Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel’s potential to provoke anger among some Muslims.

She did a little bit more than that, though, didn’t she? I mean, wanring the publisher is one thing, but breaching commercial confidentiality and taking the book to the moderator of a Muslim website is another. Seems to me the correct time to offer her critique would have been when the book came out.

It’s not her job to act as a policer of what may or may not cause anger, or to froth that up into threats of threats. Or, in point of fact, to anticipate immoderate reaction and lay the blame on Muslims for her own concerns.

As an expert on Aisha’s life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel’s fallacious representation of a very real woman’s life

Does this sound like a bit of academic territory marking more than an ojective devotion to the academic pursuit of knowledge? She doesn’t impress, I’m afraid.

Well, all I can say is thank goodness Ms. Spellberg was there to think for me, or I might have had to use my brain.

I’d like to know what other “press” she contacted.

And I agree with the above poster—if she had disagreed with the book, post a review afterward.

I’d like to know what other “press” she contacted.

I think she’s using this in the sense of ‘university press’ - i.e the publisher. At least, I hope she is.

I wish all historical novels published could go through this kind of scrutiny. Then you wouldn’t get this kind of egregious crap:

- a blonde, Gaelic-speaking Byzantine French princess who is perfect in every way and who is sent by an English King to marry a Highland laird to calm the borders between England and Lowland Scotland;
-  Eleanor of Aquitaine being made into a whiny professional victim who’s raped by her husband, has an affair with a troubador, and gives birth to the 100% straight Richard the Lion-Hearted;
- all those kilt-wearing Scots lairds from the 17th century and earlier;
- the 18th century English heiress who goes to the local bank to withdraw all her money from her account, folding the bills away in her backpack;
- the Regency heroine who drinks water instead of wine and bathes every day *for hygienic purposes* and whose entire family, up to 90-year-old great-grandmothers, is alive and well;
- barons being called “Your Grace”, peers of the realm being called “Lord Firstname”, oldest sons not being allowed to use their deceased father’s titles because they’re not 21 yet, and members of the House of Lords being worried about their ‘constituents’;
- the US colonial town where 95% of the inhabitants support the American Revolution and the other 5% are mean and nasty.

WHY are these writers physically incapable of opening a reference book? Do they think they’ll be labelled as pedantic for getting the details right? Do they think that only details known to the average reader are important?

Nah.  I’d rather read bad books because I can than have a dilettante dictating what I can’t.

I do not espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present.

Hmmm…isn’t that exactly what she’s doing by putting her opinion out there and passing the book around to those she feels ‘might’ be angered by it? Sounds like censorship to me.

As an expert on Aisha’s life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel’s fallacious representation of a very real woman’s life

An expert…professional responsibility? I think not. On both counts.

barons being called “Your Grace”, peers of the realm being called “Lord Firstname”, oldest sons not being allowed to use their deceased father’s titles because they’re not 21 yet, and members of the House of Lords being worried about their ‘constituents’

Hahaha!

I think it is interesting that Spellberg states that she teaches “The Satanic Verses”. I haven’t read this book, though it’s less an overtly religious decision (we’ve got 2 copies of it at home) than that I haven’t really decided that I want to read it yet. I love Rushdie though. Anyway, I think it strengthens her position somewhat that she teaches a book that has raised a lot of conservative Muslim hackles - for that reason I believe her when she says she doesn’t support censorship. Which was probably why she mentioned it!

It’s probably part academic territory-marking, as a previous poster said, and an anger at seeing things about which she feels that she is an authority represented differently for the sake of narrative - which to be fair grates on me too sometimes, especially when it’s offensive, or egregious. But that’s just me.

Having said which, I am grown up enough to make the decision not to read this book, or buy it, on my own, as I believe we all are. I agree with previous posters when they say she should have waited for the book to come out and then critiqued it. She has not done herself any favours, and she has done the author of the book a HUGE one.

seems89? Thanks very much, I’m 25!

What made this novel different than other historical novels is the subject matter. I am not a Muslim, I am a Christian, yet the idea of a novel about a religious figure makes me squeamish. I know I felt offended by some of the assertions in The DaVinci Code for just that reason. And for that reason, I have to agree that it was wise that Random House chose not to publish this book, especially if it would lead to violence.

What I have always wondered in these instances is, why would an author want to write a book that was offensive to the religious beliefs of others?

“It is a shame that no one will be able to read this particular novel, and perhaps then others afterward, in their own quest to learn more about Islam and Aisha’s role within the history of that faith.”

Huh?  That’s like saying people need to be able to read “Chronicles of the Elders of Zion” in their quest to be able to understand Judaism.

If, as she says, this novel grossly represents the life of Aisha and her times, then it isn’t part of anybody’s quest to learn; it is, rather, a dark alley.

If it’s made up, call it made up, and *don’t claim you based it on research*.  Rushdie NEVER claimed that The Satanic Verses was anything more than a fantasia and/or commentary.

If it’s made up, call it made up, and *don’t claim you based it on research*.  Rushdie NEVER claimed that The Satanic Verses was anything more than a fantasia and/or commentary.

Um, I think some have difficulty understanding that historical fiction is by nature both made up AND based on research. That’s the whole idea of it. Otherwise it would be historical nonfiction.

If, as she says, this novel grossly represents the life of Aisha and her times, then it isn’t part of anybody’s quest to learn; it is, rather, a dark alley.

If it’s made up, call it made up, and *don’t claim you based it on research*.  Rushdie NEVER claimed that The Satanic Verses was anything more than a fantasia and/or commentary.

This, exactly. I certainly believe it’s wrong that the book got censored, but if it’s that historically inaccurate and yet poses as something based in historical fact, it’s not a shame that people didn’t get to read it to “learn about Islam.”

Come on, folks. She was invited to give her opinions—she didn’t contact the press and demand to be allowed to vet all books on said subject matter. They asked her, as an academic and specialist in the field, and she gave her considered view, as an academic and specialist in the field. Which means, what she’s going to comment on is not the story-telling and voice, but the evocation and portrayal of a historical past, and, on this occasion, serious concerns about possible repercussions. If they didn’t want her opinion, they shouldn’t have asked her. Ultimately the decision to pull the book was Random House’s (as much as it’s flattering to think that a single person, academic or not, could have such sway!). It’s ridiculous how much blame she’s getting for doing what she was asked to do.

And frankly, what does she have to gain by keeping the book unpublished? Her book is called Politics, Gender and the Islamic Past, and even on Amazon it’s almost $30—not exactly what readers browsing for historical fiction are going to pick up based on the cover (assuming Borders or Barnes and Noble even keeps the book in stock, in which case it wouldn’t even be shelved in remotely the same place as fiction). As much as many academics love to imagine that their book will be the next big thing, most have few illusions on the reality of the situation.

Personally, I love historical fiction and hate reading historical fiction that I know is getting things wrong. Which means that there are certain periods and places that I just can’t read about (yes, this means you, Philippa Gregory, though my love for Dorothy Dunnett surpasses all bounds). So I avoid certain books and happily read all the rest. But it also means that if someone asks me to read/review something I do know about, I almost never can shut that off for the sake of the story.

So, did Random House make the right decision? Maybe, maybe not. But they didn’t suppress the book—the author can shop it to another publishing house—and if they truly had no idea the book would be controversial, isn’t it better they find that out beforehand? It’s ridiculous how much this story has focused on Ms. Spellberg and not on the publishing house.

I just want to point out that the original WSJ piece was an *op-ed* rather than a straight piece of reporting.  It was itself an argument, and the author was not bound to tell the story from all sides—or even more than one side.  One sentence in Spellberg’s letter, not quoted here, struck me as well:

Random House made its final decision based on the advice of other scholars, conveniently not named in the article, and based ultimately on its determination of corporate interests.

Whatever Spellberg did or didn’t do, and whatever we might be able to argue over regarding her purported response, it is honestly impossible for me to believe that a publisher of the size, experience, and power of Random House would stop publication of a book that was part of a package earning a 100K advance based on the comments of one academic.  Although I have no doubt that Random House will be happy to let Spellberg take the fall.

Whatever Spellberg did or didn’t do, and whatever we might be able to argue over regarding her purported response, it is honestly impossible for me to believe that a publisher of the size, experience, and power of Random House would stop publication of a book that was part of a package earning a 100K advance based on the comments of one academic.  Although I have no doubt that Random House will be happy to let Spellberg take the fall.

This is something that has been bothering me too.  I think there has to be something more to the story than what we have heard.

So after all those assertions in the other threads that we can’t assume any threats were made, we’re now to assume…threats were made?

I can’t imagine RH was completely ignorant of the possible reaction to this book when they acquired it. And considering the delicate nature of the subject matter and current global politics, I’m sure they would have educated themselves further. So yeah, I would like to know just what happened in April to make them change their minds. I’m assuming Ms. Jones will be able to keep her 100k advance, since she fulfilled all her contractual obligations? What would make a publisher (even a big, rich one) flush that kind of money (plus what they spent on art, marketing, editing, etc) down the loo?

