Although it has for some time been a division of German media giant Bertelsmann, Random House has been one of the distinguished names in American publishing since the halcyon days of Bennett Cerf. So it is particularly repugnant to see the company knuckling under to essentially the same reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-free speech forces that repressed the Danish cartoons. As we learned in the Wall Street Journal today, the company has decided not to publish Sherry Jones’ historical novel “The Jewel of Medina” about Mohammed’s child bride Aisha. The book was part of a $100,000 two-book contract with the author.
Shame on Random House! This act of abject cowardice and de facto censorship is one of the most disgraceful incidents I can think of in the history of American publishing. As Asra Q. Nomani writes in the WSJ: Random House feared the book would become a new “Satanic Verses,” the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book’s Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones’s novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it “disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now.” He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.”
The “credible” source was one Denise Spellberg, a University of Texas academic who, on receipt of Jones’ galleys, started tattling like a six-year old to Muslims Spellberg felt would be angry with the work. Perry and his cronies simply caved in. That the publishers reference the “Satanic Verses” in their defence is yet more despicable. In the early 1990s, when I was president of West Coast Branch of PEN, we did everything in our power to defend Rushdie against the attempts to suppress his freedom of speech. Random House does nothing for its own authors. The natural conclusion of their behavior in this instance is that nothing critical of Islam could ever be written.
PEN and the Authors’ Guild should launch an investigation into this situation and if the allegations are true, should urge a boycott of Random House until it changes its policy. If I were Jones, I would sue the publishing house for all they’re worth.
[Full disclosure: I had three novels published by a division of Random House in the 1980s - Villard Books. At that point, I was very satisfied with the publisher and could not imagine them rejecting a manuscript for the reasons they are now. It's a different world.]
UPDATE: Some commenters have pointed out that Random House’s behavior is not strictly speaking censorship because the company is not an organ of the state. They are correct. But I submit that that a publishing house the size of Random House has a certain level of public trust. And I would imagine they would agree. One of the key measures of public trust in the United States is the protection of free speech. Yes, as one commenter stated, this is cowardice but not censorship, but it is a form of cowardice with immense social ramifications about which we should all be concerned.
PJM Home
55 Comments
1. dougf:A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in “The West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party and of course in the United Nations. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society. Of course there are many courageous individuals but they have no determining influence on public life.”
No need to credit the source of this observation, I assume. He would not be and I am not at all surprised or even disillusioned at this weaselly ‘business’ decision.
The West and its cultural institutions are in probably terminal decline. I’ve always thought that Rome was the applicable historical template, and I see nothing lately that would cause me to rethink my attitude. There will be future periods of seeming ‘revival’, but in the end nothing can halt or even really address the internal decay.
Pity. But someone somewhere always has to on the Titanic. The only question is the length of the particular voyage.
Aug 6, 2008 - 10:39 pm 2. Barry Dauphin:If true, I wonder how Spellberg would react to folks treating her the way she is described behaving. If free speech advocates started a campaign to protest her behavior, recruited people to communicate with the academic journals she publishes in, encouraging them to boycott this anti academic-freedom academic, what could she possibly say? We all know she’d scream bloody murder unaware of the rank hypocrisy. The evidence indicates that such behavior is not undertaken in pursuit of ideals. It is a power play, pain and simple. But I’m sure that such a person could not handle what she dishes out. We’d hear victimology 101 or she’d fold like a house of cards.
BTW in the article she describes herself as walking through a metal detector to see the Last Temptation of Christ. She trots that out unselfconsciously as a way to show how “tolerant” she is of fantasy lit of prominent religious figures and how she’d bravely face religious wackos. But she gets apoplectic because the book she yearns to ban describes one of the Prophet’s wives’ experience of intercourse with him. She couldn’t have made herself look more foolish if she had tried.
Aug 6, 2008 - 11:23 pm 3. Lightnin' Hopkins:Afraid of words. This is what it’s come to.
