Foul your own nest why don’t you
This one is so disgusting my teeth are chattering with rage – not quite literally, but it’s close. I feel as if my teeth were chattering with rage. What? A historian named Denise Spellberg was sent a novel about Aisha, the little girl Mo married when she was nine years old, and Spellberg decided she needed to get busy warning and threatening and silencing. And it worked.
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.”
Especially if conscientious determined people worked hard enough to get the incitement of violence started, which it looks as though they would have. We have seen this before. (And then been told the ensuing riots were the fault of the people who had the temerity to draw the cartoons, rather than the fault of the people who put in a lot of effort to get people worked up. I hope we never have to hear that kind of thing again.) (The reporter is a Muslim, by the way, and she is upset by this revolting mess.)
This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn’t a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic. In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Ms. Jones put her on the list because she read Ms. Spellberg’s book, “Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr.” But Ms. Spellberg wasn’t a fan of Ms. Jones’s book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg’s classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. “She was upset,” Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history,” and asked him to warn Muslims.
To warn them? To warn them of what? A threat on their lives? An approaching hurricane? A tsunami? The melting Arctic? Hungry polar bears? Homeland Security? No, of course not. To warn them of a book – a novel – a novel that Spellberg didn’t like. Knowing the impressive history that ‘warned’ Muslims have of respecting the freedom of the press and the value of open discussion and debate, Spellberg asked her friend to ‘warn Muslims’ about a novel. This makes me very, very, very angry. This causes me to have dark thoughts about wishing the University of Texas at Austin would summarily fire Spellberg for her failure to understand the most basic principles of intellectual life. What business does someone like that have at a university? What business does she have writing books and teaching? What right does she have to set herself up as a censor of other people’s work?
In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a “very ugly, stupid piece of work.” The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: “the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion’s sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life*.” Says Ms. Spellberg…”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.”
Who says you can’t? Under what jurisdiction can’t you? And who the hell assigned Denise Spellberg to decide? What on earth makes her think she has the right to shut down someone else’s book? Who (to be obvious about it) does she think she is?
Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House’s Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write “Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an.”) “She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote. “Denise says it is ‘a declaration of war…explosive stuff…a national security issue.’ Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP.”
She thinks there is a very real possibility because she herself has been busy trying to foment the possibility. That takes some brass-plated nerve.
I’d like to see her summarily fired, and I’d like to see Knopf withdraw that contract. I’d like to see her disgraced, shamed, an outcast. I’d like to see her have to get a job at a chicken-rendering plant in Odessa. At the very least I’d like to see her name become mud, which, judging by Google blog search, it’s well on the way to doing.
Denise Spellberg, self-appointed censor and destroyer of books: you should be embarrassed at yourself. You should go into a very different line of work, right away – you should not be allowed anywhere near students, and you should never get another book or article published.
*As mediwatchwatch said, all nine years of it.
P.S. Note that the last bit is a pious hope. I’m not telephoning people to urge them to fire Spellberg (much as I’d like to) or to decide not to publish her book (even more as I’d like to). I’m merely expressing a cherished dream. I’m a fantasist, not a censor. Unlike some people I could mention.
Yes!!! Well said.
So let’s just raise the white flag and buy “our” women burqas, [Professor] Spellberg. Is that it?
This sounds like a pathological case of academic narcissism and professorial self-importance, with envy and jealousy as the outcome. Who is some lady in Spokane to write a novel about one’s subject area? But usually in academia the stakes are pretty low.
In this case academic envy and self-importance went off the deep end. This is sickening, for the implications for free speech. But the way Professor Spellberg conducted herself, gossipy, hysterical, ugly, dangerous, and yes I’ll say it stupid, is even more sickening. Professors can act just horrible and snotty in their quests for power. But this is the worst I’ve heard.
Thanks for the warning, Ophelia.
And now that this story has been publicized, Sherry Jones’ name is going to go down on a list of “enemies of Islam” and she will no doubt begin receiving death threats and promises of violence–perhaps more than she would have if the book had actually been published! Good job, Ms. Spellberg. Bravo.
> Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House’s Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg: “She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence,” Ms. Garrett wrote.< That surely can’t be right. Here is Zeki Saritoprak (Nursi Chair in Islamic Studies at John Carroll University), Denise Spellberg’s colleague at the Institute of Interfaith Dialogue: “Islam is a religion that prohibits followers from even killing an ant.” http://tinyurl.com/5lqbw7
Well quite. There’s no obvious reason to think the book would have caused any outrage at all – if anything, from the excerpt given, it’s highly flattering to Mo and gets him off the hook for nailing Aisha when she was nine – she didn’t mind, the pain went away soon, it was a mere scorpion sting, in fact she enjoyed it overall, mmmmmmm dreamy. If Spellberg had simply told Random House she thought the book was bad and left it at that, as she should have, then there seems little reason to think there would have been any fuss. But now we’ll never know, because Spellberg thought best to create the fuss herself. Spellberg thought best to attempt to stir up and incite violence against a novelist – I can’t think about it without going into rage overdrive. What can she possibly have thought she was doing?
Last was in reply to dzd; I crossed with Allen.
Good one, Allen.
I don’t know – this one just defeats my powers of comprehension. Does Spellberg think it’s such a good thing to have outbursts of violent rage over books in the world that it’s a wise and progressive move to try to set them off? What was she thinking?
“What was she thinking?”
OB: The historian, herself is under contract with Random House, to write a book, called “Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an”.
Could there be the possibility that Ms Spielberg was thinking, that through the medium of Sherry Jone’s, she could seek gargantuan publicity for her own forthcoming book on the same subject?
Someone ought to give her a mighty knock on the knopf, with her own T J Qur’an!
As Ophelia notes, Denise Spellman herself made sure that this book would become an “issue”:
>A friend of mine forwarded a email from Shahed Amanullah
>He say: Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel, “Jewel of Medina” – she said she found it incredibly offensive.< http://tinyurl.com/5la7p2
In the Comments to her blog Sherry Jones writes:
> I am SURE we’ll get a new publisher in the U.S. BTW, the book will be published in Spanish worldwide next spring, and publishers in Italy and Hungary have bought rights, too.<
http://tinyurl.com/create.php
I wonder if she is being overconfident on both counts. Let’s hope not.
“the Prophet Mohammad’s youngest wife wasn’t wearing a burka and hiding indoors, she was riding the desert alongside male warriors and disputing doctrine with male preachers as the head of her own religious school.”
Sounds like a gutsy lady, and a good influence on girls, like Joan of Arc. Girls can do with warrior heroines. I’d like to read an historical novel about her. A lot of my knowledge of different periods of history comes from historical novels eg Mary Renault’s novels about ancient Greece, which can’t be faulted in research.
Mary Renault’s The Last of the Wine is one of the best historical novels I know of.
I messed up the URL for the Sherry Jones blog cited above. It should have been
http://tinyurl.com/69jmb3
Also worth reading for her comments on what the book is about (and not about).
Also for the fact that she points out that she knows of no plural sources of all the alarm and danger; there’s only Spellberg.
I left an indignant comment on her blog yesterday.
Wiki had very little on its page, concerning Denise Spellberg, before the controversy, now it is filled up with material pertaining to the latest controversy.
This jewel of Texas, is randomly riding her horse in the Battle of academic narcissism.
The University of Texas motto is “What Starts Here Changes the World?”
Claire: But usually in academia the stakes are pretty low.
Well, yes, which is why academic fights are so petty and mean. The lower the stakes, the more vicious and histrionic the quarrels are.
“What can she possibly have thought she was doing?”
Ensuring that no one can get away with “defaming” the holy figures of Islam, no doubt. In her own mind she probably thinks she’s struck some kind of blow for “tolerance”. Perhaps she’s gunning for a position in the OIC.
Malevolent.
