

Spider: I think we all know what adultery is. So, when Victoria D. wrote:

Adultery isn’t exactly a little Oops! in the bible either. So what? The stories haven’t broken the religion or anythng [sic]. People get upset. Sales go up. Life moves on.

She was taking the long way ‘round to say, “Adultery is a big oops in the bible.”

And on that, we can all agree.

Also, I totally agree with TeggyPig:

Just do what the Catholics do.

Put out an official banned book list.

Then the rest of us can ignore it.

And the end of Victoria’s comment.

Does a censor have to have institutional power for it to be censorship?

In my book, yes, they have to have some form of institutional power.  Otherwise everyone who expresses an opinion against a piece of media is a censor.  Did Paris Hilton’s parents censor John McCain for saying they were offended by the recent political ads and asking that they not be aired again?

Many Americans/Westerners believe strongly in a separation of church and state, and that someone’s ability to take offense (whatever the reason) simply isn’t a good enough reason for censorship. This mindset simply doesn’t see the logic/reason grounding the opposition to the book. The American/Western response is Fine, don’t read it. I don’t think this is a question of sensitivity, it’s simply an example of extreme incompatibility.

To Kalen Hughes:  I think you’ve struck on something here.  I think this reaction (which is certainly NOT held by all: consider those who wish to ban Harry Potter, The Golden Compass, The Color Purple, just to name a few off the top of my head) does stem from the way our (majority?  bulk-pop-?) culture has developed through history, and leans towards the individual’s right (for himself or dependents) to decide on how to live and keeps faith a personal/private matter, separate from one’s public life.

So, if we look at the background of the Founding Fathers- the kind of religious persecution which they faced, the kind of governmental persecution which they faced led to the development of a very particular national ideal.  (Heck, you can go further back to the Reformation in Europe and beyond, just not in this post.  It’s too long already.)

When considering the history of the cultures predating the Muslim expansion (ca. 650 CE) as well as subsequent histories of the countries which became predominantly (or entirely) Muslim, the cultural perspective developed completely differently.  Understanding how might give us more answers as to the why, but I don’t think it is necessarily going to create Empathy.

I think we can only offer Sympathy because we do not fully understand.  And, even our sympathy, IMO, comes from our particular live-and-let-live view.

When I asked shewhohashope if she’d be willing to read the prologue and share her reaction, she agreed.

Sarah, I’m glad you asked for her reaction and gave her the inches to explain.  As someone who has a faith most prefer to deliberately misunderstand, I appreciate it.  Too, I like the insights she gave into her faith.

1. Does it tease you to read more?

Yes.  But having shewhohashope’s explanation in mind makes me view it more as midrash along the lines of The Red Tent and thus, take its historicity with a grain of salt.

2. Does the writing style please your readerly brain?

Yes.

3. Do the contents shock you?

No.  I’m all about combining faith with doubt and angst about sexuality versus religious culture.  I need more examples of such a struggle.

4. Does the characterization offend you deeply?

No.  It probably would if I were Muslim, but again, my faith and its leaders have been ridiculed for so long (ah, including Cross Cuntry) that I’m just used to it. Water. Duck.  You know the drill.

5. Does the fiction make the idea of Mohammed and his life more or less accessible to you as a reader?

I never thought much about Mohammed.  Now I’m intrigued to study more.

6. Did you like it?

Yes.

I guess what I don’t understand is the feeling I get that if non-Muslims read it and are NOT offended, that we have sinned.  Am I reading that correctly or are my internet goggles just not working properly?

This raises the issue of the accuracy of the “historical record”—which, in general, is more full of gaps and conflicting academic speculation the further back in history one goes.  That record becomes additionally clouded (and let’s be brutally honest about this) when religious belief is applied to it.

History is not the same as fact. The historical record is no more than surviving people’s subjective accounts of events they experienced or were told about, and can’t be considered to be any more accurate than any number of conflicting eyewitness accounts of contemporary events. A historical work based entirely on information generally accepted as factual may in fact be just as inaccurate as any historical novel.

Religion is notorious for taking “facts” and skewing them for its own purpose—e.g., the fact Christmas is celebrated on December 25, when in reality Christ’s birthdate has never been reliably substantiated. So religious history should be viewed with even more skepticism than secular.

To Rebecca:
The internets ate my comment, but the gist was: I totally got longwinded.  I get frustrated at the confusion of adultery with all extramarital sex, and I wasn’t trying to call anybody out!

So, if we look at the background of the Founding Fathers- the kind of religious persecution which they faced,

*eyebrow raised* The “Founding Fathers” did not face religious persecution. The Puritans might have, but the “Founding Fathers” were born half a century later, and most of them were extremely privileged individuals.

And Deists, which so often gets overlooked in American history.