Publishers these days aren’t that particular about historical accuracy. Or even truthfulness—consider some recent infamous author frauds commited as editors turned a blind eye. 

If Random House backed out of the deal because they feared angering a particular religious group, shame on them! How many books have they published that are insulting to Christians?
     
They appear to have broken faith with the author they signed to produce a book which as a work of fiction didn’t have to be 100% accurate.

The DaVinci Code

became a bestseller in spite of being full of merde. So maybe it’s Random House’s loss.

Sounds like censorship to me.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Random House (who, the more I hear about this, are sounding worse and worse) did not censor this book. They are not stopping it being published, they haven’t asked Sherry Jones to amend it. They are simply choosing not to publish it themselves.

So after all those assertions in the other threads that we can’t assume any threats were made, we’re now to assume…threats were made?

Not really. Wouldn’t Random House be informing us if they had? Maybe their just waiting to get their side of the story out, but shouldn’t they, being the world’s largest English language publisher have better media access than Spellberg?

It really does seem like Random House screwed up and screwed Jones over, and are letting Spellberg take the fall.

And I still don’t see how this book would increase anyone’s Islamic/historical knowledge. Did anyone here learn anything from The Da Vinci Code? Because that book was the biggest waste of one hour of my life.

Now I am going to continue on my attempt to read ‘Breaking Dawn’ and unlock the tweener appeal of the Twilight series. Or I’ll read that awesome American War of Independence/ghost story/romance book.

As a historian invited to “comment” on the book by its Random House editor at the author’s express request, I objected strenuously to the claim that “The Jewel of Medina” was “extensively researched,” as stated on the book jacket.

The author and the press brought me into a process, and I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel.

This is all fine.

As an expert on Aisha’s life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel’s fallacious representation of a very real woman’s life.

I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present.

Also, fine, provided the “countering” and “critiquing” is done in a “professional” manner.

“It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel’s potential to provoke anger among some Muslims. “

She’s lost me here.  What was her “professional” capacity to “warn” “the press” in this way?  When she would presumably have been professionally aware, as an intelligent, educated person working in Islamic studies, of the possible reactions on all sides?  And if she was going to do this, it would have been good manners to go to the publisher first and give them time to react before going to the press, rather than doing both on the same day (April 30).

If Ms. Nomani and readers of the Journal wish to allow literature to “move civilization forward,” then they should read a novel that gets history right.

Well yes, but there are reasons for publishing and reading books other than “to move civilisation forward”.

Finally (sorry for the length of this post), here’s the first paragraph of Dr Spellberg’s letter, as printed on the WSJ site

Asra Q. Nomani’s “You Still Can’t Write About Muhammad” (op-ed, Aug. 6) falsely asserts that I am the “instigator” of the Random House Press decision not to publish a novel about the Prophet’s wife titled, “The Jewel of Medina.” I never had this power, nor did I single-handedly stop the book’s publication. Random House made its final decision based on the advice of other scholars, conveniently not named in the article, and based ultimately on its determination of corporate interests.

The quotes from Random House in the original WSJ article state that Random House received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice” and that Dr Spellberg “thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence” and that the book is"a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue”.  So Dr Spellberg was not the only person to advise against publication, but hers was certainly one of the responses taken into account, so she is wrong to say the decision was “based on the advice of other scholars”.  And the tone of her response to Random House together with her contact with the press makes “instigator” look accurate to me.

I still don’t see how this book would increase anyone’s Islamic/historical knowledge.

Exactly. As a historian (I wear many hats and that’s one) I’m really annoyed by the idea that a moderately intelligent person (the target audience for historical fiction surely) needs to have history filtered through a novel to have it be accessible. There are excellent books written for non-academic audiences on all kinds of historical subjects which work perfectly well as introductions to a topic, and hopefully invite you to read more. Ms Jones would have started in that way to write her book.

Don’t be scared to browse the history section of your local bookstore. You’ll find good books that are no more challenging to read than this novel, and though it’s still someone’s interpretation of historical records and documents, at least there won’t be a fictional overlay, and it should all be properly footnoted and referenced. If you do then decide to read novels in the same subject area, you’ll enjoy them so much more. Start with the non-fiction, is my advice.

One final post from me, then shutting up.  The original WSJ article states that on 1 May, immediately after Dr Spellberg raised here concerns with them on the evening of 30 April

Random House….also received a letter from Ms. Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name was associated with the novel.

As a lawyer, if I were in private practice, I suppose I would happily take money for writing a letter such as this.  But a polite request direct from Dr Spellberg to the publishers, asking for confirmation her name would not be on the book, perhaps followed up through her own editor at Random House, would seem to me to be a more proportionate initial response.

My least favorite line in this article: “They should read novel that gets the story right.” I thought a “novel” implies fiction. And since when does a scholar determine if a work of fiction is written ‘correctly’ or ‘accurately’? There have been plenty of fictional works based off of real people…The Other Boleyn Girl comes to mind…which departed from real history.

I know why this was pulled. The problem people seem to have with implying any other religion besides Christianity could be flawed. This got too close to criticizing the Muslim religion or a well-known person in the Muslim faith…and therefore the publisher got cold feet, worried they would ‘offend’ someone with this fictional work of a real person.

Too bad. This author probably did do a lot of research and work hard to produce a book that was worthy of publication, only to have it yanked out from under her

My least favorite line in this article: “They should read novel that gets the story right.” I thought a “novel” implies fiction. And since when does a scholar determine if a work of fiction is written ‘correctly’ or ‘accurately’?

Ehh, I thought it fit right in with the rest of her “I’m smarter than you, so you really need to listen to me when I tell you what and what not to read” attitude.

I’m a historian. Or rather, once upon a time, before I traded history for diapers, I was one. I frequently find myself reading a historical fiction piece and then wanting to further research the subject by checking out some non-fiction. Of course, that happens when I’m reading outside of my area of expertise, but I also love a good historical fiction ABOUT my area of expertise.  I’d compare it to the way I am with many movies “based on” anything. I can think of many times when I’ve become interested in the “real” because I’ve enjoyed the “pretend.” I don’t doubt that there are people out there who would have, or will- if it finds a publisher, read this book and decide to check out some non-fiction on the subject.

What I have always wondered in these instances is, why would an author want to write a book that was offensive to the religious beliefs of others?

People write offensive stuff about all sorts of things and it gets published.  Some of it’s intended to be offensive.  Some of it is incidentally offensive.  Why should religion or religious beliefs get a pass?

I think that Spellburg’s problem with the novel (and the reason she reviewed in the first place) was that it has some terrible history in this fictional story.  I am a Ph.D. candidate in medieval history, and I frankly cannot read most medieval historical fiction books (except Dorothy Dunnett) because their history is Terrible.  Capital T.  But other people read these terribly researched books all the time, and enjoy them immensely.  That is our first amendment - the right to publish and read both crap and excellent books.  And it is not just an academic marking her territory to criticize the research or historical accuracy of a fictional book.  As Charlene said at the top of the thread, there are plenty of egregious examples in other genres besides religious (Muslim or Christian) fiction.

Why should religion or religious beliefs get a pass?

Heh.  Nobody else’s does.  *chuckle*

You know, all this talk of egregious errors and how it’s impossible for many to read books with so many mistakes…I guess, if I want facts, I’ll read a textbook.

I read novels for the stories they contain, not to learn every insignificant detail of the period in which they’re written though, if I find things that provoke me, I will research those things. Sometimes the author has her details right, sometimes she doesn’t, but I’m the one who has looked deeper into those things that interested me. It’s not Miss Spellberg’s, or anyone else’s place for that matter, to tell me what I should and should not read. She thought it was erroneous, that’s her privilege, but it’s a shame she doesn’t give anyone else the credit to believe they are intelligent to make up their own minds about what they are reading and whether they wish to delve deeper or put it out of their minds. Her comments should have been reserved until after publication.  She’s done a great disservice to all readers as well as the author and publisher.

(I wrote a really long post that got eaten, so I think we should all be glad for interwebz tweaks)

What I meant to say, is that from what I can determine from the things the author said on the other threads, she knowingly played with a couple of things in the history, not to be anti-Islamic or heretical, but to create a better story. And here, from what I can determine, is what she did: put Aisha places that she isn’t specifically listed as being (I sincerely doubt the Qu’ran accounts for her every movement) and implies that during a documented event for which there appears to be no first-person record from Aisha’s viewpoint, Aisha might have thought about committing adultery, which everyone agrees should be between her and Allah.
This may well be insulting and offensive to Muslims, I don’t know, but I do know that if it is, perhaps Random House should have thought of that Months and Months and Months before print date, certainly long before they sent out ARCs. At least, imo.
Now, I don’t know how historically correct the novel is, none of us do, because rather than letting us read it and judge, we were told we couldn’t handle it.

and on another note, whether or not Ms. (dr?) Spellberg liked the book, as an academic, she has an obligation to accept it’s view point. I’ve had professors hand me a book and say “I hate this book, it’s offensive and disgusting and terrible. Now what makes it a great book?” To do otherwise is to be mytho-poetic in a rational field.