Roger aptly mentions Salman Rushdie’s Japanese translator. I would like to remind everyone of Theo Van Gogh and his barbaric killing that failed to even vaguely pique the interest of Hollywood, let alone inspire the outrage it deserved. They really take the naming names thing pretty seriously, because I don’t recall Holly Hunter or Ed Harris (both of whom I admire as actors) sitting on their hands at the Oscars and looking pissed off about the recounting of Van Gogh’s cold-blooded murder, or likewise the crowd clapping vigorously when his portrait appeared during the In Memorium reel. That’s because it was never shown. A *filmmaker* is murdered over *art* and the gutless scolds who wag their fingers at my driving habits or whatever-the-hell-ever-it-is-this-week pretend that it never happened. Out of simple, stupid fear. Willful blindness, defined.
I revisit all of this to point out that it’s not just movies, music, or cartoons. It’s not just veils, footbaths, bacon, or the TV news we’re talking about here. These are *books* - literature, the printed word - who we are, what we think, what we want to remember, what we’d like to forget, that we might *be* remembered. Whether it’s Random House, or a movie studio, or a newspaper - name the cowering entity - it’s selling out the West, it’s slow-motion suicide.
So-called multiculturalism is the motherf#@&ing devil. Pass it on.
Aug 6, 2008 - 11:50 pm 4. Lightnin' Hopkins:I apologize for the borderline(?) vulgarity. Let’s not lose our heads here.
Aug 7, 2008 - 12:30 am 5. Jonathan Burack:I’ll be sending this all over and to Denise Spellberg and Random House as well:
I am of course outraged at Random’s cowardice and completely sympathetic to Ms. Jones’ plight. I do have to wonder at her own understanding of what exactly she was doing, given that she apparently thought Denise Spellberg would be supportive, or at least minimally decent as a critic and simply contact Random with any doubts. Jones seems to have been surprised about the vicious gossip-based threat system that Spellberg activated against her. Sherry Jones seems a sensible and imaginative enough person and writer. How could she so misjudge the irrationality of the radical Islamist fever swamps, the extent of its self-loathing fellow-traveling haters of the West in academia and the media, of which Denise Spellerg is one, or the bureaucratic-editor cowards of a money-making operation like Random? I wish her luck in finding another publisher, one less beholden to the thought police. She might give some thought to this, however. Perhaps Muhammad’s marriage and sexual relations with a nine-year old girl are something a bit too morally dubious for even Muslims themselves today to face calmly and thoughtfully, even when they are portrayed favorably or at least honestly. In no way am I saying do not tell the story, fictionally or otherwise. Just be ready for the waterfall to roar.
Jonathan Burack
Aug 7, 2008 - 4:30 am 6. hot type:why are you surprised Roger? Publishers are today just sales directors, inept ones at that. Books aren’t about ideas, they’re just ads designed for the ADD generation. Ethics, morals? fuggedaboudit. The only thing that matters is money.
Aug 7, 2008 - 5:14 am 7. srlucado:The author should have publicized the book as being about George W. Bush having an underage mistress. Instead of being spiked, she would be the darling of every talk show in the country. (She’d probably get a permanent co-host job on The View.)
As it is, we now have suppression in the name of tolerance, extortion in the name of diversity, and hatred in the name of respect.
“…the publication of this book might be offensive to some…” has never been a defense against anti-Western (and especially anti-Christian) books. As for inciting violence…well, how is smothering free expression a way of discouraging violence? Now these morons and their ilk are *encouraged* to feel “incited” at every perceived sleight.
Well, what if a group of free-speech extremists made credible threats of violence if the book does *not* get published? What sort of moral bind would Random House be in then?
I’m certainly not suggesting violence, but I am outraged that Random House is caving so easily. What’s their next step - give a “diversity [read: Muslim] committee” veto power over every manuscript?