I’ve yet to see anyone question how healthy it is for our society to attack university professors for commenting within their field of expertise.

Katherine, you can’t seriously be calling one professor’s attempt to quash publication of a NOVEL “commenting within their field of expertise”? “Commenting” is saying, “I found this book disrespectful of its sources, inaccurate, and potentially offensive. I have been in contact with graduate students who have expressed an interest in seeing this book and ask the author for an apology for her depiction of holy figures.”

Academic freedom should not be limited—but it goes more than one way. I may hate—and I do mean HATE—David Horowitz and his cronies with their books filled with filthy lies, and yet you don’t see me rallying the troops to get them silenced by having their publishing contracts revoked, do you? Even though their message could corrupt my own?

If you find something offensive, make your argument against it stronger. Speak louder. Don’t silence the other person.

(And, by the way, I would say that Random House’s actions do amount to a kind of temporary censorship. They have institutional power over the publication of that novel, and they opted to revoke their publication of it due to external pressure. Until Ms. Jones finds another publisher, the novel has, in effect, been censored.)

Should Random House have done it this far into the process?  No, not really, but they should have sent it to a specialist in the field before it got to this point.

Why, exactly? Again, I think we’re confusing people’s expectation that their rights not be infringed with their displeasure at being offended.

I think my reaction boils down to:

(1) I am not a Muslim, but I appreciate that the content and implications of this book offend Muslims.
(2) I absolutely despise historical fiction that distorts historical record because it’s easier to write the story the author wants when the author tweaks a bit of truth to fit his/her plotlines.
(3) I probably would not find the rest of this book enjoyable for that reason.
(4) The book was pulled for cowardly reasons and ought to have been published as originally planned. In that event, the people who disliked it would have been free to express their dislike, and the people who liked it would have been free to enjoy it.

“The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters! They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said. ... It didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God.
....
“Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator.”

—from Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, 1953. With apologies for potentially offensive language and the implication that cultural sensitivity is always bad, it is nevertheless a passage that always haunts me in discussions like these.

Katherine, you can’t seriously be calling one professor’s attempt to quash publication of a NOVEL “commenting within their field of expertise”?

Actually, yes, I can.  Especially when the novel is historical fiction set in what is the bulk of the reading public unfamiliar territory.  Fiction is used as a method of teaching history all the time.  Students in universities today are being asked to read and write papers on the Kite Runner.  The fact that is a novel does not exclude it from historical discussion.

She is, by every definition I can moster, one of the worlds leading experts on the subject matter covered by this novel.  If it’s not her field of expertise, I don’t know whose it would be.

As for the demands it not be published?  Lots of people make demands.  The professor didn’t put a gun to Random Houses head.  She pointed out a fact that should have been ragingly obvious to them from the start.  She thought the offense so great that Random House shouldn’t publish it.  It’s her opinion.  That shouldn’t be any less valid because you disagree with her than the authors is for thinking she shouldn’t be held to the standards of historical fact.

People may not like the slippery slope argument, but I honestly think it applies. My books are offensive to lots of people. I know, because I’ve gotten the emails from them. I’m sure they’d be offensive to entire countries, if I could get that kind of distribution. And? I’m not volunteering to pull my books because they’re sinful in other people’s religions.

V. Dahl

My problem with this kind of righteous indignation, in this particular situation is that, as far as I know, there is no slope in existence to make us credibly worried about anything slippery. Random House has not supplied any evidence of death threats only the likelihood on them occurring; an evaluation they got from anonymous sources that are described as “credible”. The only real *threats* to clearly manifest themselves is some protesting grad students who put together a bullet list. Ooooooo, scary.

I’d say it would reflect better upon Muslims in general if all those who objected simply took their concerns public and instead of pressuring the author or publisher to withhold the book, expressed their religious objections and asked people not to buy it. I guarantee you if this had been the main reaction, Ms. Jones would have gotten far fewer sales than she almost certainly will now.

- Kristen S

Shit, it sure is tough being a minority. Others are so much quicker to judge you in relation to whatever group you represent to them rather than recognise what is more unique (and therefore illuminating and probably relevant) about your situation. Ambassador work 24/7 with no pay. :(

I think that as Americans, we often find ourselves looking at behavior we don’t approve of and thinking “Well, as long as they don’t hurt anyone or break the law, I’m not going to say anything about it.”

Many Americans/Westerners believe strongly in a separation of church and state, and that someone’s ability to take offense (whatever the reason) simply isn’t a good enough reason for censorship.

Am I the only one seeing some serious idealization of American culture going on here? Seems to me a lot of Americans have no problem looking at behavior they don’t approve of based on their Judeo-Christian morality and creating laws that make it illegal (abortion and homosexual relationships come to mind). They might believe in a separation of church and state, but that certainly doesn’t seem to apply to the legal system.

