Holy Censorship, Batman.

Tish Davidson said:

Could this be a clever marketing ploy by Random House? They say they are withdrawing the book immediately before publication, stir up intense interest in it with tons of free publicity, then decide to reconsider, publish it, and it sells wildly? Or am I being too cynical? Guess we'll know if they decide to reconsider and publish.

Ack. This is right up there in terms of intimidation of free expression with the animal rights activists who firebombed a UC Santa Cruz researcher's house this past weekend because he uses mice in his vision research.

Click to expand...

This sounds like the time MTV was promoting the world premiere of Madonna's video for Justify My Love but suddenly announced about a week before they weren't going to show it. Within two weeks, the video was released for home viewing and achieved gold status. Madonna was silent on the whole matter, except for the giggle fits during trips to the bank.

But, yeah, a spade's a spade's a spade. Buncha lily-livered cowards.

Yeah, saw this earlier. The sad part was not their decision. The sad part was that it didn't surprise me.

Although the writer will probably live in fear for a while, she's going to make boatloads of money off this. Come on, you can't have something like this happen and then not publish the book. Someone's going to pick it up...

Sassee said:

Yeah, saw this earlier. The sad part was not their decision. The sad part was that it didn't surprise me.

Click to expand...

The decision is sad (imo) or maybe absurd. That I'm not surprised is also sad.

SPMiller said:

Although the writer will probably live in fear for a while, she's going to make boatloads of money off this. Come on, you can't have something like this happen and then not publish the book. Someone's going to pick it up...

Click to expand...

The funny part is, that more people have heard of the book now, before it's even out, than they would have, had they just published it without complaint.

Imagine what would happen if the American people were allowed to read the book and make judgments for themselves.

Clearly, we are not to be trusted with such power.

kct webber said:

The funny part is, that more people have heard of the book now, before it's even out, than they would have, had they just published it without complaint.

Click to expand...

Yep. The sad part is the publicity and controversy will probably put the author in a lot more danger (a la Rushdie) than if they had just published it.

I read about this morning when I was checking out the news. To me, it seems that publishing as a business has gotten so afraid risking the bottom line that they don't want anything that might be remotely controversial or offensive to anyone. Thing is, literature isn't supposed to be free of offense. It’s supposed to, in different measures, reach out and touch your soul, reveal new truths to you, and shake the foundations of your beliefs in order to make you look at the world anew.

Just as dangerous a precedent being set, I think, is that we're all being told that we can't use people from history if there's a whiff of controversy about it. That concerns me on a number of levels.

I notice England's managed to not lose their heads over "The Other Boleyn Girl" and "The Tudors", though...

JeanneTGC said:

Just as dangerous a precedent being set, I think, is that we're all being told that we can't use people from history if there's a whiff of controversy about it. That concerns me on a number of levels.

I notice England's managed to not lose their heads over "The Other Boleyn Girl" and "The Tudors", though...

Click to expand...

That's not what's being said at all.

There's a world of difference between using a historical personage in a book, and using the Prophet (depictions of whom are expressly forbidden by the Koran).

Again, I don't agree with the decision, and I don't agree with what contributed to it, and I'm opposed to fundamentalism of all stripes, but there's a lot more to it than "a whiff of controversy" about using "people from history".

willietheshakes said:

That's not what's being said at all.

There's a world of difference between using a historical personage in a book, and using the Prophet (depictions of whom are expressly forbidden by the Koran).

Again, I don't agree with the decision, and I don't agree with what contributed to it, and I'm opposed to fundamentalism of all stripes, but there's a lot more to it than "a whiff of controversy" about using "people from history".

Click to expand...

And there you and I don't agree. In my worldview, all are open to comment and question, critique and, yes, even ridicule. Including one particular religion's -- ANY particular religion's -- leader.

As an example -- "The Last Temptation of Christ". I think the subject of the film was Christianity's biggest prophet and messiah. And while there was a lot of controversy and protests and such -- since a great number of people did not want that prophet disparaged in any way -- that movie was NOT pulled.

So, again, to me, we're still talking about a "person from history". And I'm still concerned about the precedent should there be a "whiff of controversy". Because the more times any large media outfit buckles like this, the less freedom of speech and freedom of idea we have, worldwide.

JeanneTGC said:

And there you and I don't agree. In my worldview, all are open to comment and question, critique and, yes, even ridicule. Including one particular religion's -- ANY particular religion's -- leader.

As an example -- "The Last Temptation of Christ". I think the subject of the film was Christianity's biggest prophet and messiah. And while there was a lot of controversy and protests and such -- since a great number of people did not want that prophet disparaged in any way -- that movie was NOT pulled.

So, again, to me, we're still talking about a "person from history". And I'm still concerned about the precedent should there be a "whiff of controversy". Because the more times any large media outfit buckles like this, the less freedom of speech and freedom of idea we have, worldwide.

Click to expand...