“Dark Ages II: Revenge of the Ignorant”, coming soon to a country near you.
Scott
Aug 7, 2008 - 6:23 am 8. James Felix:“Next step”? Seems to me that’s what they did THIS time.
Aug 7, 2008 - 6:54 am 9. RE:Such cowardice has become a factor in my purchasing decisions. Will it make a difference? No. I harbor no illusions about that. But I do draw some peace of mind from knowing I’m not supporting and enabling such pathetic behavior.
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:09 am 10. Eric Blair:The book should never have been bought by RH in the first place. C’mon, a romance novel about one of Muhammed’s wives? Really? Would anybody reading this have actually read the thing? Somehow I think not.
I suppose that doesn’t excuse RH not publishing it for PC reasons, but the book would have been a real stinker anyway.
You know, like Pelosi’s book is.
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:10 am 11. Len Frankel:This is the way our world ends; not with a bang but with wimps.
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:12 am 12. Shame on Random House « Buttle’s World:[...] under: Posts — buttle @ 6:14 A gentle puff of wind from the general direction of Islam and Random House buckled. This kind of pre-emptive caving is despicable and cowardly. As we learned in the Wall Street [...]
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:14 am 13. Charlie (Colorado):Eric, honey, historical bodice-rippers sell like freakin’ hotcakes.
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:21 am 14. Daily Pundit » It Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum, You Know:[...] Roger L. Simon » Shades of the Danish Cartoons: Random House in disgrace Random House feared the book would become a new “Satanic Verses,” the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book’s Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones’s novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it “disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now.” He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received “from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” [...]
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:23 am 15. George (Colorado):There is no question that the book would not have been a runaway best-seller like Nancy’s Pelosi’s.
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:30 am 16. ZEITGEIST:[...] ROGER SIMON: Random House in Disgrace. [...]
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:36 am 17. Squid:As many others have remarked, this just adds further incentive for fundamentalists of other stripes to resort to violence in order to assure that nobody disrespects their beliefs. Rewarding bad behavior leads to nothing but more bad behavior, and it’s only a matter of time before this sort of thing spreads.
Now, who’d like to invest in my torch-and-pitchfork factory?
Aug 7, 2008 - 7:47 am 18. searick:The only thing that matters is money.
Oh, how I wish that were true (especially here in Hollywood); that would be a much cleaner truth than the actual one, which is that the Left has snipped the West’s ‘nads off.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:02 am 19. Terry:Okay, $100,000.00 on a two book deal, meaning $50,000.00 a book.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:17 am 20. willis:Relatively speaking, not much.
Let’s get up a collection, offer 30k or 40k tops for it and publish it ourselves.
Pajama media now a book publisher too. With all the pre-publishing publicity and if it is a good as they say, the book will be a best seller ten times over.
What do you think gang?
Your conclusion that Random House’s refusal to publish the book is an example of the decline in courage by the West may not be on point. Your assumption is that institutions such as Random House prefer freedom and democracy, but are too timid to support them, may not be correct. I think there is a strong likelihood that they prefer the anti-Western values of the Islamic mob (and any other anti-Western values mob) and are acting accordingly. There is no question that this is true of our academia as witnessed by the behaviour of Ms. Spellberg.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:33 am 21. htom:Am I the only one who thinks that this is a publicity stunt? After a loud noise is made, RH “relents” and publishes, having intended to do so all along, now with the benefit of having gathered a bunch of free publicity.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:40 am 22. RedneckJD:Random House can publish whatever it wants it wants to. Random House can decide to pull a book from the market, if it so decides, for whatever reason. Of course, the question always arises “Should it.” If Random House were to publish a book on Jesus having a child, they are allowed to do so. (Wait, someone did.) But did any set of Christians threaten violence against Dan Brown or his publisher? No. Were some Christians upset over the book? Yes. Random House, along with the rest of the US, needs to show some backbone. We need to start to telling the Islamo-Facist, NO. No foot baths. No head scarves in school. No honor killings. NO NO NO. Go back to your repressive home country and enjoy shiria law there. If Christians cannot pray in public schools, then you can wash your damn feet at home. And if a book offends you, boycott it, but leave the author and publisher alone.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:41 am 23. buddy larsen:Re Lightnin’ Hopkins’ “afraid of words” post, i was lucky enough to catch a Fox segment where Neil Cavuto in interviewing Fox ace reporter James Rosen. Rosen has a book (out now or soon to be), “The Strong Man” about — ready?– Nixon Att’y Gen’l John Mitchell. The highest public official ever to go to prison. I sat there listening to astounding revelations about the fundamental mistakes in the public narrative called “Watergate”, coming from this pretty much universally trusted & respected professional newsman, and when the interview ended and Rosen was asked why he’d written it, he said something like, “Well, I’ve been working on it for seventeen years. I wanted to write the book that tells the true story, not another book selling a political position. What I want is, a hundred years from now when someone wants to understand this part of history, they will choose my book over anything that Woodward and company have produced.”
