"Sal Bass" weighs in
About a week ago, Jeff cited an incident in which the Random House publishing decided not to publish a book about one of the wives of the Prophet Muhammed, fearing "another Satanic Verses". The Satanic Verses, of course, was Salman Rushdie's 1988 book that was so rife with blasphemy that even the man who once sang Peace Train was calling for Rushdie's head.
Random House's decision to pull the new book spawned a little mini-discussion over on Jeff's blog about the responsibilities of publishers. And now Rushdie himself has spoken. Not surprisingly, he disagrees with Random House (and agrees with me); he thinks the book should be published. I particularly like his point about "censorship by fear", which was my point all along.
Not much to say, but thought that was interesting when I saw it in light of previous discussions.
Hats off to anyone who gets the reference in the post title.
"There's nothing ever wrong
But nothing's ever right
Such a cruel contradiction"
- Shinedown, Burning Bright
Random House's decision to pull the new book spawned a little mini-discussion over on Jeff's blog about the responsibilities of publishers. And now Rushdie himself has spoken. Not surprisingly, he disagrees with Random House (and agrees with me); he thinks the book should be published. I particularly like his point about "censorship by fear", which was my point all along.
Not much to say, but thought that was interesting when I saw it in light of previous discussions.
Hats off to anyone who gets the reference in the post title.
"There's nothing ever wrong
But nothing's ever right
Such a cruel contradiction"
- Shinedown, Burning Bright
4 Comments:
That'd be a Seinfield reference, right?
Yes, but are they real?
In fairness, Cat never actually called for Rushdie's head. In his view, he explained what the Koranic punishment for blasphemy was (same as the Biblical one - death) and said that in an Islamic state, Rushdie would have to be put to death. Which is true. And yes, Stevens was rather angry with Rushdie's perceived blasphemy... but I don't see his reaction as being any more out of line than those of the conservative Christians who objected to The Last Temptation of Christ or Dogma. Which isn't to say that Stevens' remarks weren't moronic... just not particularly homicidal.
Of course, this is all in retrospect, and Stevens has mellowed out a lot since the late '80s. Your interpretation may vary. Here's the wikipedia page - it's pretty even-handed.
That having been said, I still don't see what was blasphemous about The Satanic Verses.
All of these facts I'm aware of. It doesn't change the fact that my way of phrasing it was far funnier.
Post a Comment
<< Home