From Chip MacGregor:

One of the most important, but under-reported, publishing stories of this year has been the shameful behavior of some publishers over Sherry Jones novel, The Jewel of Medina. In case you don't know, it's the story of Ashia, the young girl who was taken as a bride by Mohammed when she was only six years old. Random House had contracted the book and was ready to release it, but then an over-the-top review from University of Texas professor Denise Spellberg referred to the book as "porn" and warned the publisher that releasing the book would expose the company to Islamic terrorism. So what does Random House do? Stand up for freedom of speech? Brush off the review as one that clearly is a case of both fear-mondering and self-importance? Not on your life. In a shameful move, they announced that they're not going to release the book, even though they admitted they hadn't received any actual threats. So much for publishers taking the high road. Although the author took pains to be respectful of the Muslim faith, the folks at RH decided the book would be "offensive to some in the Muslim community." So censorship lives in America. It is apparently okay to write anything you want about Christianity, but to offer even an innocuous re-telling of Muhammed's decision to betrothe himself to a young child is wrong because it might be offensive to nutjob extremists. Interesting. I hate the fact that Random House caved, and that Dr Spellberg insisted on yelling "fire!" when there was none, thus creating an uproar where none need exist, and putting people's lives in danger.

I agree with you 100%. There are edgy, strange, false, and downright offensive books with religious themes published all the time. There are currently books on bookshelves in stores that are insulting to Christians, Pagans, Jews, atheists, and every other religious OR anti-religious group in the world. Whether it's nasty or nice, right or wrong... that's how freedom of speech works.

However, the publisher is not the federal government. While the GOVERNMENT can not restrict free speech, a private publisher has every right to decide not to publish something... up to the last minute. They're a private company, they can do that.

But this? Good grief, it's a novel. They thought it was worth publishing before, and because of one phone call, they stop the presses.

I will say one thing though - there's bound to be at least one extremist nut-job who WOULD get wind of it, and there would be a good chance that he'd throw a deadly temper tantrum. If a cartoon strip or a teddy bear is enough to throw some of the extremists into a murderous rage... yeah, the book wouldn't have gone over well. Sad, but true.

I've read excerpts from the book. Random House's decision not to publish was a victory for the quality of American literature. I just wish they had told her that they weren't publishing it because it was craptastically bad writing, sure to alienate not just Muslims, but anyone who appreciates Islam, Arab culture, history or literature. Perhaps they were looking for an excuse to drop the project anyway, and latched onto this one.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:
I agree with you 100%. There are edgy, strange, false, and downright offensive books with religious themes published all the time. There are currently books on bookshelves in stores that are insulting to Christians, Pagans, Jews, atheists, and every other religious OR anti-religious group in the world. Whether it's nasty or nice, right or wrong... that's how freedom of speech works.

However, the publisher is not the federal government. While the GOVERNMENT can not restrict free speech, a private publisher has every right to decide not to publish something... up to the last minute. They're a private company, they can do that.

But this? Good grief, it's a novel. They thought it was worth publishing before, and because of one phone call, they stop the presses.

I will say one thing though - there's bound to be at least one extremist nut-job who WOULD get wind of it, and there would be a good chance that he'd throw a deadly temper tantrum. If a cartoon strip or a teddy bear is enough to throw some of the extremists into a murderous rage... yeah, the book wouldn't have gone over well. Sad, but true.

You aren't agreeing with me, M. The text of the post was all copied and pasted. And, I posted it to see what sort of comment it would generate. I think there are a lot of potential comments about our times that come from this decision:

"Have publishing companies become too big?" is one of them. I just returned from a weekend conference for Wisconsin Writers. One of the hot topics there was the publishing house takeovers. If this story had been published in a smaller press, chances are it wouldn't have made such a splash. The vehicle makes the message, sometimes.

"Is the decision actually profitable?" might be another question/comment. They paid $100,000 for this story to start with, incurred untold costs, and have the potential for a blockbuster. But, they chose caution and concern for lives in making the decision. Nonetheless, they'll be viewed as shortsighted purveyors of censorship by a readership that may punish them.

"Are some things, some rights, so precious that we must actually seek a fight to defend them?" might be another question. Because publishing a book that's very likely to get someone killed is what's happening here. The publishing company could stand to make a fortune on such a book in these tense times; were they approached by the gov't? Were they worried about lawsuits?

I haven't read the manuscript, so I can't comment on the quality of writing. I'll see what I can find, but this is an iffy thing. If I find snippets, does it actually speak to the quality of the message?

So, what else is new? This type of terrorism has covered the spectrum of religious oriented literature – both factual as well as fictional – for “ever”! I have not seen the book and probably wouldn’t read it if I had it.

I suppose it could be a seen as a ‘pity’ that the Texas academic and the publishers at RH did what they did but so what. I might never have heard of it without such pr. There are plenty of publishers out there who will take it on… and if I am not mistaken it was about 20 years ago this time of year Rushdie’s piece on Satanic Verses got published??

Besides, child-brides for old holy men is nothing new. After all Jesus’ mom was a teenage when she got involved with Joseph who was much, much older than she… and she was already “with child” (pregnant.) Now there’s the making for some imaginative fiction! And I am sure the death threats would come with it. It all depends on how and who interprets history and historical myths.

Arson Attack on Book Publisher
http://www.military.com/entertainment/books/book-news/a...book-publisher?wh=wh

PM me for links to book excerpts.