Well, i guess that’s what books do — they’ll be the record, regardless. The James Rosens of the industry are mighty few and far between. I hope his book sells. i’m gonna buy several.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:43 am 24. Gertrude:I am genuinely surprised to find Spellberg behind something like this, inasmuch as her own (in my opinion very good) book could conceivably ruffle a few feathers as well. You can see my review here; I found a much more detailed review of it here Googling around just now. Spellberg’s book, as I wrote, showed “how interpretation of Islamic texts has been contingent on changing social and political contexts” with reference to the treatment of Aisha in Islamic sources. In its own way it is far more seriously challenging to fundamentalist Islamic beliefs than a sex scene in a novel; presumably no Muslim challenges the notion that Aisha and Muhammad did in fact have sex, after all, but literal vs. historicized readings of Islamic sources define many fault lines among competing interpretations of Islam.
I wonder if there’s something more to the story here. I personally can imagine being repulsed by such a description given Aisha’s age at the time of her marriage to Muhammad. There is some controversy about exactly how old Aisha was at the time of the marriage, it is somewhere between 9 at the youngest in the traditional version of the story, and 13 or 14 at the oldest according to some recent critics, but even with a 14-year-old a detailed sex scene with a man in his 40s would be pretty disturbing to read. Obviously it’s a sensitive subject, and perhaps Spellberg thought something about the style or level of description might expose Muslims to contempt for no very good reason. It’s hard to say since we only have the short excerpt to go by.
However even in that case, if it were me I would be more inclined to send along a note to the author asking her to reconsider rather than shopping it around to potential protestors. Being concerned that a publication might have unexpected consequences for someone is one thing, doing what you can to set those potential consequences in motion is quite another, and very disappointing behavior in a scholar who ought to be on the side of free expression for EVERYONE.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:44 am 25. submandave:Seems like I remembered quite a few Catholics being offended by The DaVinci Code, but since they just protest and write letters instead of stabbing people to death in broad daylight I can understand why their opinions don’t count as much. Like the Blogfather says, bad behavior rewarded will be repeated, and I don’t look forward to the day when fringe extremists of other creeds (e.g. environmentalists, animal rights activists, etc.) learn from this example of how to get what they want.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:45 am 26. Ruthie:I read about this yesterday and started my own little boycott campaign against Random House. I wrote an email and sent it to every division of Random House that I could find. I have already started writing letters to some of my favorite authors that are published by RH. I have blogged about this and comment on it whenever I find a story about it. I despise cowardice and that’s all this is about….. a bunch of cowards. They talk about “fear”, well let’s see how much they fear consumers. If this story bothers you, please email them and let them know you are taking a stand.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:50 am 27. Joanna:In Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451,” Beatty, the fire chief, explains to Guy Montag that book burning grew out of an unwillingness to publish anything that might be offensive. The powers-that-be decided it was best for everyone if popular culture stuck to harmless pablum instead of anything that might actually stir up discussion or disagreement. Bradbury’s point was directed at television and its ilk, but it holds up today in this sort of situation.