And the FCC likely would take issue with the second statement (aren’t “Jesus Christ!” and “goddamn” still forbidden on network television?).

We are not nearly as tolerant some of these comments would make us seem. When my partner recently had surgery, I had to provide all manner of legal paperwork before hospital staff could even tell me she was a patient, let alone allow me to visit her.

Why, exactly? Again, I think we’re confusing people’s expectation that their rights not be infringed with their displeasure at being offended.

Because the American media willfully and sometimes with blissful ignorance paints with a very wide brush.  The injustices done to both Arabs and Muslims are so great that they have, IMO, a moral obligation to make sure they do not needlessly offend.

Might want to check out a book called Reel Bad Arabs by Jack Shaheen.  it’s about Hollywood, but I think the indictment is against western media in general.

If you find something offensive, make your argument against it stronger. Speak louder. Don’t silence the other person.

Off topic, but: why not silence them? If you were in charge of a publishing company, and in your judgement David Horowitz (don’t know who he is, but still) wrote lies, why would you publish his writings? I can’t see why the more moral course would be to promulgate untruths.

My problem with this kind of righteous indignation,

Eh, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t even indignant, much less righteously so.

The injustices done to both Arabs and Muslims are so great that they have, IMO, a moral obligation to make sure they do not needlessly offend.

So basically you’re saying that any text depicting Arabs and/or Muslims should be run through a vigorous screening process to make sure we don’t offend anyone.

While we’re at it, can we do that for books/movies depicting Native Americans/Amerindians/First Nations peoples? Because they’ve gotten an incredibly nasty rap from Hollywood and mass media, too.

Oh, and come to think of it, shouldn’t someone do something about the depiction of African Americans in media?

Get a fucking grip. We all offend each other all the time. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. We can do our best to be culturally sensitive, to be aware, etc., but censorship is absolutely NOT the way to do it. The best way is to talk, talk, talk, talk, until such images are widely recognized as negative and inappropriate.

And, again, I maintain that Spellberg was doing far more than “commenting” on the book. It is NOT in the realm of an academic to go around shutting down books they disagree with. And using a novel to teach history is LAZY TEACHING. You can use a novel to SUPPLEMENT the teaching of history, but history does not equal literature.

Ok, you can scratch that if you like, but the rest of my comment about the slippery slope being, at this point, a very weak illusion still stands. Unless grad students are particularly feisty on your side of the border.

Personally, I think this is all part of Random House’s genius plan to cut their own PR budget for the book after they publish some token apology and give whoever came up with the idea a huge promotion/bonus.

So basically you’re saying that any text depicting Arabs and/or Muslims should be run through a vigorous screening process to make sure we don’t offend anyone.

snarkhunter

Whoa whoa whoa! She typed “needlessly offend”. “Needlessly”! Big change in meaning there. I’m going to tag this as another fit of needless righteous indignation ;).

Edit: And what kind of “vigorous screening process” is “send book to specialist in the field earlier in the book deal process”? This is the only recommendation Katherine made, far as I can see. (Although I don’t agree, from what we’ve read so far, that the academic’s entire response was a responsible one.)

So basically you’re saying that any text depicting Arabs and/or Muslims should be run through a vigorous screening process to make sure we don’t offend anyone.

No, actually, I’m saying text about the life of the Prophet should be run by experts.  That’s a no brainer to me, not just for reasons of cultural balance, but for basic fact checking.  If you are going to go down this path in this climate, you better have a defensible position.

If you were in charge of a publishing company, and in your judgement David Horowitz (don’t know who he is, but still) wrote lies, why would you publish his writings

Well, for one thing, my claim that he writes “lies” is largely based on interpretation. I believe with every fiber of my being that he’s wrong about just about everything (he’s a big deal in anti-peace studies, anti-women’s studies, etc.), but I believe he has every right to be out there saying these things. He’s an American. So am I. In the United States, his right to be full of shit and to stand around saying it is something that I hold absolutely sacred. Because once we start supressing speech for being offensive or wrong, where does it end? Much of what I say can be offensive to a person who believes a woman should learn in silence. Why should that opinion have greater sway over my voice than I do?

Now, were I a publisher, and his books went against my stated mandate? Then, no, I wouldn’t publish them. But I also would never contract a book with him and then reject it based on vague threats and one person’s opinion.

Random House has the right to publish whateverthehell they want to publish. If they want to only publish books about purple pandas, more power to them. But they also have a duty, in my opnion, to fulfill their contracts, and not be swayed by vague threats and the opinion of a single individual, no matter how powerful she is within her field. If nothing else, they should’ve run the book by a panel of experts.

