11 Comments

Oriana is a most remarkable person and writer. That her reasoned,intense righteousness (in the word’s true sense) has failed to inspire more broadly is another sign of the grave danger of these times. I shall mourn her with you.

Roger,
Many thanks. Reading your comments reminded me that I have been anticipatorily mourning Fallaci’s death—and grateful that she has held off the cancer long enough to make her voice heard around the world.

Roger,

Ms. Fallaci of course is under indictment (Prophet of Decline) in her own country for uttering these inconvenient truths.

We must not insult that brand of “religion” whose chief aim is to kill us.

Jamie Irons

Only a substandard rag like the New Yorker has become since at least Tina Brown’s reign of error could come up with a howler like equating the exclusion of religion in public schools with leading to the complete assimilation of the ROPers. The trouble is that you can picture the hubris-drenched subscribers accepting it uncritically. That’s the ticket: One of the biggest failures of our nation is our biggest hope for the future.

Oriana should never have consented to being interviewed by this dimwit.

I read the article and enjoyed it.

The charismatic power and courage of Oriana Fallaci and her opinions comes through despite Talbot’s misgivings.

Give Talbot a break, she is New York; rubbing shoulders and eyeballs at the watercooler with Seymour Hersh and Rik Hertzberg can get dicey if you don’t show a little liberal skirt.

“The charismatic power and courage of Oriana Fallaci and her opinions comes through despite Talbot’s misgivings.”

I agree.

I would also add that The New Yorker editor has complained on NPR no less (It was either on ON Point, or on Radio Open Source) that it was hard to get people (by which term he probably meant liberals) to take the Islamic threat seriously.

This is a funny post. I happened to read the article a couple of days ago. Talbot painted a very interesting portrait of an EXTREMELY interesting woman. (The account of her interview with Khomeini was priceless.) And she let that Fallaci speak A LOT throughout the article. Talbot’s claim that she found Fallaci’s definition of ‘mainstream’ Islam, and her assessment of the threat that it poses to Europe, to be unconvincing was at the end of the profile, and stated with almost no elaboration. That is to say, it was largely tangential to main point of the article, which was to paint a largely positive profile of an amazing character. An article that made me, a liberal with absolutely no idea of Fallaci’s background and history, and only the vaguest notion of her temperament, want to read one of her books.

“Horsefeather’s” post, on the other hand, is pathetic. Talbot’s claims in her article that the phenomenon of European Muslims insisting on Islamic religious education for their children in public schools shows the wisdom of America’s separation of religious instruction and public education. What is so “witless” about that?

Markus:

At the end of your comment you make a point about witlessness. Are you saying Horsefeathers says that about our public school separation of religion and education? I recall Talbott making that point in her article.

I have not read the Horsefeathers’ article since reading Talbot’s article was enough for me. I am more interested in Fallaci, the person.

The broader issue: her courageous approach to journalism in the face of the denunciations from the Islamic world and the soft underbelly of European moderation.

Contrast her journalistic life [shot three times in Mexico] to America’s recent media fixation on Katie Couric and Couric’s comments the other day about her “humanistic, more accessible” approach to her new job as anchor. It makes me want to reach for the barf bag.

I’ve been reading your blog daily for many months, Roger, and this is the first time I’ve felt that you’ve gotten something seriously wrong. I agree with jedrury that Talbot was much more appreciative and respectful of Fallaci than you seem to think. There was some ironic distance, but a lot of warmth came through. I don’t think it was just a matter of showing some liberal skirt — though that was probably a factor. It was also a matter of taking account of Falacci’s almost self-parodying over-the-topness, which I think Talbot did without falling into the error of undermining her (Fallaci’s) essential seriousness. I thought it was a good example of what is sometimes called “writerly tact.”
I wonder if too much exposure to the enraged ranting of the left blogosphere has thrown off your ear for tone.
But I continue to love your blog!

I haven’t read the interview, but regarding the magazine in general: you say “Oriana is everything today’s New Yorker isn’t – determined, passionate, moral.” Seems to me that for this magazine–and the class of people it represents–the supreme virtue is “coolness”…and coolness is certainly not compatible with passion.

jedrury –

“Markus: At the end of your comment you make a point about witlessness. Are you saying Horsefeathers says that about our public school separation of religion and education?”

Yes, here is what Horsefeather said:

“When Talbot is on the verge of grasping a point Fallaci makes about the dangers of Islam being taught to young school children, she witlessly interjects: ‘This is a good reminder of why the American model of keeping religious instruction out of public schools facilitates assimilation.’”