I love the way Spellberg unintentionally infantilizes Muslims – in her mind, all persons of Muslim background think alike and cannot tell the difference between “sacred history” and historical fiction. It’s sort of the converse of bigots who assume that all Muslims are terrorists – it doesn’t allow for individual agency or independent thought. There’s a similar dynamic toward Native Americans here in the US – either they were bloodthirsty brutes or noble savages, rather than actual human beings.
Really. In a way that’s the most outrageous part – her appointing herself to speak for them, and in doing so, acting as if all Muslims are as deranged as the most deranged Muslims. If I were a Muslim (as the WSJ reporter is) I would be just beyond livid.
Apointing herself as some kind of (Dhimmi) spokesperson is (perhaps) not so outrageous, when one considers the fact, (from what I have read,anyway) that “Columbia is a well known bastion of far left thought and hatred for all things American.”
Dhimmitude and appeasment Rule!?
Perhaps the reason most Muslims (or Christians or Jews for that mattter) cannot see the distinction between ‘sacred history’ and fiction is because there is none. This may also be why fictionalising ‘sacred history’ is so offensive, because it makes obvious how fictional the whole religious project is.
Religion courts a variety of derangement, because it takes fiction for reality. So most religious believers must be functionally deranged in at least one dimension of their lives. When this derangement intrudes into the secular sphere, then we start having problems, because, for religious believing, fictional reality is more real than books and stones.
Spellberg’s censorship is just a small event in the campaign to protect religious fiction. Think of all the schools for girls that have been destroyed in Pakistan – 70 in the last two months. (See Shackles of Religion) The price of tinkering with fiction. We’re not far away from burning books at this stage. Spellberg should break out her Abaya.
Karen Armstrong says that in an Islamic understanding, “politics was…what Christians would call a sacrament,” and she refers to the Muslims’ “sacralization of history.”
Aisha was SIX when the so-called Prophet married her. She was nine (and playing on a swing when her mother came for her) when she was raped by the then 54 year old Muhummed.
I don’t think Karen Armstrong is an altogether reliable witness when it comes to Islam (or any other religion for that matter).
However ‘sacramentalising history’ looks a lot like fictionalising history’ to me. And since religious history is already highly mythicised (fictionalised), writing historical fiction about religious affairs must obviously be sedimented fiction. A curious exercise in imagination.
Ah, well, Nick, the Saudi man is going to wait until his ten year old bride turns 15! Such a privilege!
There is a widespread belief that the least thing has muslims on the streets calling for blood. In fact these spontaneous displays of outrage take a lot of preparation, co-ordination and logistical support. Plus some nifty camera work to make a couple of dozen guys on a twenty-minute flag-burning break look like a rampaging mob.
Prof. Spellberg has started the process and is doubtless hugging herself in righteous glee.
“I don’t think Karen Armstrong is an altogether reliable witness when it comes to Islam”
Understatement of the year. :- )
She should be put up against a wall and shot.
Er, sorry, Ophelia I’m new to liberalism and it’s taking me a while to get the hang of it.
Don – I don’t believe that we should assume anything about Ms Spellberg’s feelings. It’s just as likely that she is sequestered someplace with her blood running cold wondering if she’ll ever be promoted to full professor. Or with a public relations firm trying to craft an angle on her behavior that can cover UT Austin’s butt or her own bare one that’s hanging out there right now. Not sure righteous glee is in the cards at the moment.
Nick – Who is the she who should be shot? Pronoun is too distant from referent. Pls clarify.
Golly, Nick, I thought you were one of those muscular liberals we’re always hearing about.
Denise Spellberg’s attitude is inexcusable for any academic of reasonable intellectual standing, especially at a place like UTA with the motto “What starts here changes the world”. I bet that the founders did not intent to see “for the worse” added to the motto, as Denise just vividly suggested.
She should be fired.
Send her a respectful email at dams@mail.utexas.edu.
Hee hee – not to worry, Nick, I’ve just emailed you with a better idea.