No, actually, I’m saying text about the life of the Prophet should be run by experts

Did you look at Jones’s 29-page bibliography? She did her research. And the book is not meant to be used as or taught as fact. Why is this so hard? Fact is not fiction. Fiction is not fact. I understand why Muslims are distressed by this book, but this is something that Ms. Jones should not back down on. She wrote a novel in what appears to be an attempt to celebrate A’isha. You can disagree with that or with her method, but why in the world should every book on sensitive subjects have to be approved by a panel of “experts”? I mean that—why?

You’re at the top of a very scary slope here. Are we seriously going to cower in fear because of a few extremists? Are we going to edit every single thing we write, fiction or non, because it might offend some loons with guns? It’s ridiculous, and by catering to such behavior, we only encourage people to use threats to get what they want.

(Although I don’t agree, from what we’ve read so far, that the academic’s entire response was a responsible one.)

And even I don’t think her entire response was responsible.  I’ve said a couple of times I didn’t think her tone was helpful, but that doesn’t mean her entire response was irrational and without merit.

No, actually, I’m saying text about the life of the Prophet should be run by experts.  That’s a no brainer to me, not just for reasons of cultural balance, but for basic fact checking.  If you are going to go down this path in this climate, you better have a defensible position.

And why exactly is that? Why should the Prophet be given that much consideration by a non-Muslim? It would be nice if he was, but it is not a requirement for a non-Muslim who wishes to write a book about him. Nor should it be.

As a writer I highly disapprove of anybody telling me what I should or shouldn’t do in order to write the story that I want to tell.

As has been said above, nobody in America has the right to not be offended whether they be Muslim, gay, Pagan, or purple men from the planet Zool.

Yes, basic facts should be checked, but anybody can do that without have their work analyzed by an expert. Especially if you have a 29 page bibliography like Ms. Jones does.

Whoa whoa whoa! She typed “needlessly offend”. “Needlessly”! Big change in meaning there. I’m going to tag this as another fit of needless righteous indignation ;).

Okay, fair enough. I did miss that word. My point was that her comment about the injustices done to Arabs and Muslims can be said about many, many other ethnic and religious groups, and yet people aren’t falling all over themselves to make sure there’s “accuracy” in their depictions, particularly in fiction. And why is that, do you suppose? Is it because people think those minority groups don’t matter? Or is it because they’re not afraid of those minority groups? I suspect a combination of both.

As an academic myself, I believe Spellberg overstepped her bounds. She had every right to comment on the book and to preach against it in her classrooms. She could pick it apart to death with her grad students or whomever she wanted to talk about it with. But she had no right to stop its publication in the manner she did.

Did you look at Jones’s 29-page bibliography?

A 29-page bibliography does not mean that the book is well researched.  Have I inspected the bibliogrpahy in question?  No.  I will say that I have taken enough middle eastern history and religious studies classes in my life to see a lot of problems with Jones’ entire attitude.  That makes me question the validity of the book.

You want to say fiction is fiction.  Fine.  We’ll agree to disagree on that subject.  I am of the opinion that fiction is neither written nor read in a vacuum.

To Snarkhunter: Poor word choice on my part.  I should have reworked/clarified by saying that I think that religious persecution was a consideration in developing the government.

Why should the Prophet be given that much consideration by a non-Muslim?

Because we live in a world where the response by a lot of people to this controversy is to equate a single academic and a listserv of grad students with a power point presentation and a petition to a mob of terrorists. 

Because we keep telling the world we are not in a cultural war with Islam while we throw hand grenades over the wall at them.

I am of the opinion that fiction is neither written nor read in a vacuum.

Of course it’s not. But censoring one’s self out of fear creates an enviroment in which I do not want to live. And given your comments about “this climate,” it seems to me that that’s where your comments lead.

Anaquana said it better than I did. In the United States (and I will only speak for that country, as it is an American author and an American publisher in question), no one has the right to not be offended. No one.

To take it out of the realm of this particular book and into the realm of the hypothetical/historical, do you also think that Rushdie should have withdrawn The Satanic Verses and had it pulped? Why/why not? How is that different? (Although Rushdie, having grown up Muslim, may have more cultural authority to speak, I think the issue of cultural appropriation is actually a bit of a red herring here, only b/c I wonder why people are so up in arms about *this* instance of it, but not the 80000 others we can see every day.)

petition to a mob of terrorists. 
Because we keep telling the world we are not in a cultural war with Islam while we throw hand grenades over the wall at them.

Bingo.

So we cave in. And where else do we give in to the demands of other faiths? Shall I start wearing a headscarf (no offense intended to those who do) while going about my regular life, because I may offend a conservative Muslim man whose path crosses mine?