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:59 am 28. buddy larsen:submandave, last Saturday (snip from link) “…animal rights activists planted firebombs that struck the home and car of two science researchers at UC Santa Cruz last weekend.
The explosions happened about three minutes apart. One of the scientists, his wife and two young children were forced to flee their home through a second-story window. It was a miracle that no one was injured or killed.”
Aug 7, 2008 - 9:03 am 29. IWood:This is not censorship, de facto or otherwise. Random House is a private company. They can publish or refuse to publish whatever they choose.
Is it cowardice? Absolutely. But Random House is entirely within its rights to behave in a cowardly fashion. I guarantee you that Sherry Jones will find another publisher
Attributing censorship to private corporations and individuals dilutes the meaning of the term. This wasn’t a government dictat. It was the act of a private entity run by moral weaklings.
Aug 7, 2008 - 9:27 am 30. Tony:Now, now gentle people. Let’s use this as a learning opportunity and reflect on a simple question: “What did we do to make them so mad at us?” This is what all reasonable people did after 9/11, right? Well, then Random House is just doing the right thing and not making them mad at us.
Aug 7, 2008 - 10:07 am 31. renagle:Yes, but remember, we can still publish books about killing our own president.
Aug 7, 2008 - 10:14 am 32. Choey:>>that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community…
If it might be offensive to some in the Catholic community would the response have been the same?
Didn’t think so.
Aug 7, 2008 - 10:21 am 33. Annabel:Looks like us Catholics are going to have to start lopping off some heads if we expect to get any respect.
Gertrude, according to the author of the novel, it doesn’t even have any sex scenes, beyond the tame couple of lines printed in the WSJ editorial. It’s also includes a bibliography (with Spellberg’s book as one of the historical sources).
Aug 7, 2008 - 10:30 am 34. W::Time for another “brave” and “courageous” “speaking truth to power” book attacking Joe McCarthy or George Bush.
Aug 7, 2008 - 11:27 am 35. tim maguire:Roger, IWood is wrong and you need not include the update. He is confusing two seperate ideas that are often confused, but shouldn’t be. Only a government can violate your first amendment right to free speech; however, there is nothing in the definition or common usage of censorship that requires a “government diktat.”
Aug 7, 2008 - 12:19 pm 36. Captain Hate:Eh, I kind of agree with IWood although there’s no need to split hairs over this. RH has lost any perceived “high ground” to lend their voice to any future censorship issues, such as when Chris Ofili was waterboarded and had panties put on his head by Rudy Giuliani, the image of which is seared, seared in my memory.
Aug 7, 2008 - 12:32 pm 37. Phil O.:Is Random House or other publishers really to blame when they fear that their buildings could be bombed and their employees murdered?
The *real* problem is that the U.S. government has been playing around with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the other state supporters of terrorism, rather than destroying those governments on 9/12/01. That isn’t a job for Random House, it’s a job for as many thermonuclear weapons as it takes to get the job done.
Aug 7, 2008 - 12:46 pm 38. Director:Look, devices and services like Amazon’s Kindle are marginalizing publishing houses. The author could, without any aid from Random House, put the book on Amazon for download and keep all of the profits herself.
I hope she does.
Aug 7, 2008 - 12:53 pm 39. Happy4LA:Let’s not forget Hollywood director, Moustapha Akkad, who criticized Hollywood for making films showing the awful, Arab stereotypes of being violent. Sadly, he was a victim and killed in a suicide bomb attack in Jordan. No one likes negative stereotypes, but you can’t “censor” by threats of violence negative aspects of your society. Sticking your head in the sand does not make these problems go away. I wonder what Moustapha would think now? Would he allow a film to be made about his death or would that be another stereotype?