I think she should be fired. With due process, her union rep standing by, etc, but I think she should be fired – I think she’s in the wrong line of work. I think she’s an enemy of her own vocation.
I did consider sending her a respectful email, but then figured she’d be getting such a flood from other people that it would get lost. But I have a different plan.
Don writes:
‘There is a widespread belief that the least thing has muslims on the streets calling for blood. In fact these spontaneous displays of outrage take a lot of preparation, co-ordination and logistical support. Plus some nifty camera work to make a couple of dozen guys on a twenty-minute flag-burning break look like a rampaging mob.’
I agree that that there is a lot of organisation/orchestration behind many muslim protests.Often, the crowd is thin – just a couple of hundred. Never the vast majority of muslims. But sorry to say, the majority never seem to speak out or take decisive action against their violent co-religionists. Mobs burn down ahmadiyya mosques in Indonesia or heretical cults like the teapot cult in malaysia but police and state prosecution is against the victims, not the muslim thugs. Some muslims convert to bahais and get stoned by their fellow villagers in Indonesia but the police round on the victims.
Yesterday, the malaysian bar council had its public forum on religious conversion disrupted by a couple of hundred religious thugs -guess which religion? – and the police basically were there to facilitate the disruption and handle the protestors (who included an MP who stormed the hq of the bar association) as some sort of heroes. The political establishment and press never offer any criticism or prosecution and the religious establishment delights in showing off its muscle. So I would not let off the vast majority of muslim society as quite that innocent. i am always grateful for the liberal muslim voices that speak up but hey, I KNOW that they are the real minority, not the fellas on the street. A couple of months ago a group of liberal muslims and others organised a public protest in jakarta, in support of the besieged ahmadiyyas. they were not only outnumbered by the ‘rampaging mob’ but also beaten up for their trouble. There was a huge crowd – unrelated to both groups – and a large police presence at the venue at the time, so the so-called paeceful majority were there to make a difference. Did they?
But when the incident was publicised, there was enough of an outcry by some to prompt the government to arrest, for the first time ever!- the leader of one of the thug muslim organisations. You might think that this was a good call finally. It might have been if police hadn’t allowed the man to address hundreds of his followers while he was in custody, kindly lending him a megaphone. If the man hadnt received a constant stream of visitors while he was in custody – celebrities like soap
stars, pop singers and even a couple of government ministers!
Link to yesterday’s incident: http://us2.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11119/1/
Note the black comedy of the protestors shouting : Death to the Jews!
Who or what are these “muscular liberals” that are being bandied about these days? Is that a meaningless term of abuse like “fascist” or “neocon” or does it actually mean something or somebody(ies)?
Greeks furious with Mary Renault for portraying their great men as a bunch of gay blokes. I predict a riot!
Spellberg is so concerned about historical accuracy in a novel, which is fiction, but in her own work about Aisha, which is supposed to be factual, it is [not accurate]. Spellberg claims Aisha married at 9, got laid at 14, but that is all [inaccurate]. I documented it at pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com. [edit] Justifying Aisha getting married at six and laid at nine was more ridiculous than justifying 9 and 14. Spellberg needs help. [edit]
“Who or what are these “muscular liberals” that are being bandied about these days? Is that a meaningless term of abuse”
Yes. It is broadly synonymous with “chickenhawk”.
What’s amusing (to me) about all this is that, as a historian, I have frequently been horrified at what historical novelists (and indeed, film-makers) have done to characters I have researched. There is a lot of utter garbage out there, without historical foundation – which would be libellous if it were about living people. But do I call for ‘bans’ or make threats? No. I dissect the texts in question, and analyse why the historical misrepresentation has taken place, and what it says about the author’s culture and agenda. (Mind, I still wish they’d do better research and not come out with this nonsense in the first place!) But it exists, so one has to live with it and tackle its claims. It seems to me terribly immature to claim that because some historical characters have all this religious/mythological baggage attached, they should somehow be immune to the mishandlings that others have had.