It’s been said a number of times, but WOW: great discussion everyone.  I have completely forgotten anything and everything I was going to add because I’m all caught up in trying to untangle the ins and outs of all of this. 
I can’t seem to come to terms with myself at all.  ...so rambling ahoy:
I generally enjoy historical fiction.  I like “interpretations” of stories.  For example, I like to pick through various versions of Anne Boleyn to see the moments from history that may have prompted the author to make a particular character decision.
Someone above, apologies for the lack of direct quote, remarked about westerners liking their leaders humanized, and I can connect with that.  (Unapologetic Humanist here.)  Everybody is, or was, a flesh and blood, eating, walking, breathing entity at one point with wonderful flaws and/or nobility to be explored.  (And…strangely, THIS is where I could make a connection to Brett Favre…agh. *is such a nerd*  The sixteen-year-old that watched him win a Super Bowl feels crushed and betrayed. Anyway….)  Historical fiction need not be 100% representative of What Actually Happened for me to like it. 
This being said, I also think that one should be really careful before writing in a culture that one is not part of and really take pains to make the setting as Spot On as possible.  (I could write about icy stadiums and cheese hats, but not hooligans in rival football club hangouts in Glasgow).  In this particular case, though effort was certainly made, I just wasn’t being sold on the cultural details which may possibly make the situation that much more touchy.  Culture needs to bleed through the pages to make characters older than a 20th century brain   feel like people that did not come OUT of a 20th century brain.  (I will grant that all we had was a prologue.)   
I can certainly appreciate the intent in writing… to express personal fascination with the historical events and to make people interested in finding out more.
We (the US) do still have a Muslim-maligning problem, and anything to further understanding is a Good Thing, but umm….iffy subject matter to dive into.  At least we’re discussing here.  Hurrah!  (And I’ve learned some things!  Thanks more educated posters!)
On the flip side, my sensibilities are somewhat offended by the removal of the book from circulation.  This conversation is good, but it’s such SPECULATIVE conversation.  If the book had been out there and circulating, just think of the dialogue!
I feel like, NOT having the book out there makes this more a conversation about whether or not there was censorship or if there was overreaction, and not as much a conversation about the issues that cause the offense.  (Everyone above has done a fab job talking about issues of historical accuracy and representation of important religious figs though.) 
End in sight, I swear. 
Personally, I can sympathize with people who would be offended by the subject matter, even if I don’t (from my very agnostic perspective) understand what it’s like to live so thoroughly in a religion that the fictional presentation of its characters is Not Cool.  ...though I think I just realized that, though I am agnostic now, this lack of understanding comes in equal amount from my Christian upbringing.  Christians are SO used to seeing their holy folk acted out and represented (for hundreds of years), that this sort of thing is baffling.  Eek.  Nothing like a revelation “in public.”
Done.  Sorry for the disorder.  I tried to think it through.  Probably failed.
Thanks for sharing everyone.  This sort of thing takes nads.

Shit. I screwed up my last comment. I should’ve said that I felt Katherine was actually making that equation herself, based on her comments about “climate,” and then gone forward.

The “bingo” was unnecessarily snarky, and I tried to edit it out, only to be stymied by the computer. Sorry. :(

At this point I’m just waiting for more detailed reporting on what actually went down. I have quite a few Muslim friends who are immigrants or only first-born generation and are therefore a bit closer to an environment or a general philosophy in which an entire society is more reverential towards a deity. I think it’s why I get less het up when I hear or read about different Muslims groups actively demanding (on printed paper!) that any particular product relating to Muhammed not be published/aired. For them it’s not a virtue that Christians have become so lax—this is how some would see it—that any and every sort of blasphemy can be spread (fictional or otherwise) and nothing much can be done about it. And I’m sure that a lot of Christians envy at least this aspect of how Islam has developed in their countries.

I am no more congenial to the idea of acquiescing to their demands I just get where they’re coming from.

Bingo.

Which comes back to needless offense.

I don’t see it as caving in.  I see it as trying to stop two of the worlds great civilizations from destroying each other in one big oil fianced, bomb laden, meltdown.  It may be comfortable for you to sit back and say you are not responsible for the ongoing conflict, that the Islamic world is overly sensative.

I am of the opinion that Americans and the American media (to include people like Random House) are far too willing to disclaim all responsiblity any offense directed at Islam and Arabs in favor of casting protests in the Arab Street as inherently irrational.

It’s comforting to say we are right and we should have our freedoms be damned who it offense.  Me… I’d like the world not to implode in the next 50 years.

Because we live in a world where the response by a lot of people to this controversy is to equate a single academic and a listserv of grad students with a power point presentation and a petition to a mob of terrorists.

Because we keep telling the world we are not in a cultural war with Islam while we throw hand grenades over the wall at them.

Uhhh… color me stupid, but that makes absolutely no sense.

So, a non-Muslim writer of fiction giving the Prophet more consideration than their own chosen Deity is going to stop people from making knee-jerk reactions?

Or are you saying that it will stop the supposed cultural war that we are supposedly having with Islam?

