Historical Fiction is Fine, but Not about Mohamed?
So, this lady, Sherry Jones, wrote a “racy historical novel” about the prophet Mohamed’s wife Aisha. In this novel she had the AUDACITY to include a fictionalized version of the consummation of their marriage that an American academic, Denise Spellberg, of the University of Texas in Auburn found offensive. According to Ms. Spellberg, you just can’t DO this:
“”I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.”
Oh really?
I have a problem with someone telling me what you can, and can’t write. In America, in particular, I have a problem with that. I wonder what Ms. Spellberg would think of my fairly well received novel “This is My Blood,” because *I* certainly did that horrible thing she is upset about - I fictionalized the first sex scene in man’s history, as well as having Mary Magdalene get cozy with Lilith. No problem with that, but mess with Mohammed now…and you have a REAL problem on your hands.
I’m not really as upset with Ms. Spellberg (disappointed in her, as an academic) as I am with Random House. this is a pathetic stance for a publisher to take - particularly considering the liberties authors like Anne Rice have taken with Christian icons over recent years without penalty.
This is a pretty serious blow to freedom of speech, and censorship in it’s rankest form. When you get something like this past the folks in charge, it is only the first step up the sacrificial pyramid to losing your right to free speech, and your right to artistic expression.
And this time it wasn’t even a Muslim radical who shot our freedom in the heart - it was an American.
I don’t know a thing about the book The Jewel of Medina. I don’t know if it’s good, bad, or indifferent, but I know it now needs to be published. If it’s not historically accurate, or isn’t as sensitive to a particular religious faith as it might be - so what? You can find dozens of books with some damned racy bits and pieces (like my own) involving every faith on the planet…it’s America. If there are readers offended by the book, don’t buy it…but if you start trying to say it can’t be published because it offends you, get out of the way of the giant snowball you have pushed off the cliff, because pretty soon you’ll be offending someone too, and find yourself censored in turn.
Read more about this controversy: HERE
Freedom isn’t always pretty. Freedom of speech means for EVERYONE and you have to take the good with the bad.
End of rant…return to your regularly scheduled surfing…
DNW
08/8/08, 9:33 PM |
What Random House has done is proven that terrorism is a viable means for pissants to get what they want. I mean, I understand the rationale — you write something that offends some islamist pig, and he’s liable to come after you with a big load of bad intent. Not many reasonable people are really looking to deal with that. “But it’s just a few extremists.” Yeah, right. That wasn’t just a few extremists that went batshit over the cartoons about Mohammad. Or that gave birth to squealing warthogs over a teddy bear named Mohammad.
The decision has nothing to do with respect for religion. They’d not hesitate to roast Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Taoists or Zoroastrians in the books they publish; they know it’s perfectly safe to do so, and they’d probably argue to the death their right to do it. But mess with Islam, and suddenly it’s about respect.
Of all of the above, it’s the one least worthy of respect.
08/9/08, 7:20 AM |
There’s no doubt you are right…and good or bad, this lady doesn’t deserve this sort of treatment…particularly since the initiating comments came from some US Texas educator, not a Muslim radical..and just got picked up by a bunch of Yahoos who have not read it…
D