Comments on: Religious Censorship: Muslim Threats Prevent Publication of “Jewel of Medina”

By: brendan doherty

brendan doherty — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:30:16 +0000

Lack of civilization. When the Roman Catholic Church was recently spitting blood about the publication of Charles Webb’s “Sex with the Virgin Mary” did they threaten to bomb Amazon.com? No they were upset but civilized. We can never give in to terrorism or the threat of terrorism

By: rjhowell

rjhowell — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:08:09 +0000

Hi Sara,
I’m glad to hear your positive take on Dr. Spellberg. I of course, don’t know her and haven’t read the book. It should be noted, though, that it is not as though there was a published book submitted for review and a terrible review was received. Rather, it sounds like Spellberg was asked to read the book pre-publication as either a referee or a possible source for a jacket quote. If the former, she was most likely paid, though probably not if it was the latter. In either case, the proper response was clearly to submit the negative review back to Random House, perhaps recommending against publication. It is definitely considered unprofessional at best to go out and trash a book at this stage. This bad review was not aired in a professional forum, and was thus not properly substantiated or available for rebuttal. To ask someone—and not the publisher or the author–to “warn Muslims” seems worse than unprofessional: it is obviously meant to stir up something similar to what it did. (What in the world could it mean to ask someone to warn an entire faith? If you asked a politically active Christian to warn Christians, what do you think would happen? Billions would simply brace themselves?)
You are probably right that Random House has the right to pull the book—though that would certainly depend on their contract with the author—and I’m sure that it was for fear of a backlash. The fact that such a backlash must be feared and that there is a history of people being killed for this sort of thing is what is regrettable, and here it seems that Spellberg’s reaction is part of the problem and is unbecoming of someone who should represent the free exchange of ideas. Dr. Spellberg apparently said “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.” Here she is just wrong. If it is declared fictional, it’s fair game, and in a free society you can do what you want with sacred history, or anything else for that matter.
Lastly, you might be right. This might be win-win. But in at least one other case it was not win-win. The fatwa against Rushdie cost several lives and for all the sales receipts and the comforts of Bono’s poolhouse, I suspect Rushdie would much rather it hadn’t happened. One can only hope that our author does not have to experience that mortal fear, and that Dr. Spellman never has to look at her own hands for traces of blood.
Robert

By: Sara

Sara — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:08:44 +0000

I actually had Dr. Spellberg for a class at UT. I thought she was a great professor, and an extremely intelligent woman. We didn’t agree on everything, but she was extremely fair and open to different perspectives. The fact that she trashed this book probably indicates that it was just that – trashy. When you submit your book to someone and ask for criticism, you should expect criticism – especially when you ask a history professor, an expert in the field. I read historical romance ebooks all the time, but I would never, ever ask one of my history professors for a review of them. Random House pulling this book has, I believe, less to do with Professor Spellberg’s critique and more to do with fear of a backlash. While I personally disagree with this decision, as a business, they are well within their rights to do so. And the fact that this book has generated so much buzz before even becoming available is great for Sherry Jones – someone will snap this book up immediately, and everyone will want a copy. It’s a win-win.