I don’t see how writing a book of fiction can be equated with throwing a hand grenade at them. That to me is a knee-jerk reaction right there.

I can turn your words around and say that we live in a world where the response by a group of people to a controversy surrounding a Pagan teacher who showed his class a magic trick (as in a stage illusion) led to his being branded a Satanist and fired from his position for teaching witchcraft.

Are you going to speak out against those Christian writers who portray anybody of a Pagan faith as evil baby-eating Satanists in an effort to stop a supposed cultural war between the two?

Granted, Pagans don’t have as scary a reputation as Muslims have. People don’t worry that a group of Pagans are going to bomb their city or send suicide bombers into their schools. (Again please note that I am not saying that Muslims are going to do this or that all Muslims are evil scary terrorists)

As for the demands it not be published?  Lots of people make demands.  The professor didn’t put a gun to Random Houses head.  She pointed out a fact that should have been ragingly obvious to them from the start.  She thought the offense so great that Random House shouldn’t publish it.

You don’t think the fact that she also has a book deal with an imprint within the same publishing house might have perhaps constituted a wee bit of conflict of interest?

The more that emerges about this situation, the more my focus narrows to the academic.  As a writer, someone messes with my career that way?  Wouldn’t be pretty.  Sherry Jones spent five years working on this book.  What we think of it, as a work of fiction, should have been left up to us, as readers to decide.  Not up to some academic who decides she wants to play God.

You don’t think the fact that she also has a book deal with an imprint within the same publishing house might have perhaps constituted a wee bit of conflict of interest?

Actually I think it gives her more right to comment not less.  I find it easy to believe that some marketing guy at Random House already had ideas of marketing her non-fiction book with this one.  The fact that she was concerned that her name would be associated with this book is not irrational.

I don’t see it as caving in.  I see it as trying to stop two of the worlds great civilizations from destroying each other in one big oil fianced, bomb laden, meltdown.  It may be comfortable for you to sit back and say you are not responsible for the ongoing conflict, that the Islamic world is overly sensative.

I am of the opinion that Americans and the American media (to include people like Random House) are far too willing to disclaim all responsiblity any offense directed at Islam and Arabs in favor of casting protests in the Arab Street as inherently irrational.

It’s comforting to say we are right and we should have our freedoms be damned who it offense.  Me… I’d like the world not to implode in the next 50 years.

But, in a way it is caving in. It is saying that Islamic sensibilities are more important than our own and that they have every right to tell us how to act and how to believe so that we don’t “needlessly” offend them.

I’m pretty sure that just about everything about me and my life would offend a devout Muslim’s sensibilities. Should I change my life so that I don’t needlessly offend them?

I mean, I don’t have to walk around with my head uncovered. I don’t need to wear short skirts and skimpy tops. And since I believe that all Gods that have ever been worshiped exist then I should just go ahead and worship Allah since me worshiping other deities is causing a needless offense.

Where does trying not to needlessly offend anybody end? And what is a needless offense? What might seem like a needless offense to one person might seem like a perfectly rational act to another.

I refuse to give up any of my rights and liberties just because there is the possibility that the world might get nuked out of existence at some unspecified point in the future.

I find it easy to believe that some marketing guy at Random House already had ideas of marketing her non-fiction book with this one.

Not likely.  Different imprints, working within different arms of a giant publishing conglomerates.  They might even have differing PR & marketing departments.  She was sent an ARC off a list provided by the author (if I’m recalling correctly) to provide a blurb if she so desired.  It’s a big moment—we all have our dream authors who we hope will like our books enough to blurb them.  And once we’re on the other end, most of us, we’re sent books for blurbing, we either blurb, or we decline politely. 

Was Spellberg within her rights to tell her editor that she had strong objections to the book?  Absolutely.  Rock on.  Her methods, however?  By the standards of academia or commercial publishing?  SUCKED.

Okay, fair enough. I did miss that word. My point was that her comment about the injustices done to Arabs and Muslims can be said about many, many other ethnic and religious groups, and yet people aren’t falling all over themselves to make sure there’s “accuracy” in their depictions, particularly in fiction. And why is that, do you suppose? Is it because people think those minority groups don’t matter? Or is it because they’re not afraid of those minority groups? I suspect a combination of both.

snarkhunter

Actually, I don’t think that there is a very wide, significant movement to ensure people gain accurate depictions of various Arabs nationally or individually, or the Muslim religion as a global faith. Co-orporations may stay far, far away from products that might even carry the *whiff* of controversy in relation to them, but that doesn’t mean they’re compensating by scooping up or scouting for a bunch of general reader books on Sunni matriarchs, for example.