It seems like Spellberg (and others) have a really, really hard time with the concept of “fiction.”

And the “Why write fiction if you know it’s going to offend somebody?” comments I’ve seen just… boggle the mind.

However, am I the only one who is slightly amused at the fact that Random House got their asses handed to them when they asked an EXPERT in a REAL PERSON to comment on a historical novel that looks, from the prologue, to be written for 21st century female readers with a distinctly anachronistic heroine? Writers can extensively research all they want; it doesn’t mean they used one iota of their findings in the novel. That was one part of Spellberg’s point that I got, and appreciated. From what I’ve read so far (and I’ll admit that’s very, very little), THE JEWEL OF MEDINA seems to be following all the conventions I’ve come to hate in historicals geared towards a specific audience. And this is just from the Prologue!

I get Spellberg’s total hatred of this book, and I kind of get a kick out of it. And I allow myself a little laugh when I think of the baffled powers-that-be up at Random House; it was short-sighted and pompous of the publishers to think Spellberg or any other historian committed to their profession and area of expertise would give that book a favorable blurb. She sure showed them!

I’m with Faellie, my biggest problem is the manner in which all of this happened, and the apparent lack of professionalism on the Professor’s part.  I am sure there are professors who decline to review various books all the time, because they think they are dreck.  But I seriously doubt they engage in the behavior that Spellberg did. 

For one, I can’t imagine them using unprofessional/non-formal language in an official communication to a publishing (ref. “Stupid, ugly book”).
It might (heavy emphasis on the conditional) be acceptable to communicate one’s concerns with an outside body/group, but I would have to see the communication—was it worded similar to the RH communication?  Was it incendiary?

I, too, like historical fiction (and hold it separate from historical romance in my head).  Strangely enough, the ones I have enjoyed the most have been related to my fields (Classical Studies/Anthro), even with the authors’ choices to depart from established fact.  (Usually there’s an Author’s Note about it.)  I’ve liked some of the more ‘modern’ ones, but I didn’t regard them as fact.

“You know, all this talk of egregious errors and how it’s impossible for many to read books with so many mistakes…I guess, if I want facts, I’ll read a textbook.”
“I read novels for the stories they contain, not to learn every insignificant detail of the period in which they’re written.”

For the record, many textbooks are pretty screwy and slanted in their “facts.” And if I stopped reading every novel at the point the author got an insignificant detail wrong, I’d have no historical fiction left to read. So no, I’m not calling down the wrath of the historical gods because someone wrote in period-inappropriate undergarments (or, more commonly, the absence of period-appropriate undergarments) or traveling times, etc.

But I get your larger point, that if you wanted nonfiction, you’d read nonfiction. I think this gets at the heart of different, though related, question—what/how much responsibility does the author have? Some would argue that the author’s responsibility is simply to the story—a viewpoint I generally agree with, except when the author is talking about real people. When talking about real people, however, the author is, in effect, borrowing their lives to tell a story. Real people, with real lives, whose decisions have/had real consequences in those lives. You shouldn’t play with that lightly. Not that you can’t—like pretty much everyone else on this list, I agree that we have the right to think, speak and write almost anything about almost anything. But I also strongly believe that there are responsibilities that go along with writing about real people. Does that mean that everything most be note perfect? Again, no, but blithely changing things “for the story,” seems, to me, disingenuous. If one chooses to write about real people, do so with care.

Personally, I love historical fiction and hate reading historical fiction that I know is getting things wrong. Which means that there are certain periods and places that I just can’t read about (yes, this means you, Philippa Gregory, though my love for Dorothy Dunnett surpasses all bounds).

Polly, I think I lurve you.

Polly, I agree with you!

My point I suppose, on any story written on a factual person from history is, some of the story must, by the sheer fact that the person is dead, be fabrication on the author’s part.  We have no clue what Aisha really thought about anything, other that what contemporaries from her period might have written or had she left anything of her own behind. A really good author will most probably be able to get close if they’ve connected with the person they’re writing about enough to get a good grasp on that character. Not all authors do though.

And no, I don’t think ‘blithely changing things’ for the sake of the story is the way to go, but I can see the author making assumptions about certain things and using those to push the story forward. But let’s face it, this story was not written as textbook accurate (and yes, I actually burned one textbook it was so filled with errors!) but as fiction and as such, some license must be taken or the story would never fly.

To condemn it completely though, considering it makes no claims as being anything other than fiction, is, as I said, a huge disservice to readers, the author and the publisher. I think we’re all intelligent enough to make up our own minds about it. But now, we’ll never know.

Erm, I may piss some people off saying this, but…

When dealing with historical accuracy, you are faced with nothing more than an educated opinion. Some are more researched than others, but it is a chain of educated opinion, on top of educated opinion, on top of educated opinion.

And those opinions skew in different directions over time. Why? Because we as humans have a hand in branding our own opinions on the events in question.

I worked at a bank for many years. We were trained not to speak to each other after the fact if a robbery ever occurred until our statements could be taken.

Well, unfortunately, my bank was robbed. The other teller and I didn’t go over the details as we knew them with each other. Our statements were taken, and when it was all over, lo and behold, we had two entirely different takes on some of the “facts”.  Our own personal opinions, backgrounds, prejudices…had skewed our recountings of the event in two different directions even though we had been less than two feet from each other the entire time.

It is a human frailty, and why no recounting of events should be tossed out as bunk.

So, to take this out of the heated realm of A’isha and religiously-inspired historical fiction, let me ask those with strict historical-fiction issues how they feel about books like:

1) The Secret History of the Pink Carnation
2) Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel
3) His Majesty’s Dragon
4) Any of those “Jane Austen” mysteries

Now, obviously, these are genre novels. JS&MN;is a fantasy novel, as is HMD. The Jane Austen mysteries are just that—mysteries wherein Jane Austen is a detective. Is it silly? Yes! God, yes. Are you (you, here, being people without a faith-based stake in A’isha, but with a violent objection to messing with the historical record) wildly offended by it in the same way? Why or why not?

God, I sound like I’m writing essay questions for an exam. But I’m wondering what the limits of people’s attitudes towards historical fiction are. Is it just books that purport to be “accurate” novelisations of the historical record that you object to, or is it all fiction that uses history as a jumping-off point?

“My point I suppose, on any story written on a factual person from history is, some of the story must, by the sheer fact that the person is dead, be fabrication on the author’s part.”

Yes, of course. But there are ways and ways of telling a story. Learning everything about a time period and then plunking a 21st century hero or heroine down in the midst (unless, I suppose, it was a time-travel novel) can be just as jarring as the facts being all screwy. And I should caution, that I meant my post as a comment on historical fiction in general and not about this book in particular. As others have pointed out, none of us has read it in total.

Which leads me to my final point (for the moment)—why all the doom-saying about “now we’ll never know,” “now we’ll never read the book” etc? The book WAS NOT censored. The author still has the rights, could even publish it on-line if she so chose. Maybe we’ll never know what it said in a copy with Random House on the cover, but Random House is not the only publishing house out there!

Anyway, I’d love to elaborate more but at the moment, I need to head out the door.

And here, from what I can determine, is what she did: put Aisha places that she isn’t specifically listed as being (I sincerely doubt the Qu’ran accounts for her every movement) and implies that during a documented event for which there appears to be no first-person record from Aisha’s viewpoint, Aisha might have thought about committing adultery, which everyone agrees should be between her and Allah.

That’s why we have hadiths, the story was told from Aisha and that’s how we know about it. You can read about it here or here

The first one has some Quranic ayahs with it, while the second link is the hadith by itself.

Slightly off topic:

It’s been argued repeatedly by those in favor of 100% historical accuracy that if a writer chooses to write fiction, then she shouldn’t include real people in her writing. Further, it’s implied that fiction that touches upon historical figures is not a legitimate way to introduce readers to said figures—and that readers should instead go prowl the History section of the bookstore.

All fine and dandy, but pretty much ignores the following facts:
that many of us know very little—if not outright nothing—about huge chunks of History;
that while we may enjoy reading History, we may not spend much, if any, time browsing the History section;
that many of us read novels first, if not exclusively;
that reading about a historical figure in a novel, with proper notations as to poetic license and whatnot, is quite likely to spur our interest into reading non-fiction about said character.

I freely confess my ignorance and say that, until the original post on the Jewel of Medina here, I didn’t know of A’isha’s existence. How likely was it then that I would go looking for “historically factual” books on her?

But I’m wondering what the limits of people’s attitudes towards historical fiction are. Is it just books that purport to be “accurate” novelisations of the historical record that you object to, or is it all fiction that uses history as a jumping-off point?

For me it’s an issue of labeling.  For books merely “inspired” by a certain historical period, characters, and/or events, I think “historical fiction” is an overstatement and sometimes mislabeling.  It’s the same with the term “historical Romance.” 