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:01 pm 40. Blenheim:Gertrude:
“Obviously it’s a sensitive subject, and perhaps Spellberg thought something about the style or level of description might expose Muslims to contempt for no very good reason.”
I think you’re right (except for the part where you opine that the contempt would be unwarranted). I doubt that RH is really concerned that MUSLIMS will be offended (child marriage being wildy popular in the Muslim world); rather, I think RH is afraid of calling attention to something that educated Muslims and Islamist apologists would rather not discuss.
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:17 pm 41. BRH:Obviously people need to threaten Random House with violence if the book *isn’t* published.
Do they really want to send the message that the only thing that trumps a threat of violence is threat of even greater violence?
Where exactly, do they think that would leave us?
Also, I’ve had it up to my eyebrows with Islamism, at this point. If they can’t abide by the conventions of civilized people they can feel free to leave. It’s high time the west started coming down like a ton of bricks on even the faintest whiff of Muslims being above the law or answering to a different law or using threats of violence to cow criticism.
Aug 7, 2008 - 1:36 pm 42. Could provoke widespeard “violence and death”–hey, but it’s only a novel « Full Metal Cynic:[...] reading this depressing article in The Wall Street Journal. Here is also another link. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)You Still Can’t Write About [...]
Aug 7, 2008 - 2:41 pm 43. Pickerhead :: Pickings from the Webvine ::August 7, 2008:[...] Roger Simon has rough words for Random House. [...]
Aug 7, 2008 - 3:01 pm 44. Roderick Reilly:Random House sounds like another of the collection of nutless wonders that are polluting the West’s socio-political landscape.
Cowardice has now been raised to the status of a virtue.
I Have no printable words to describe Denise Spellberg, except, perhaps something lame like “Quislingette.”
Aug 7, 2008 - 4:05 pm 45. Jay:Thanks for this post, Roger. Good work.
And I love, love, LOVE Asra Nomani! Anyone catch her portrayal in “A Mighty Heart?”
Aug 7, 2008 - 4:29 pm 46. Joshua:Phil O.: Is Random House or other publishers really to blame when they fear that their buildings could be bombed and their employees murdered?
That had occurred to me too. It’s also occurred to me that few of the authors, academics etc. who flocked to Salman Rushdie’s side in the wake of Khomeini’s fatwa against him would likely have done so had The Satanic Verses been published in 2002 rather than 1989. Everything changed when Islamic supremacists demonstrated that they could devastate lower Manhattan.
Publishing something controversial, knowing it could get you killed is one thing. Publishing something controversial, knowing it could get hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of uninvolved bystanders killed alongside/instead of you is another thing altogether.
Aug 7, 2008 - 6:48 pm 47. Z as in Jersey:A long time ago I wrote the following about boycotting Borders. I believe it is equally applicable now to Random House.
Why We Should Boycott Borders
Borders Group Inc., the company that operates the Borders and Waldenbooks chains, has gone into the book banning business. Actually, the company is only banning a single issue of a rarely read magazine, Free Inquiry. (Never heard of it? Neither had I until this past week.) The magazine is readily available in other companies’ bookstores and online, and it will no doubt attract more readers because of this kerfuffle.
Borders will not stock the upcoming issue of this magazine, which some of its stores regularly carry, because it contains four cartoons. That’s right, cartoons. Are these cartoons the filthiest, sleaziest depictions of Betty and Veronica you’ve ever seen? Do they contain the seven words George Carlin told us we could never say on television, plus a few dozen more that Matt Stone and Trey Parker invented for one of their movies? Do these cartoons contain vicious, gut-spilling, murderous scenes that would sear your eyes and scar your soul if you so much as glanced at them? No, no and no. The four cartoons depict the prophet Mohammed, and the religion Islam forbids all such depictions.
