In today’s Wall Street Journal, there is a letter to the editor from Denise Spellberg which refutes the idea that her protests and phone calls to Random House effectively squashed The Jewel of Medina. According to the letter,, Spellberg writes:
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. 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. The author and the press brought me into a process, and I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel. 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.
There is a long history of anti-Islamic polemic that uses sex and violence to attack the Prophet and his faith. This novel follows in that oft-trodden path, one first pioneered in medieval Christian writings. The novel provides no new reading of Aisha’s life, but actually expands upon provocative themes regarding Muhammad’s wives first found in an earlier novel by Salman Rushdie, “The Satanic Verses,” which I teach. 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.
The combination of sex and violence sells novels. When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about Aisha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales. 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.
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. I’m more than happy to have Spellberg not recommending my reading list, however.
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.
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.
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.”
There’s a lot of Islamophobia out there, and I think we’re seeing yet another manifestation of it.
Suzanne:
A whole host of reasons, and bless ‘em all (saith the atheist secular humanist) for doing it; the bedrock reason lies in the fact that they’re not treading on ground that’s sacred for them—or if they are, they’re doing it for a very specific purpose, ranging from shock value to an attempt to re-examine their faith. Depending on on what flavor of religion one follows, any number of things could be horribly offensive, from abortion to sexual practices to evolution to the eating of various types of forbidden food to the nature of God (especially anything that questions ominbenevolence) to questioning the literal interpretation of events as presented in [insert holy book of choice here]. Some authors offend deliberately, others slaughter the holy cows because they just didn’t know they were holy and saw them solely as fodder for storytelling.
Not all of these books are great, but some of them are, and my leaning, when it comes to books, painted in broad strokes, is “throw it out there and see what sticks.” (Limitations re: defamation and incitement to violence apply.)
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?
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 …)
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.
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.
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:
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:
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 violenceâ€?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.