These terms are very broad and very broadly applied and interpreted, and they currently include books that are merely eau d’history, and those that are virtual transcriptions of historical records (taking into consideration Anon76’s extremely sound point about the way in which historical sources are themselves interpretations).  I can love both types of books, but I don’t consider every book within the gamut from one to the other to be “historical fiction” in the way I see that term. 

I’d love it more if we could come up with an additional term like “historically inspired fiction” or “historically flavored fiction,” but have little hope that would ever happen, because the invocation of history does (as is very clear in these discussions) lend a stamp of authenticity to a work of fiction that I imagine publishers (and authors?) would be loathe to surrender.

The quotes from Random House in the original WSJ article state that Random House received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice” and that Dr Spellberg “thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence” and that the book is"a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue”.

Is that WSJ editorial the first public notice of RH’s decision not to publish the book?  Because if we’re going to be cynical toward Spellberg, how about casting some of that in the direction of Nomani, the author of the op-ed piece, and of the sympathetic attention that piece generated for an author now in the position to shop her book around.  Is Nomani acquainted with Jones, is she trying to get some support directed at Jones?  Or is she acquainted with Spellberg, and does she have some ax to grind with Spellberg we don’t know about?  Or is she connected to neither and simply stated her opinion, an opinion that itself has “instigated” quite an outcry across the Internet?

Had the WSJ piece been an *article* I would feel much more comfortable speculating about Spellberg’s purported statements and actions.  But because it was an *editorial* and therefore an *opinion* statement, I keep going back to the power differential between *one academic* and an *entire publishing conglomerate* and am slightly astounded that we have all so easily followed Nomani’s lead in blaming Spellberg for Random House’s decision.  Although it sure as heck has raised Jones’s profile, right in time for the release that isn’t.

Denise Spellberg is really ticking me off here,with her overuse of quote marks and her arrogance. She was not asked to give “scholarly expertise”(see,now I’m forced to use the darn QMs!),she was asked for a blurb-a mini book review-period!

Not to mention that she went out of her way to stir up outside protests against the book before it saw the light of day and insisted to the publisher that their employees would be in harm’s way if this novel was published,plus threaten to sue the publisher if her name was attached to Jewel of Medina. How is any of that the actions of a responsible professional,I ask you?

I’m more mad at her than I am at RH,since their decision to not publish JOM was strongly due to Spellberg’s actions and like American Psycho(which was pulled at the last minute by it’s original publisher as a result of inhouse objections from female staff members)before it,all of this controversy will eventually secure the novel to a new home.

I also find Spellberg’s assumptions about ignorant Americans who will not bother to know more about Aisha and consider historical fiction as one stop stopping,rude and condescending. I used to work in a bookstore and,particularly after 9/11,many folks came in looking for nonfiction books about Islam and other religions due to world events.  People are smart enough to know the difference between fact and fiction,especially in novels.

Historical fiction is being judged way too harshly,IMO. Just about every HF book I’ve read has an author’s explanation of what he/she changed about the facts to fit their story and a long list of non fiction titles that the author read and recommends to the reader for more information at the end of the book.

Sorry for the long rant(I’ll be blogging about this tomorrow but had to get some of my ire out now-thank you for your patience) and all I have to say is that with professors like Denise Spellberg around,I’m glad that I didn’t attend college.

Like others have said I think part of this is just academic pet peeves bucking up against general public who doesn’t give a fuck. There were a few academics who actually wrote negative critiques of the movie “300” based on a *graphic novel* ffs because it got history wrong, and no platitudes such as, “Dude…s’comic book movie, chill out” could temper their rages on Spartan history. *shrugs* Same thing about the “Elizabeth” movie, “Braveheart” etc.

Popin-

thanks for providing me those links, having more information is appreciated. (there’s quite a bit of Arabic in there, however, so I missed some of it.)
Frankly, I still don’t see that the author did that much. In the hadiths(?) Aisha never says she wasn’t tempted, just that she’s offended that she’s being accused of something she didn’t do. Which is fair, b/c if someone accused me of cheating on my (non-existent) husband, his ass would be grass, but I don’t see anything terribly egregious. Of course, the whole Da Vinci Code, Jesus-had-a-kid thing never bothered me, either. Perhaps I just don’t care if religious figures had lives besides being religious.
Still, I can’t see that the author was being intentionally insulting, and that’s the only thing that would spark me.

I understand that it might be offensive to Muslims, but I don’t get the vibe that that was the intent. In fact, it sounds like the author wanted to honor Aisha. She learned Arabic to write this. Arabic. Besides Finnish, Arabic is the hardest language in the world.

“It is a shame that no one will be able to read this particular novel, and perhaps then others afterward, in their own quest to learn more about Islam and Aisha’s role within the history of that faith.”

Huh?  That’s like saying people need to be able to read “Chronicles of the Elders of Zion” in their quest to be able to understand Judaism.

For me, and this has happened many, many times with many, many subjects, This is what happens.  I pick up some work of fiction- historical fiction, not, whatever.  I read it, because it seems moderately interesting.  And then I am intrigued by something in the book- Gnosticism (The DaVinci Code), Chinese history (One of those books about the Dowager Empress), Japan’s invasion of China in WWII (The Joy Luck Club), or whatever.  And because I have had my curiosity aroused by this book that I read for fun, whether it’s good or not, I go off to go learn something else.  I may or may not have decided to go read more stuff about the Gnostics if I had never read The DaVinci Code- the world will never know. 

So if I ever get a chance to read this book about Aisha, the odds are pretty good that I’ll be intrigued enough to go off and learn more, and learning leads to more learning.  I can’t be the only person that does this.  Historical fiction is a gateway drug.

redhairedgirl said:

“So if I ever get a chance to read this book about Aisha, the odds are pretty good that I’ll be intrigued enough to go off and learn more, and learning leads to more learning.  I can’t be the only person that does this.  Historical fiction is a gateway drug.”

Oh, you are sooo not alone in that. Even when watching movies, if a reference comes up that sparks my interest, I’ll hit the web heavily. At least to get a taste of why that certain thing was mentioned. If I’m really intrigued, I’ll search heavily and try to find books about it.

Again, it’s a human trait. Curiosity=Learn. 

Tag word: over13   sigh, yeppers, and yeppers, and yeppers…well you get the gist.

So my whole long post got eaten up in cyber world.
Basically, I think that Ms. Spellberg acted extremely unprofessionally. She was asked to review a book that was fiction-made up. If she didn’t wish to review the book she could have said thanks but no thanks, and that would have been the end of it. Instead she informed others, and involved her lawyer. As for her telling me or anyone else what to read. I don’t need her to do that for me. I have always been extremely capable of deciding on my own what to read. If I read something that is historical fiction, I read it understanding that yes it is mostly fiction with some historical facts thrown it-how accurate it is, well if it intrigues me I’ll learn about it myself.
On the note about not writing or publishing works about Islam/Mohammed due to controversy. I’m not sure how accurate that is. I just read a work of fiction about the lost prophecy of Mohammed. I knew it was fiction, and was able to figure that out myself, with no help from anyone else. (Look at me, I’m a big girl!) As far as censorship, it wasn’t censored. The rights did revert back to the author who can now look for a new publisher. Will it take longer? Yes, but it can still get published with tons of free publicity.
Spam word sense96: Yes I have enough sense to decide for myself what to read.

I think I must be one of the people this is aimed at, so here’s my two cents:

“So, to take this out of the heated realm of A’isha and religiously-inspired historical fiction, let me ask those with strict historical-fiction issues how they feel about books like:

1) The Secret History of the Pink Carnation
2) Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel
3) His Majesty’s Dragon
4) Any of those “Jane Austen” mysteries

Now, obviously, these are genre novels. JS&MN;is a fantasy novel, as is HMD. The Jane Austen mysteries are just that—mysteries wherein Jane Austen is a detective. Is it silly? Yes! God, yes. Are you (you, here, being people without a faith-based stake in A’isha, but with a violent objection to messing with the historical record) wildly offended by it in the same way? Why or why not?”

When I say have a care for the history, I don’t by any means mean that the history is sacrosanct. I may get annoyed by details being wrong (ex, read a regency recently with a heroine riding astride, being scolded, then throwing her leg over the saddle and riding sidesaddle—side saddles and astride saddles look really different, and trying to ride sidesaddle on a normal saddle leads to falling off the horse), but I don’t get offended by it. Instead, I think, “Oh, someone didn’t do her research,” and move on. It’s not that big a deal.

Rather, what bothers me is when authors are cavalier about real lives. I love a good story as much as the next person, but when dealing with real people, I think it’s only fair to remember that you are constructing a story out of someone else’s life. It’s not right to misrepresent people today, and, to the best of our ability, it’s not right to misrepresent people who aren’t around/alive to contest it. I guess when this becomes an issue is when verisimilitude is being asserted or implied, and not so much when other aspects of the story scream, “I’m a story, and obviously fictional.”