I will say that the Muslim issue definitely gets more attention. But in addition to your reasons I do think that’s in no small part due to the fact that the rhetoric immediately preceding 9/11 and the actions thereafter encouraged very much an East vs. West slant which helped to unify Muslims worldwide in feeling they were being attacked even though all these different groups and individuals shared diverse views much as any other group. It’s a support system (of sorts) that the various indigenous nations across the globe don’t have. Neither do those of African descent. Why? Well, it’s a harsh answer—their populations (esp. in the West) were decimated or controlled for far longer and far more effectively than the comparatively newer Muslim immigrants. Muslim Westerners have never been controlled on reservations and have stronger ties to their other cultural homes (America + [insert country here]) unlike African-Americans who are left with the vague “Africa” prefix because most of them have little to no idea which country they came from only, at best, the port from which they were exported.

Anaquana I’m just gonna go there and ask right now if you’ve been following this discussion so far? Because your response reads as though you came out of the middle of no where—maybe from just reading about the Guatanamo trial on Bin Laden’s driver?—read Katherine’s comment and leaped to the most hare-brained, quack assumptions possible. I can’t begin to list all of your huge misinterpretations (I hope someone else helps me out here) but just to get this one out of the way.

So, a non-Muslim writer of fiction giving the Prophet more consideration than their own chosen Deity is going to stop people from making knee-jerk reactions?

No. No one here has commented anything of the kind. Katherine’s only suggestion has been that the book should have been sent to an expert earlier in the book deal process to prevent “needless offence”.

Or are you saying that it will stop the supposed cultural war that we are supposedly having with Islam?

Yes, this is what she meant, absolutely. (By which, I obviously mean, NO.)

I don’t see how writing a book of fiction can be equated with throwing a hand grenade at them. That to me is a knee-jerk reaction right there.

*head on desk* I need a break. I’ll come back a bit later to clarify if Katherine hasn’t done it herself by this point. All I can suggest is to read this thread from the top…maybe skim through the first comment thread on this book two posts down?

I’m pretty sure that just about everything about me and my life would offend a devout Muslim’s sensibilities. Should I change my life so that I don’t needlessly offend them?

It’s about your life, nor is about a book about your life.  It’s about the life of the leading figure in the worlds second largest religion.

While we’re at it, can we do that for books/movies depicting Native Americans/Amerindians/First Nations peoples? Because they’ve gotten an incredibly nasty rap from Hollywood and mass media, too.

Oh, and come to think of it, shouldn’t someone do something about the depiction of African Americans in media?

And this would be a bad thing why? Seems that being more culturally sensitive, not less, should be what we argue for. Yes, I really do think mass entertainment material - including books - should be checked for the potential to offend and to spread misinformation or reinforce negative stereotypes. I see no virtue in declaring ‘no one has the right not to be offended’ and not taking basic precautions not to cause offend. That’s not pandering to terrorism - it’s common courtesy. It’s also recognising that people not part of the dominant culture also deserve respect.

Random House should not have pulled this book, because they did so not because they believed the book was poor or unnecessarily offensive, but because they caved into manipulation by an unscrupulous academic. At the very least, they made a cynical decision that it was cheaper to yank the book now, than withdraw it from stores later. The book deserves a proper assessment from the reading public, Muslim and non-Muslim. The whole business is shabby.

Oh, and the non-fiction book for which Spellberg has the contract with Knopf is on Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an, not A’isha.

The more that emerges about this situation, the more my focus narrows to the academic.

Absolutely. It’s been so frustrating to me to see this discussion be all about those horrible Muslims and their uncomfortable sensitivities, when this is at its heart, nothing to do with Muslim sensitivities or opinions at all. It’s an nasty, blatant academic hatchet job and Spellberg should be facing calls for her dismissal or at the very least, having to answer to a disciplinary committee or the like for her behaviour. What’s going on is a classic case of misdirection - hey, don’t look at me feathering my own nest at the cost of a fellow writer’s career, watch out for the terrorists!

Ann, to be fair I don’t think snark hunter is arguing against cultural sensitivity—only lodging protest at a certain group getting more attention than others. Like I said, though, global politics shapes this more than anything else. There is a war going on in two predominantly Muslim countries and agitations about the probability of starting another. And both are primarily supported by a leader who has not shunned the use of religious terminology in describing the two conflicts and who rose to power by catering to a particular religious base.

I’m afraid African-Americans and Native issues just aren’t as sexy right now. I also think my apparently self-appointed role as mediator and all-round interpreter is about to get annoying so I’ll try to stop. Fair warning though—I love to argue. :(

I have no idea how savvy Spellberg is when it comes to the ways of commercial publishing.  And I agree that a lot of the action in this seems to revolve around her and around the way Random House acted as a result of her comments/concerns.