You know, I agree with all of this. In principle.

In a society of debate and ideas, people should be free to express their opinions, to raise whatever issues they would like to raise, to protest or defend themselves against protest.

The difficulty comes in trying to apply those ideas and ideals to a culture or religion which is fundamentally, religiously opposed to them.

The example of The Last Temptation doesn't really correlate -- there is no specific prohibition in Christianity against the depiction of Christ, as there are in Islam.

Moving away from the theoretical and idealistic, however, one is still left with the reality of the situation: during Rushdie's fatwah, innocent people in the employ of the publisher were attacked. Some were killed. And look what happened with the cartoon depictions of the Prophet a few years ago -- rioting and violence in the streets.

It would be nice if our western rationality and openness to debate extended around the world. The reality, however, is that it does not. And it is that reality that a publisher has to reckon with.

Soccer Mom said:

Two points: First, that is a generalization. There are branches of Christianity which consider depictions of Christ as the making of graven idols and it was a large schism in the early church.

Second, we are talking about a book being published in the US. If we allow other countries to tell us what can be said in our own country under threat of violence, that is the saddest commentary of all.

Click to expand...

Exactly! It's bowing to censorship, no matter how holy those asking for said censorship may feel their request is.

Freedom of speech is something Americans are allowed. A great many other countries are, as well. If Random House didn't want to publish or provide copies for Muslim-majority countries, I could understand that. But to not publish AT ALL because there is the potential for controversy is the truly frightening thing.

As Willie points out, there are ramifications to consider. But as Lily also points out, why did no one consider them up until 6 days prior to publication?

The possible threat of mass violence and death to family members is powerful. If they pulled it this close to publication, you can bet they were already getting some backlash from the Muslim community or it never would have gotten as far to press as it did.

I don't believe all censorship is bad. We need censorship to some extent or we'll live in worse chaos than we have now, due in part to political correctness and lack of censorship.

Think about it. People on AW scream that certain posts are offensive and they're edited. But, when it comes to the complainer's posts that others are offended by, they then scream for their "freedom of speech." The fact is, none of us has the "right" to say anything and everything and express ourselves however we see fitl.

I don't agree with the Muslim faith or in the extreme violent behavior in which they approach issues, but, from the excerpts I've been able to find from The Jewel of Medina, this novel does cross the line. Personally, I hope the book never gets published. (How's that for freedom of speech?)

Soccer Mom said:

Here is the author's blog discussing what happened.

http://sherryjones.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Here's Wikipedia's version. Wikipedia: The Jewel of Medina

JeanneTGC said:

But as Lily also points out, why did no one consider them up until 6 days prior to publication?

Click to expand...

Don't think they didn't think about it. One sure thing about publishing is that controversy sells - and I guarantee that's what they were banking on. Why do you think the "God is Not Great" book was published?

CBumpkin said:

I don't believe all censorship is bad. We need censorship to some extent or we'll live in worse chaos than we have now, due in part to political correctness and lack of censorship.

Most political correctness is censorship. In a free society, you do not have the innate right to be 'not offended'.

Think about it. People on AW scream that certain posts are offensive and they're edited. But, when it comes to the complainer's posts that others are offended by, they then scream for their "freedom of speech." The fact is, none of us has the "right" to say anything and everything and express ourselves however we see fitl.

AW is a privately owned forum. The moderators are tasked by the owners to keep the peace. The public is not privately owned. And, in fact, ALL of us have the right to say anything and everything and express ourselves as we see fit in the public forum, such as literature, short of yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I don't agree with the Muslim faith or in the extreme violent behavior in which they approach issues, but, from the excerpts I've been able to find from The Jewel of Medina, this novel does cross the line. Personally, I hope the book never gets published. (How's that for freedom of speech?)

Click to expand...

I disagree with just about every word you've said here. Whether the book crosses the line or not, no one has a right to tell me that I can't read it. No one has a right to tell me I can't cross their line. If it crosses someone's line, they can not read the book.

Soccer Mom said:

I'm curious what you think crosses the line. I've only read a four sentence excerpt. What specifically in this novel do you think crosses a line?

Click to expand...

Good question, Soccer Mom. I'd be interested in your response to this as well, C. Bumpkin. This is a historical romance, written according the specifications of the genre. Are there more excerpts posted somewhere? If so, I'd like to see some links to them so that I can judge for myself.

smoothseas said:

I copy and pasted the entire article from Publisher's Lunch that came in this morning's email...





The column attributes the beginning of the protests to associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin Denise Spellberg, who says "You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

Click to expand...

Yes you can. It's called freedom of speech.

And when this thing actually gets published, I'm buying a copy as well. Then I'm going to read it, and then I'm to write this "professor" and thank her for publicizing the book, because otherwise I might never have heard of it, and for pissing me off enough with her idiotic comment that I actually bought it.

I do hope it's more readable than The Satanic Verses, though.