So, about the specific books mentioned, I don’t really have a problem with any of them. I didn’t like the Secret History of the Pink Carnation, but for the same reasons I don’t like most chick-lit—I can’t seem to get as excited about shoes as the narrators of the books always seem to be. I enjoyed Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, in part for the voice and footnotes (although I guess I should admit that at times I found the tone a little too clever for its own good), and in part for the thought experiment about magic in the Napoleonic wars. I am looking forward to His Majesty’s Dragon, but haven’t read it yet (and if anyone is interested in other smart fictional uses of dragons books, try Tooth and Claw, which is a reworking of Trollope, but with dragons). And I enjoyed the Jane Austen mystery books (at least, I liked the first two, which are the only ones I’ve read).

Again, my issue is not, “never ever mess with the history.” It’s “be careful/thoughtful when you’re messing with real people’s lives.” With the exception of the Austen mysteries, none of these books are about real people. Real people might show up in them (hopefully in a considered way), but the books aren’t about them. As for the Jane Austen mysteries, the author was purposefully playing with ideas and themes that showed up in actual Austen novels. Yes, the fabricating episodes in her life made me a little uncomfortable, but overall it was done with a sense of fun and not so much with the verisimilitude. 

And if I’m not always consistent, I’ll fall back on Whitman, “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.” The great thing about general opinions is that sometimes they change in the specific.

Sorry for the length.

I just wanted to point out Shahed Amanullah’s articulate editorial on free speech and the Medina controversy.  Amanullah runs altmuslim.com, and was the one Spellberg contacted after reading Jones’s book.  Maybe the powers that be at Random House need to read it, too.

Thanks for the link, Robin! That was a fabulous article. My favorite bit?

Ultimately, no one has the absolute right not to be offended, nor does anyone have the right to live without the uncomfortable opinions of others. This is true whether it concerns flag burning (which should harm nothing other than a piece of cloth) or non-Muslim views of the Prophet Muhammad (which should not have an impact on a Muslim’s sincere belief).

One thing that’s been irking me in this discussion is the sense that historical non-fiction is getting a pass as being more accurate.

My reading shelf typically has three things on it:

- Contemporary fiction set in a historical period
- Fiction written in a certain historical period
- Non fiction written about a historical period

If I sit down and take any of this as being 100% about the historical period, I’d consider myself a fool. Each has its own biases, it’s own creative license, its own inaccuracies based on the author’s perception of things. Even academic works are plagued by bias, even though it’s the big rule to remain unbiased. Everyone forms an opinion on a subject and it taints the accuracy and credibility of what they write.

Take, for instance, my recent pirate fetish. In the fiction corner is a romance novel and a general fiction novel. The snob’s route would be to say that the general fiction novel will be more accurate than the romance, but each is going to take creative license to move the story forward and for all anyone knows, the general fiction author needed to do that more than the romance author. In the non-fiction corner are two biographies about pirates. Each just as thrilling, each filled with historical fact, but each written with the same adoring fangirl/boy mentality about their subjects that, while noting that there’s no way of knowing for sure, make conclusions about what their subjects were thinking at the time. Completing this triad would be a copy of Johnson’s history, written during the golden age of piracy and considered the Bible of all things pirate, not only because it includes more first hand accounts than you can shake a stick at, but because it’s rumoured that Johnson himself was a pirate and writing under a pen name. While Johnson tends to be fairly reasonable and avoids the flamboyant, one has to wonder how much truth there is in these first-person accounts and how much Johnson himself decided to leave out for the sake of a good yarn and book sales.

What this JOM brouhaha comes down to is not whether Jones was historically or theologically (if there can be such a thing) accurate, or even how much she claimed was accurate - anyone could make that claim and have in the past - but what Sarah has pointed out in her post: one egotistical, know-it-all individual took it upon herself to decide that a) Western readers would be far too stupid to realize that they were reading something that spawned out of someone’s imagination, and b) Muslims would be so outraged by the publication of this book that they would be incited to react violently (I sincerely doubt that we’re going to turn on CNN and see anyone rioting in the streets over this ...)

Due to this discussion, however, and the things I learned in it (i.e. that depictions of Mohammed in any form are offensive

I saw this point made somewhere else, and had a “huh?” moment. What exactly does “in any form” mean? Are we talking about just visual representations (which have only been no-no’s since the 17th century, btw) or are we talking a straight-out ban on everything, including verbal descriptions? Because that doesn’t seem to make sense - how would there be any Islamic scholarship then?

Anyway, this is an interesting incident, made more so by the fact that none of the figures involved is particularly sympathetic. I also get the feeling that RH is passing the buck, and it sounds like the author overstated her rigor in research. Spellberg makes good points about her right to point out errors but comes off as arrogant to say the least. Personally, I can’t get wound up about the so-called “censorship” of the book (especially when it hasn’t been censored); the fact that we’re all inured to offensiveness and sloppy research being presented as a retelling of history isn’t a compelling argument to put more out there.

I am also a history professor and I would never have done what
Spellberg did. She was asked for her opinion, fine. She could have refused to comment if she did not understand the difference between fiction and non-fiction, or she could have told the powers that be that she did not approve and her reasons. Again, fine. But she went that one step further and contacted various Muslim groups to tell them that something ugly was coming down the pike. That’s pretty unethical.
I still say, as I said the other day in a previous post, that I think there was a real conflict of interest on her part. She is published with a book on Aisha, and I suspect that not unlike those dweebs who a couple of years ago sued to keep The DaVinci Code from the theaters, thereby getting a lot of press coverage from their “scholarly” work on the subject, she hopes that The Jewel of Medina will get published and the controversy will give her book a second life.

Historical romance used to be my favourite read. These days I stick to authors I know and trust. I wonder how many other people feel like that?
I research the background to my own books extensively, but just because I know all the details of how my heroine copes with her menstruation cycles, it doesn’t mean I have to tell everybody. Especially if that has nothing to do with the story. But I need to know in order to make my heroine as real as I can.
But in a book that claims to be “historical fiction” and claims to be based on extensive research, I’d like to read a bit of history. I know very little about seventh century history, and I’d have to trust the author to lead me through the world. It sounds as if Spellman was asked to comment on it, and she did.
But that wouldn’t have killed a book. If RH had really wanted to publish it, they would have suppressed Spellman’s comments and published it anyway.
There’s something else behind this.

Thanks for giving us that link, Robin. He’s a very reasonable man.

What’s impressed through this discussion is that every Muslim voice we’ve heard has been so very reasonable, and completely against censorship or banning the book, even while explaining clearly what the problem is. Set this against the strident screeching of ‘OMG, the terrorists have WUN’ and all the claims that Muslims are too alien, unreasoning, bigoted, pro-repression etc to talk to, that we can never understand their point of view, so why bother trying. All the evidence is that there are plenty of moderate voices out there, but the West prefers to paint their current bete noir in the deepest, ungraded hues and so people like Amanullah are dismissed as aberrations.

Two points/questions - did Sherry Jones speak to even one Muslim about what she was researching and planning to write?

And if Muslims are the voice of repression and censorship, I guess the whole Harry Potter out of libraries thing was totally unusual and never to be repeated.

I still think Denise Spellberg did not act correctly - not for objecting, but how she acted on the basis of that objection. But I really lost sympathy for Jones’ book from the moment she started arguing with people on the prologue post that it was silly of Muslims to find her book offensive. That told me she hadn’t understood the research she’d done, or at least, hadn’t done enough. When she proudly boasted about her 14 year old daughter smacking Spellberg down (a post now removed, strangely,) I thought, hmmm, classic precious petal author behaviour. Bringing family members in to bolster criticism of critics is a low tactic.

a polite request direct from Dr Spellberg to the publishers, asking for confirmation her name would not be on the book, perhaps followed up through her own editor at Random House, would seem to me to be a more proportionate initial response.

Yes.  Instead, her “sound the alarm” response smacks of deliberate shit-stirring.  What exactly was her point in making a determined effort to raise the hackles of Muslim groups?  Does Spellberg address this issue?  Anywhere?

It’s that tattletale aspect I really don’t get.

What say we start labeling books of this genre with a sticker reading “Caution:  May contain history-like substance” and then just let it go.  If I’d picked up this book I may well have thought, “What a neat story” but never would’ve thought it to be a work of academic scholarship - I mean, it’s in the fiction section, right?  There’s the Not Real Clue Phone right there (it’s ringing for thee, Dr. Spellman).

I can’t count the number of books that I thoroughly enjoyed that were also utter horse hockey.  Very historicalish they were, too.  And, yes, I’ve been led down interesting roads of intellectual inquiry by that horse hockey - places I’d never have gone without the prompt of some fairly silly stories.  One of those hot 17th century kilted Lairds (hello horse hockey!) - actually it was his 21st century virgin soul mate - got me all interested in the Clearances and, wow, is that an absorbing topic.  Another prompted me to read up on rationing during WWII, something that added to my appreciation of my grandmother’s stories of her wedding.  I *know* that the fiction I choose to read often leaves off a little short of True Life Stories but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t encourage a bit of truth seeking on my own. 

It’s that tattletale aspect I really don’t get.