Wait a second, you say. If Islam forbids depiction of the prophet, then surely the practitioners of that religion can honor the prohibition by refraining from buying the magazine in question. Why does that necessitate keeping the cartoons out of the hands of others? Roman Catholics never insisted that Protestants eat fish on Fridays. None of my Jewish friends have ever begrudged me my BLT. No matter. Islamic law apparently applies to all of us, whether we believe in the religion or not. In fact, these four cartoons and eight others commissioned by Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper were used to spark a wave of deadly protests by Muslims in a number of countries, with violent behavior aimed at non-Muslims.
Having seen the 12 cartoons, I can see how a follower of Mohammed would consider them blasphemous. For instance, one of the drawings depicts Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse. On the other hand, I’ve seen plenty of South Park episodes that were more offensive to organized religion than all 12 of these cartoons combined. Word in the blogosphere is that the Danish Imams “juiced up” the Danish cartoons with a few of their own to rally their followers to riot level.
A spokesperson for Borders made it quite clear (at least as clear as corporate spokespeople ever make anything) that the magazines were not being stocked in an effort to ward off violent attacks by angry Muslims. “For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority,” is the money quote from Borders spokeswoman Beth Bingham.
There are over 475 Borders stores and 650 Waldenbooks stores in the United States. The citizens of this nation should launch a loud, long, and effective boycott of each and every one of them. But not for the reasons you might think. Let’s get a few things out of the way immediately:
1. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to abridge free speech and freedom of the press. Borders is not the government. It has no obligation to stock or sell any products and, besides, it is doing nothing to prevent you from buying those products somewhere else.
2. Borders has every right (and some degree of responsibility) to take appropriate steps to protect its stores, its employees and its customers from physical harm.
3. In our capitalist system, we should not expect corporations to be heroes.
So why the call for a boycott? Here’s why:
1. America will die if we do not take a stand against intimidation. The bully that is Fascislam will grow stronger on appeasement. As a nation, we must stand up for ourselves and refuse to live in fear. The only way to do this effectively is to stare down the intimidators and be ready and willing to take the consequences.
2. Government can only do so much. The citizenry must lead on a moral basis. Remember the scene in Casablanca when the French expatriates in Rick’s Café could have gone either way – allow the Nazis to drown out their culture or sing Le Marseillase at the top of their lungs? Do you recall watching the movie and knowing that the free French would win the day, not because somebody had spoiled the ending by telling you how World War II came out but because you could see their courage in the face of possible imprisonment, torture and death? Those patrons of Rick’s could have easily become cheese-eating, surrender monkey Vichy French (as their sons and daughters have proven), but instead they prevailed over their oppressors. We Americans are at a similar fork in the road. Will it be mandatory burkhas for the ladies and prayer rugs for the men or will we stand up and sing the Star Spangled Banner at the top of our Velveeta-eating lungs?
3. Borders Group Inc. is a New York Stock Exchange-listed company. The corporation, its employees, its executives and its shareholders have all reaped benefits from the American legal system and the moral underpinnings that keep that system working. They may have the legal right (hell, I’ll even concede them the moral right) to leave that dopey magazine off their shelves and issue a statement that signals to Muslims around the globe that Borders is deathly afraid of them and will back down in the face of intimidation. That’s what the musicians in Rick’s Cafe did when the German soldiers began singing their volksongs. But the American people, like the free French, have legal and moral rights of our own. We have the right to stand up and start singing Le Marseillase if we choose. The question is whether we will choose to do so.
Rumor has it that Borders Group is up for sale. If the company sells for a premium price after what it has just done, then America will have lost a golden opportunity to send a strong message to the fascists of our time. If, on the other hand, Borders is dealt a serious economic blow by a full-bore, placard-waving, bumper sticker-sticking, button wearing boycott, then the prospective buyers of Borders Group may come to the public hat in hand, promising to change the company’s tune once they purchase it. If we can make that happen, we will have shown ourselves and the rest of the world something important about Americans. Like Rick Blaine in Casablanca, we will have advised the Nazis that there are some parts of America that they would be ill-advised to try to invade.
