Spellberg explains
Denise Spellberg clears things up. She didn’t ‘single-handedly stop the book’s publication’ – ah that’s good to know; she had help. She says.
Random House made its final decision based on the advice of other scholars, conveniently not named in the article, and based ultimately on its determination of corporate interests.
Ah yes! Quite! Those bastards – those capitalist bastards – they have corporate interests – so really it’s Random House that is the guilty party here, not a ‘scholar’ who sees fit to tell someone to ‘warn Muslims’ about a novel and to tell Random House that said novel is ”a declaration of war…a national security issue’. Well certainly Random House acted like chickenshits, but deploying the right-on anticorporate jargon won’t quite deflect attention from the excited intervention of Spellberg. It’s too late for that, pal.
As a historian invited to “comment” on the book by its Random House editor at the author’s express request, I objected strenuously to the claim that “The Jewel of Medina” was “extensively researched,” as stated on the book jacket.
Fine – and you could have said that – in the usual way. That’s not the issue.
The author and the press brought me into a process, and I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel. It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel’s potential to provoke anger among some Muslims.
But you didn’t just warn the press, did you. You also told Shahed Amanullah ‘to warn Muslims’ – was it ‘in that same professional capacity’ that you tried to arouse the very anger you warned Random House about? What was your goal in urging Amanullah to ‘warn Muslims’ if it wasn’t to stir up anger? And what, precisely, is professional about that?
There is a long history of anti-Islamic polemic that uses sex and violence to attack the Prophet and his faith. This novel follows in that oft-trodden path, one first pioneered in medieval Christian writings.
So what? Is ‘anti-Islamic polemic’ illegal or self-evidently illegitimate in some way? Is it your professional duty to determine that? (If so, why?) If you think that’s unfortunate, you could have just said that in your comment, but that’s not the same thing as setting off alarms all over the place.
The novel provides no new reading of Aisha’s life, but actually expands upon provocative themes regarding Muhammad’s wives first found in an earlier novel by Salman Rushdie, “The Satanic Verses,” which I teach. I do not espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present.
Bullshit. You’re all over the place. So the novel expands on provocative themes via Rushdie – again, so what? Novelists do that; novelists are influenced by other novelists (I rather think Rushdie himself is influenced by other novelists, and would say as much if you asked him); novelists expand on themes; so what? And so you teach The Satanic Verses; big whoop; are we supposed to be impressed, after all this? And as for that last bit of self-serving crap – of course you espouse censorship of any kind! You’ve just been doing exactly that, so you can’t just say you don’t when everyone can see you do. And – you didn’t just critique the Jones book, did you. You know you didn’t. Come on – ‘professional’ bullshit isn’t going to salvage your reputation now.
If Ms. Nomani and readers of the Journal wish to allow literature to “move civilization forward,” then they should read a novel that gets history right.
No doubt, but again, that is not the issue. You didn’t write a review, or a critique, or a comment for the publishers; you did much more than that; so it’s no good pretending you were merely proffering some healthful literary advice.
“I used my scholarly expertise to assess the novel. It was in that same professional capacity that I felt it my duty to warn the press of the novel’s potential to provoke anger among some Muslims”
She felt duty bound to warn the presss?
Lord preserve us from all Spellberg harm, who has taken it upon herself, so ungraciously/unprofessionally to be some kind of saviour to some Muslims.
She actually believes she is the one who should be saving some of the Muslims in the world.
Talk about Muslim illusions of grandeur?!
What an ‘expert’ hypocrite, she is indeed. Spellberg needs to fully assess her own motivations for stirring up things – as there was nothing professional about her behaviour.
I think she has inadvertently revealed her true motives by using the word ‘critique’ as if it were just a fancier way of saying ‘criticise.’ Brilliant scholars never criticise things; they critique them. She’s clearly a pompous egomaniac. She was probably fantasising about being at the centre of a world-wide controversy comparable to the Satanic Verses or the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, dreaming of the day when desperate-to-impress undergraduates cite her knowingly whenever such issues arise. “As the notable Spellberg teaches us, we must respect the sacred beliefs of all religions.”
“I walked through a metal detector to see ‘Last Temptation of Christ,'” the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. “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.”
Well then, Spellberg ascertains that she does not have a problem with historical fiction.
She is also aware that The Jewel of Medina is a novel, so what is her bone of contention with the book in this respect when she says herself that she does not have a problem with historical fiction.
She is currently walking through more than a metal detector!
Somebody over at debbieschlussel.com has suggested boycotting the publishers of the book. What an interesting idea!
I find Denise Spellberg’s actions and words almost indecipherable. One thing they do show, though, as if we didn’t know it already, is that our freedom of speech is seriously at risk.
Somehow, inconsistencies and all, people like Spellberg have got to be made to see this too.
There is, of course, a strong strain of self-centred self-importance in this story. Perhaps her main motivation was sound bytes and column inches. Are there not ethical guidelines which pertain to cases of this kind? Are reviwers of books allowed, without penalty, to ‘warn’ others of a book’s contents, going outside the normal boundaries of publisher-reviewer relations. She could have warned Random House, but once the cat was out of the bag and public opposition was already being stirred up, just on her say so, there may not have seemed so many options to the publisher any more. Did Spellberg do nothing that was actionable by Jones or Random House? (I don’t know. Those are real questions.)
What are the odds that the “other scholars” involved here are the patrons of the mailing list she alerted?
That is of course the issue. I doubt that there are any ethical guidelines, but under all the existing circumstances it seems to me to be glaringly unethical to urge one Muslim to ‘warn’ other Muslims of putatively ‘offensive’ content in a novel. All the existing circumstances include violence, death threats, arson, riots, and many people killed over putative religious ‘offense.’ That’s the real reason Spellberg’s actions are so disgusting – not just the silencing of one (probably crappy, but that’s beside the point) novel but the obvious potential for real violence, injury and death. She’s a moral idiot for wading into such waters.
I would hesitate before invoking Debbit Schlussel’s name in any context, as she’s a Christian triumphalist theofascist of the worst stripe.