Yeah, me neither.  Then again, I suspect that Dr. Spellman doesn’t really want us to get it, she’d rather everyone just submit to her better judgment.

Robin:

Had the WSJ piece been an *article* I would feel much more comfortable speculating about Spellberg’s purported statements and actions.

One thing which I noticed right away about Spelling’s letter was that she didn’t deny any of the facts presented in the article—not what she did, not what she said.  I was a little surprised, to be honest, to the extent of wondering if it was edited out of the letter.  Because her warnings to RH contained exactly the kind of characterisation of Muslims which people have been upset about in the comments here: that the reaction would inevitably be extremely violent, that people and property would be attacked.  I’m surprised that she’s happy to be publicly associated with those kinds of views.

Candy:

One thing about this brouhaha that has pegged my Oogmeter is the impression I get (and bear in mind this is merely a gut feeling, not a conclusion I came to based on fact) that Random House did what it did, not because it was being cravenly deferential to the scholars, or its Muslim readership, but partly because it had fully bought into the “Muslims = crazy terrorist dickwads who call for a fatwa and bomb the shit out of their shit when they read an inaccurate or offensive account of Islamic history.”

And is it really surprising they would buy into that, when the very academic they asked to review the book is telling them that “there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence”?

I still think Denise Spellberg did not act correctly - not for objecting, but how she acted on the basis of that objection. But I really lost sympathy for Jones’ book from the moment she started arguing with people on the prologue post that it was silly of Muslims to find her book offensive. That told me she hadn’t understood the research she’d done, or at least, hadn’t done enough. When she proudly boasted about her 14 year old daughter smacking Spellberg down (a post now removed, strangely,) I thought, hmmm, classic precious petal author behaviour. Bringing family members in to bolster criticism of critics is a low tactic.

Only a cached version of that blog post is available, but here’s a story including the comment her daughter left on a different blog.

My own thinking about this continues to evolve, and for my own sake I’ve tried to separate every issue into its own mental category.  First there’s Spellberg, whom I was much more focused on when the story broke.  I’m certainly not impressed with her response, but I also wish I knew more about her and what motivated her and *exactly* what she did and didn’t do. 

Then there’s Jones, who, IMO, has the right to write any book she wants and try to sell it.  The book may be awful, it may be a masterpiece, it may be historically bastardized, it may be historically pristine, it may be thoughtful, thoughtless, etc.  Some Muslims may find it deeply offensive, and it may even provoke pretty aggressive anger in some (this, btw, is not limited to one group—people have mentioned some of the various films and books that have prompted extreme reactions).  But one thing I’ve learned is that if you try to defend artistic freedom on the personality of the artist, you’re going to find it hard to do sometimes (as the feminist free speech advocates who fought Harry Reems arrest despite the anti-feminist message of Deep Throat certainly understood, lol).  But assuming the book doesn’t cross the defamation or fighting words/immediate incitement to violence thresholds, it should compete for publication fairly in the marketplace, allowing the public to debate its artistic and historical and theological merits.  I often wish that people would be more thoughtful in their expression, but I don’t ascribe to a strong moral responsibility theory in regard to creative production.

And finally there’s Random House, which is now really the focus of my curiosity and frustration.  Whatever Spellberg did, and however, reactionary her actions may have been, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, my thinking is starting to line up with Candy’s analysis of RH’s decision.  I’m especially curious about RH’s protestations of extensive deliberation, especially in the context of Jones’s insistence that Spellberg is the primary mover.  I’m starting to wonder whether RH panicked when Jones (NOT Spellberg) informed them of the discussion at altmuslim.com after they had already heard from Spellberg and acted swiftly to cut Jones’s book loose. 

I’ll be curious to see where the book ends up and how quickly it’s snapped up by another publisher.  That, in and of itself, will be a fascinating commentary on the wisdom of RH’s decision.

Because her warnings to RH contained exactly the kind of characterisation of Muslims which people have been upset about in the comments here: that the reaction would inevitably be extremely violent, that people and property would be attacked.  I’m surprised that she’s happy to be publicly associated with those kinds of views.

I’m bothered by this, too, but I don’t know what to do with it yet, because it doesn’t seem to fit with her position as an Islamic scholar.  So I think there’s more to this aspect of the story, because it just doesn’t make sense given Spellberg’s own work.

because it just doesn’t make sense given Spellberg’s own work.

Maybe I’m just jaded and suspicious, but knowing how *petty* some academics can be over their “territory,” I’m wondering if professional frustration didnt’ boil over into ugliness. I would hope not. I like to believe the best of everyone when I can. But there’s definitely *something* rotten here.

Maybe I’m just jaded and suspicious, but knowing how *petty* some academics can be over their “territory,” I’m wondering if professional frustration didnt’ boil over into ugliness.

I understand exactly what you’re saying here, snarkhunter, and know very well how true the low stakes/high pettiness ratio is.  But in this case the stakes are actually pretty high, politically speaking (even if Spellberg didn’t think things would get to this point).  And by “politically” I’m not just referring to the potential backlash among some Muslims; I’m talking about an extremely heightened tension within academic communities around Muslim and Jewish relationships and issues.  Not that it’s impossible, of course, but in this climate it’s hard to imagine that it was plain old professional competition that drove Spellberg.  At the same time, though, what she did seems to me like an overreaction. 

It’s complicated, IMO, because there is a very strong and irrational fear of Islam in the West (look at the rise in hate crimes against Muslims after 9/11 and the ridiculousness around Obama’s religious affiliations).  And there are some extremist Muslims (just as there are extremist Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) who have reacted aggressively to what they perceive as offense.  It’s been 20 years since the Satanic Verses was published, so I think we forget how much that book created waves, and that was before we were encouraged to imagine the faceless Islamic terrorist hiding behind every American landmark (aka don’t read that pesky Patriot Act before rushing it through Congress!). 

IMO we don’t want to believe that Spellberg’s fears were correct, because that feels like giving in to the paranoia and the Islamophobia.  But it’s difficult not to see this whole thing as free from some kind of extreme, perhaps even irrational fear, whether that’s Spellberg’s fear, RH’s fear, or our own fear of feeding a certain cultural hatred and fear.  What’s troubling, I think, is the way Spellberg’s comments have come across as somewhat global in their characterization of Muslim response to Jones’s book, and that’s where I’m not sure we’re exactly right in reading her (that is, where there’s distortion in the reporting or in the whole of the process as it really happened and as Spellberg perceived things from inside her own context).  Like perhaps her remarks were more localized, perhaps they were accurately anticipating pockets of backlash among isolated extremists, but in this culture of phobic response to anything connecting violence and Islam, there was an elevation of her reaction and a globalization, not on Spellberg’s part, perhaps, but on RH’s and on the part of others responding. 

And it’s difficult, again, because for those of us trying to stand against that globalized demonization of any one group, I think perhaps we don’t want to even see the possibility of isolated backlash, because we know it would feed the general paranoia.  And yet, if we weren’t working within this whole push-pull context, we could perhaps see that some Muslims would be offended to the point of issuing threats or making some disruptive protest (or even violence like the type that followed the Danish cartoons) without feeling like the reputations of all Muslims were on the line, so to speak.  So rather than get into that bind, we’re putting the blame on Spellberg and seeing *her* as feeding the irrational fear, because the climate is such that to see the possibility that she might be correct to *any* degree makes us even more uncomfortable.  We know extremists exist in every group (think of the bombing of abortion clinics, for example), but this context seems especially loaded at this point in history.

After reading many of the comments, the two cents I would like to add is simple; The Da Vinci Code, while potentially offensive, is not by it’s very nature something that could cause violent uprisings in those that it offends. Christians don’t think that way. On the other hand, I remember not too long ago, a series of Danish political cartoons that caused worldwide riots and at least 19 deaths. Cartoons. Seriously. So if a single or multiple scholars were to tell me that the contents of a book I am considering for publication might have the same effect? I might pull it too. Just saying. Oh, and remember, cover art? not a good plan when dealing with a culture that has entirely forbidden images of living beings…

LS

Christians don’t think that way

No, they just bomb abortion clinics.

Christianity has a long and bloody history and with a lousy record for killing those of different religions - remember the pograms? What about Catholic and Protestant violence? Spanish Inquisition, anyone? Not to mention any number of indigenous peoples killed or forcibly converted by colonising powers. Islamic governments and countries are not as far along the path towards peaceful tolerance as we’d wish, but then again, how many of them have had post-colonial peace and prosperity to develop it?

I wish people would bear in mind there is no evidence whatsoever that any Muslim group has actually issued any threats of any kind of violence at all in this matter. The reaction had been restrained and muted on their behalf. RH have made a decision based on their assumptions, which in turn are based on Spellberg’s and other people’s assumptions. How about challenging them for their attitude, rather than trying to justify it?

Long time listener, first time caller.