“Z”
Aug 7, 2008 - 8:03 pm 48. Annabel:Z, that is a great post. Do you have a blog?
Aug 7, 2008 - 9:27 pm 49. qrstuv:I suspect it is simply PERSONAL fear that motivates them. They’re giving in to bullies.
Aug 8, 2008 - 5:34 am 50. nobozons:Random house should suffer an economic death until it publishes Simons book. I for one will not purchase a random house book. Perhaps they should fear their customers.
Aug 8, 2008 - 7:56 am 51. Jonathan Burack:To Gertrude,
Neither your review nor your post convinces me as to Spellberg’s right to any presumption of innocence here. And given her and her gossip-gang of bullies’ lack of respect for Sherry Jones’ rights to anything, I do not feel a bit apologetic.
From your review, Spellberg sounds like a typical gender feminist academic out to exault the “Other” by, in this case, proving how complex and interpretive Islam was as to gender and everything else in its Golden Age. That may even have beenthe case, then, but it is not the case anymore.
It is also not the case that any of the Islamic Golden Age interpreting of Aisha bears one wit on the actual Aisha, nor, therefore, one wit on anyone else’s fictionalized, imaginative reconstruction today of Aisha. Why do I say that? Because, as you ought to know, direct evidence of ANYTHING about Muhammad’s life is paltry at best, and nearly all of it is based on accounts written down long after he was gone. Hence, if it is such a wonderous and even admirable thing that interpretatons of texts by Muslims long ago resulted in shifting “Islamic notions of the feminine ideal,” all regarding the person of a nine-year-old bride, why is it not Ms. Jones’ absolute and unassailable right to engage in her own interpretation of those Islamic ideals or anything else she wishes to make of poor little Aisha?
In my view, a protest and a very vigorous protest is in fact absolutely in order.
Aug 8, 2008 - 8:32 am 52. Z as in Jersey:Annabel -
Thanks for the compliment. That post was from a blog I started but didn’t have the stamina-time-fortitude to continue. I greatly admire those like Roger who put in the time and effort to make a great blog for readers like us. I include my humble erstwhile blog link here in case you are curious.
Aug 10, 2008 - 4:24 pm 53. david levavi:I was doing business with Viking at the time it published Rushdie’s unreadable book. So much sturm and drang over so little.
For several months I and other visitors to Viking had ourselves and our belongings sniffed by bomb detecting dogs.
One day I kidded the art director about the fact that his jacket credit didn’t appear anywhere in Rushdie’s book. I threatened to call the Iranian embassy and provide them with his name.
It was a silly joke and not very funny under the best of circumstances. But the AD went white and got very angry that I would even joke about such a thing.
People at Viking were genuinely frightened. Terrorism works.
Buddy Larsen:
“…“The Strong Man” about — ready?– Nixon Att’y Gen’l John Mitchell. The highest public official ever to go to prison….”
Read my comment on PJM re. media non-coverage of Edwards, Bud.
Joanna:
…”In Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451,” Beatty, the fire chief, explains to Guy Montag that book burning grew out of an unwillingness to publish anything that might be offensive.”…
Time was, years ago, when Random house had a large warehouse in cold, cold, cold, Westminster, Mass.
The warehouse had a dual use heating system. Oil and guess what else, Joanna?
Aug 11, 2008 - 7:54 pm 54. david levavi:correction:
Aug 11, 2008 - 8:12 pm 55. Ted:That’s dual-fuel heating system.
IWood is right it is a publisher’s decision, not censorship. However, he appears somewhat clueless as to how contracts are signed and have played out historically. She won’t be guaranteed another publisher — they still own the rights and unless they have some strange non-standard clause, they have no obligations to let another publisher have them. Given the publicity, I highly doubt this book will be released from contract.
Aug 21, 2008 - 3:49 am