BUT, I would caution against concluding as to her motives or her sympathies, because I could see numerous scenarios in which she would be acting entirely in good faith and still inadvertently open up an enormous controversy.  She could, for example, have been truly alarmed at what she thought would stir up some in the Muslim community and acted to forestall what she believed would be worse trouble.  She could have believed that once she disassociated her name from the project that her influence would be moot.  As I said in the other thread, academics have notoriously low self-esteem when it comes to believing that they have any cultural influence. 

What I would hate to see happen here is that Spellberg becomes the fall person for a huge publisher with huge resources at its disposal, a publisher with enough power and influence that it had all sorts of options to exercise regarding this book.  Including, as I said in the other thread, trying to reach out to the Muslim community if there was a real belief that things were going to get hot.  Not only was it Random House who made the decision to withdraw the book, but it seems to me that they have taken an incredibly small amount of heat, even in these threads.  Whatever Spellberg said or did, there’s no way you’re going to convince me that Random House was clueless about the potential controversy when they signed Jones. 

Also, there is a concern—that non-academics may not be aware of—that Spellberg could be targeted as anti-awholebunchofstuff based on this publicity, a targeting that can result in much more than a few critical comments on SBTB.  The casual, unsubstantiated targeting of academics as anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Islamic has become a real problem in the aftermath of 9/11, and the pressures exerted because of these labels is not insignificant (there’s my understatement of the day).

Robin, you’re so smart. What’s your secret?

One last thing, then I’m taking a break myself.

From an article from one of our own favorites around here, Hillel Italie:

NEW YORK —  At a time when government reports ask whether Americans care about reading anymore, the legacy of Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn reminds us that books can matter as much as life and death.

“Writers are a problem, they are a great problem, thank God,” says Jason Epstein, a longtime editor at Random House who worked with Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal and others. “Without them we would be lost.”

Kinda love that they quoted a Random House editor.

His books were were seen as a danger and a menace to an entire society and government and way of life that many people held, if not necessarily sacred, then at least as the ideal that all should aspire to, but he saw it differently and he wrote his take on what he saw.

He was willing to take his punches and God knows, the man took them.  Sherry Jones appears prepared to do the same.  Who is Denise Spellberg to attempt to stifle Sherry Jones’ voice?

Since, as has been said a hundred times in the two threads dealing with this, the terrorists and extremist Muslims are a very vocal minority and the vast majority of Muslims are decent people who would sooner slam their heads into their desks than perpetuate violence as a form of protest then we should have no fears that the world will end in “one big oil fianced, bomb laden, meltdown. “

This idea that we shouldn’t offend the Muslim community because it will cause a massive world ending war is just another form of bigotry IMO.

And, I should have added that the thing that will cause a massive world-ending war is our moron of a president who doesn’t know how to keep his nose out of the rest of the world’s affairs, not a book or even a hundred books.

I don’t think snark hunter is arguing against cultural sensitivity—only lodging protest at a certain group getting more attention than others.

Possibly so. I’m just saying that being sensitive to any group who gets as raw a deal as Muslims or the other groups she mentions, isn’t a bad thing. At the moment, Muslims/Arabs are the default bad guys in any story telling, so balancing that with more attention to the real issues, is only fair, IMO.

Robin, wise words of course, but I can’t cut Spellberg much of a break when she’s the one acting as the mouthpiece for the supposed threats. That’s when she crossed a line from outraged innocent to deliberate fomentor of hatred - at least, so far as I’m concerned. Is it improper that her role in this should be examined properly?

But no, it doesn’t let RH off the hook in the slightest. They’ve behaved appallingly. They should be forced to tell the truth about the threat they perceived and why they weren’t prepared to stand by their author and their contract.

Also, there is a concern—that non-academics may not be aware of—that Spellberg could be targeted as anti-awholebunchofstuff based on this publicity, a targeting that can result in much more than a few critical comments on SBTB.  The casual, unsubstantiated targeting of academics as anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Islamic has become a real problem in the aftermath of 9/11, and the pressures exerted because of these labels is not insignificant (there’s my understatement of the day).

QFT.  Thank you.

Since, as has been said a hundred times in the two threads dealing with this, the terrorists and extremist Muslims are a very vocal minority and the vast majority of Muslims are decent people who would sooner slam their heads into their desks than perpetuate violence as a form of protest then we should have no fears that the world will end in “one big oil fianced, bomb laden, meltdown. “

That didn’t help the Iraqis, did it? May not help the Iranians either although most of the world is crossing fingers over that one I’m sure.

One question though: why is that obviously exaggerated scenario provided by Katherine dependent on whether Muslims are peace loving or not? Is there something you’d like to share? :) Seriously, though I have no idea what this comment of yours is related to. Someone else help me out here.

Edit: Oh, I get it! You’re being fatuous here, right?

This idea that we shouldn’t offend the Muslim community because it will cause a massive world ending war is just another form of bigotry IMO.

No one wrote that.

Anything else?