I’m an agnostic. I’m just going to put that out there, because what I’m going to say doesn’t have much to do with religion, and that’s because it’s not a big part of my life. Personally, when I first saw this story, it reminded me of Becoming Jane. I’m a huge Jane Austen fan, she’s in my top five favorite writers. I hated when they came out with the movie Becoming Jane because there was so much that was just not true. They took a writer’s life and instead of her being happy with her own choices in life she has to be the woman that had the love of her life and let him get away. Not only that, but apparently she has no real imagination because the plot of the book she is most known for (personally not my favorite) has to be drawn from real life experiences. She can’t think of the plot on her own and write a social commentary, it has to be her own Love Story.

I will never watch a frame of that movie. That’s my right. It’s even my right to bitch about something I’ve never seen. It’s also the right of the studio to make it. If myself and a few Jane Austen historians warn the studio of violence and effectively shut down the movie, even though there is no real threat of violence, that would be IMO a form of censorship. No matter how justified I may feel in silencing trash from being put out about an amazing writer.

Not about religion, but in that way, I can see where Spellberg is coming from. NOT how she went through with it. What she did was wrong, and when RH caved they were wrong. It doesn’t matter if it’s trash that is completely untrue. People can hate it, and they can talk to anyone who will listen until they are blue in the face about how horrible the book is. But as Amanullah said, “no one has the absolute right not to be offended.”

Even when it has to do with real people.

/ end my $.02

What Ann Somerville said.  In fact, throughout both these threads, what Ann Somerville said.

As a Christian, it would be nice to feel my religion was free of fundamentalism and scary fuckwits.  But I’ve met Christians who said they thought gays should be shot or imprisoned, and who resort to violence when they’re offended, and who told jokes about some women who were murdered in a brothel—presumably because nasty sinful prostitutes don’t deserve to be left unharmed?

And although I haven’t personally met them, Christian Voice, a protest organisation, as part of their protest against the BBC screening of Jerry Springer, the Opera, made public the home addresses of BBC officials, with the result that the officials and their (in some cases, young) families received phone calls threatening violence.

We’re not always so much with the turning the other cheek.

Like Candy, I feel that the leap from “this may offend Muslims and some Muslim students are planning to do something about it” to “we’re all going to get bombed!!!” show a possible—and worrying—Islamophobia on the part of either Spellberg or Random House.

One more example of how extremism knows no ideological limits is the bombings at the residences of several UCSC faculty who purportedly use animals in their research.

Robin, that article explains a LOT.

I was in Santa Cruz for all of the week before last. On Saturday, on the way back to the airport, we drove past a neighborhood that was cordoned off with police tape, and there were police cars everywhere and guys in what looked like HazMat suits. We thought it was a meth lab.

It was the firebombed house. Good God.

Good heavens.  I’m strongly in favour of humane treatment of animals.  But firebombing people’s houses over the rights of fruit flies and mice, FFS.

the rights of fruit flies

I’m also in strong favor of the humane treatment of animals, but I swear, my argument stops at insects.

It’s the same reason why I just don’t get why vegans don’t eat honey. I mean, get it in theory, but in practice…they’re BUGS.

LOL, snarkhunter, I was in Santa Cruz that weekend, too, which is what made me think of the story.

Anyway, if people are unfamiliar with the area, it’s known to be very laid back, NOT the type of environment where you would anticipate this kind of violence.  Although there is also an undercurrent of militancy in some corners of the community, albeit militancy from the Left, rather than the Right.  But it just goes to show that it’s not any particular religious dogma or political philosophy that breeds violence—it’s people who take their own belief to such an extreme that their vision narrows and their zealotry takes over.  As the Dalai Lama is fond of pointing out, all major religions share the same central precepts.  I love this, in particular:

While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new ‘world religion’. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world’s religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings.

Christianity is still the world’s most popular religion, and yet we don’t judge all Christians as violent zealots.  Islam is the world’s second most popular religion, so, logically speaking, we should apply the same logic in seeing the vast majority of the world’s Muslims as peace-loving people who are simply trying to lead a good life.  It’s all so wonky.  Consider, for example, that there are only about 13 million Jews worldwide, and yet there is so much irrational hatred and suspicion directed at Judaism.  In the meantime, the West seems relatively uninterested in Buddhism, and yet when you look at what’s going on between China and Tibet, clearly the violent clash of religion, culture, and politics is not limited to the Middle East.  Sometimes I wonder whether the real danger is what’s happening in the world or the fact that many Westerners (esp. Americans) remain stubbornly, willfully ignorant of how the rest of the world works, an ignorance which fuels an increasingly dangerous xenophobia.

Won now that is one arrogant, judgmental, self aggrandizing letter there Denise. Good job ya little instigator you.

Umm, at the risk of making enemies here, I find Professor Spellberg’s letter in the WSJ measured in tone and respectful but firm. That is, she’s stating her opinion, she’s giving a little more of her side of the story, and she doesn’t, in the WSJ letter at least, seem frantic.

If I’m understanding Prof S, she’s concerned that a gross mis-telling (in her opinion) of Aisha’s tale will cause even more confusion and misunderstanding by non-Muslims of a key Muslim historical figure.  Personally, I prefer to read and think for myself, but I still understand and even sympathize a little bit with her stated concern (if I’ve understood it in the first place).

One of the things someone points out is that Ms. Jones book was/is heavily researched. It’s fairly common to call a book heavily researched; but heavily researched doesn’t mean accurate or true or factual, which is something that the statement implies. It simply means the author did a lot of research. I can understand that if Prof S greatly disagreed with Aisha’s portrayal in the book, then she would be concerend by the implication that the term heavily researched gives to the historical accuracy of the book.

So here’s a question that I’d like answered: do Professor Spellberg and Ms. Nomani (the original op-ed author) know one another or move in similar academic circles? Where does Ms. Nomani come into the picture? Is there another agenda at work in this drama?

Thanks to Robin for stating things so clearly and thoughfully ideas that have resonated with me. You, too, Ann S. I’ve enjoyed reading both of your comments (and the many others) during this entire discussion.

spamword: blood23 (I expect my intial comment will cause a few people to go for blood.)

I suppose the question here, one I keep coming back to is - what’s the truth when we’re dealing with something like meta religious structure and story?

Ms. Spellberg is a scholar among MANY. Who is she to say that her belief is *the* belief on the life of a girl who lived a very long time ago?  Moreover, it could be that hers is the correct belief but such an assertion requires proof, doesn’t it?

I’m not going to argue that the life of a wife of the prophet should or shouldn’t be covered. Islam’s belief system is certainly something very important for Muslims and I respect the right to hold those beliefs sacred.

And yet we come up on the idea that someone else’s beliefs get to dictate everyone’s and that’s where I stand up and say no. If this book was read by a group of scholars and they criticized it, then I might rightly believe a statement about the level of sex or violence in the book. But right now, all we have is the author, who says there are no sex scenes in the book and this scholar who has become a self appointed censor and tosses out several lines about sex and violence and if I remember correctly, even used the term pornographic. These are big, value laden terms and they become meaningless if they’re applied without merit and create a furor when intellectual discussion would serve better.

Imagine then, what an interesting discussion could be had if you read this book alongside scholarly research on the lives of the prophet’s wives?  DISCOURSE could take place on all manner of things.

Instead, a door gets slammed in the face of discussion because people like Spellberg believe it’s their mission to protect the rest of us from things they believe have no merit. I think we all lose out in this situation an the fertile ground of intellectual discussion lies fallow because of a fear of ideas on the part of someone who calls herself a scholar.

This is long and I apologize. I just resent anyone deciding for me what is or isn’t useful, especially when that person should be encouraging discussion of ideas instead of engendering stereotypes.

This thread is most interesting…starting with religion, then on to historical accuracy, personal research from interest, animal (and insect) rights, and ending with ignorance.

To create peace, it may be enough to accept another’s opinion or belief as their truth, even if our perception is different. After all, is it possible to know all there is in this world, as much as we try to learn and strive to accept?

I think it is important to read Dr. Spellberg’s letter very carefully. At no point does she say the book is inaccurate. She uses the word “fallacious” and I am sure she knows the difference in the meanings of the two words.

She writes of a “falsification of the Islamic past” but not a fabrication of it or a blatantly inaccurate reading of its known facts.

Her letter is a masterpiece of using words that imply factual error without saying there are factual errors. If there WERE factual inaccuracies and errors, I think that she would share them with us in order to deflect some of the heat.

Her objection appears to be with the author’s interpretation of this character, and with the author’s presentation of the origins of Islam. Dr. Spellberg has used characterizations that make it clear she does not consider the work literary enough, for one thing. “Soft porn”. “An ugly book.”

It offends her personal taste as much as anything else. Maybe more than anything else. She teaches the Satanic Verses, but this book does not deserve to see the light of day. Interesting.

Her letter speaks of getting history “right.” Which means she thinks the author got it wrong. Not inaccurate. Wrong. Wrong in Dr. Spellberg’s view, that is.

As an historian and an academic, I found that last line in the letter interesting. A Ph.D. in history knows that aside from documented facts (and even then sometimes), getting history “right” is a moving target and an eternal work in progress. Her implication is that she herself HAS got it “right,” which is very arrogant.

What she really means by that, I think, and by her comment about the book not being researched, is that the novel, in its fictional vision, does not reflect the currently acceptable academic interpretations and visions, which include careful negotiations of Islamic traditions and sensitivities so as to be inoffensive to Islam’s view of itself. Perhaps so, but that is different from the book being inaccurate or even sloppily researched.

The literary quality of this novel or lack of quality is not the point, although some have made it one. (On some blogs, its more popular tone means it is does not deserve the same concerns as a more “literary” work.) Or at least in my opinion it should not be.

The central issue, it seems to me, is that someone exploited the fears of terrorist violence in ways that got ANY book pulled, because she did not think it was the “right” vision, voice, style, interpretation.

She says now that she did not kill this book.

Of course she did.

It would have been published if she had not “warned” the publisher of potential violence (and it was the warning, not her opinion that the book was dreck, that set things in motion. Without the warning, I think that her much ballyhooed “critique” would have been set aside as “well, no cover blurb from her, I guess.”). She pushed a hot button with a corporation based in NYC, whose employees walked out of Manhattan on 9/11 and who lost neighbors and friends in the towers.

And if she had not alerted contacts in the Muslim community, Random House probably would have found little support for her warning. Not that I believe they found much anyway beyond “they may get angry and who knows what might or might not happen”.

So what happens next? If she is asked to vet an academic book that does not align with her “right” interpretations, will she drop a dime and “warn” the press? That process with scholarly work DOES involve critiques that can kill books. Or will it get a pass from her because it is serious and not a work of ugly popular fiction that by definition is unworthy of any freedom of vision?

I trust that her colleagues at Texas-Austin and within the community of historical scholars are noting this and calling it what it was——unacceptable interference and bullying.  I think that she worries that they are and that her academic reputation will suffer. That WSJ letter struck me as an exercise in damage control. And not a very effective one either.

I’m all for historical accuracy, but I heard the author on Jerry Doyle and she made me really curious about her book when I had none to begin with. I’d only heard it on here. This woman here is so very angering. =w=

Here’s hoping a publisher better able to withstand the politics of fear will publish the book.  We didn’t let fear stop us from continuing to print, purchase and read Satanic Verses.  Today it’s a different world.  Pity.

If this book was initially considered worthy of publishing than I hope someone will have the chutzpah to do so.

I read the prologue and I’m deeply angered that this woman did what she did. My grandpa assured me he would find a way to buy it online for me, probably from a UK place. I like to think of myself as something of a history buff and I like to learn as much as I can about history. This has never stopped me from enjoying a good story, especially about my favorite time period to read (medieval period) as well as write.

I bring up this thought.

What about the huge number of Jewish and Christian historical figures in fictional novels? Books about Jesus or other such people are not wholly protested by most people and if it is, no one stops the publishing, they just don’t buy it. They wouldn’t stop the publishing of a biblical figure in a novel, so why do they stop for a figure in the Muslim faith? The hipocracy is not lost on me.

It is an insecure person in their own beliefs who ridicules and shouts down another for theirs. If these muslims, who riot over the littlest thing and join in with this woman in making sure the book doesn’t come out here, were secure in their faiths, then why are they going crazy over one book? Or, really, anything? I don’t mind if a story portrayed Jesus as doing ANYTHING because I know it’s not real and I know it’s not what I feel to be real.

why are they going crazy over one book?

Excuse me, can you point me to a single instance of any Muslim going ‘crazy’ over this book? I’ve read a number of people who found it offensive, and a number explaining why (including why extrapolating from the Jewish and Christian experiences does not work for Islam), but no one making threats or rioting.

In fact, every single Muslim commentator I’ve read has explicitly stated that banning this book is not their intention or desire in the slightest. This is in stark contrast to the wild and inaccurate claims made by dozens of posters, including yourself, who have picked up the barest hint of possible problems and run a marathon with them.

Explaining politely that yes, you have a problem with a book or any other piece of writing, isn’t ‘going crazy’. Unless you want to claim that Muslims aren’t allowed to voice their disapproval at all, in which case - what was that about free speech again?

Shaheed Amanullah said:

Watching this exchange over time has taught me that the best response to free speech is simply more speech in return. Anyone should have the right to publish whatever they want about Islam or Muslims - even if their views are offensive - without fear of censorship or retribution. Muslims, however, shouldn’t be expected to be passive consumers of these views. An offended Muslim has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to vigorously critique anything written about them or their religion, provided they do not cross the line into intimidation and coercion. In an ideal world, both parties would open their minds enough to understand the other point of view.

Pretty much the sanest assessment I’ve read in all this discussion.

Asra Nomani, the author of the WSJ piece, was on Talk of the Nation (NPR) yesterday discussing this topic. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93503128  The .segment was a little over 16 minutes long and I think they took calls from three people.  Two were in favor of publication and one who was not.

Ms Nomani stressed that, while there were moments in the book that would be “seriously offensive”, it is really a tale of redemption and reconciliation.  She is happy that this is playing out on the internet in the manner that she hoped.  That we would not allow “the lowest common denominator” to prevent the discussion of such a topic.

There is also a discussion (http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/08/faith_and_fiction_1.html) on the topic.

Just thought I would share the links.

Thank you, JLFerg, for those links.  The interview with Nomani was wonderful, IMO. 

One of the things that struck me is the way in which Nomani’s concern—that Muslims are being portrayed in a negative way—is very similar to the concerns of Muslims who object to the way Jones portrays Aisha.  It’s just that in one case the argument is for publication and discussion (Nomani), and in the other case the argument is for suppression of the book’s publication. 

Nomani insists that the book should be published because these discussions need to happen openly, whereas those who advocate suppression seem to have a similar fear as Random House in its decision to stop release.  Nomani directly addressed this fear, which I really liked, by saying that the book may incite some isolated backlash but that Muslims should not be defined by the “lowest common denominator” of those who advocate violence, and moreover she believes that the Muslim community needs to opportunity to show that it can deal with highly controversial material.

One thing that was interesting, too, is that she talked a bit about the process Random House went through in its decision-making on Medina.  According to Nomani, after Spellberg expressed her concerns, RH sent the book off to three more people who warned Random House that the book could be a security risk.  So while Spellberg may have raised the alarm, her opinion was corroborated—according to Nomani—by three more people before RH pulled the plug. 

I know this bit of info probably won’t stop the animosity and blame directed at Spellberg, but the more I think about this, the more I come to Nomani’s position:  that yes, the book may cause some isolated incidents of backlash but that we must not give in to the fear that Muslims are a bunch of violence-loving fanatics and dare to put these books out into the public where they can be discussed and debated by Muslims and non-Muslims.  That only when we see these discussions happening more can we make those crucial distinctions between the true extremists and those who simply have a very strong point of view. 

IMO people have become too wary of engaging in controversial discussions, in part because after 9/11 the government tried to scare people into not saying anything “anti-American” or “unpatriotic.”  Now I think people feel so overwhelmed that they often hang back and don’t even know where to begin speaking up.  But if we don’t speak up, if we don’t all participate to some degree in the discussion of these issues, we’re doing ourselves a great disservice.  IMO this discussion is a great illustration of how even publishing decisions about fiction can intersect and be caught up with political and religious conflicts.  Sure this may only be about books—now, at least—but these same issues reverberate through every level of our society, from genre fiction to political policy, and if we’re not even comfortable talking about books, how can we tackle the big stuff?

Great post, Robin. Most informative.

...these same issues reverberate through every level of our society, from genre fiction to political policy, and if we’re not even comfortable talking about books, how can we tackle the big stuff?

I am not American, although influenced by America as most of the world is, and there are some issues from which I can glean insight only through discussions such as this.

In reference to Robin’s mention of tackling the big stuff, the use of US government ‘scare’ tactics were not known me until recently.  I experienced several incidences of (what I would term) extreme paranoia involving procedures at LA airport. Although I have traveled widely and often, I had only experienced such extremes in countries with facist government prior to this last trip via the US.  For further details of my experience:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/07/29/en-route-leg-two/

I will not subject myself to such ineffectual, debasing situations ever again.  And as I live in country relatively void of bias and prejudice (and completely so in my village),  the methods I observed and tolerated were terribly extreme. In view of this, I completely understand the reasoning for a US publisher to avoid potential political and religious fallout.

Sherry Jones has deleted her blog - anyone notice that?

Good on you Professor Spellberg for using your initiative to prevent millions of already ignorant Americans who may have read this believing it to be true history.

In this instance the publishers were clearly wanting to add some credibility to the historical inaccuracies within the poorly researched book in search of the american dollar but got caught out when Prof Spellberg refused.

Whatever next teaching creationism as historical fact in american schools - oops that ship has set sail. Oh well one fight at a time to prevent the sustained barrage of the American far right extremists distorting historical truth. You might say similar to the way Iran wishes people to believe that the Holocaust didnt happen.

Linking the american far right and Iran - now that will cause a true controversy.