Chapter 64: Caution -- Shaky Muhammad Referencing Ahead

I finally heard back from that guy with the literary magazine (see Chapter 59) and he is still going to publish the piece about me. So, since that's pretty good news for me, I figured I'd focus today's post on the woes of a different author.  I'm an equal opportunity pessimist.  I say why focus on the good when you can harp eternally on the bad?

Let's dive right in: has everyone heard of poor Sherry Jones and her (as yet unpublished) book The Jewel of Medina?

The novel is about the young (as in statutory rape young) bride of the prophet Muhammad, who some may remember from such controversies as the Danish cartoons, which depicted Muslim masses as mindlessly violence-prone, which led Muslim masses to act mindlessly violence-prone. You may also remember him as the founder of one of the largest (and of late, most misunderstood) religions in the world.

Well, the book's [former] publisher, Random House, sent the book to an assistant history professor in Texas, asking for a blurb for the book's jacket, and the professor requested her name not be associated in any way with the work.  This because she found its history and research to be sorely lacking.  As she said in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, "[Jones] distorted the past to sell a book, and I didn't want to be part of this distortion of Islamic sacred history."

Seems reasonable, right?  She is one person, and she doesn't want to be associated with the book, so she's not going to offer a blurb. What's wrong with that?

Well, Random House then sent the book to other historians and received much of the same response.  And has since canceled publication, citing, "publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community" and "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

Now, I may think that second part is a bit racist, but I can't argue with their business decision.  Random House is looking out for its best interest.  Apparently others view things differently, however, as some people are claiming the violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  Whose rights have been violated?  Jones is still allowed to publish the work.  She can find another publisher (and is in fact actively seeking one) or she can self-publish it, or even turn it into an e-book and stick it up on the Web.  That may not get her as much money as she may have hoped to receive, but it will get her words read by others. Which means that it will uphold her right to free speech.

But nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say that book publishers have to publish a book that they believe will be a poor business move.  Let's face it -- historians discredited the book.  I don't know how many historians saw it, or just what they said about it, but they've clearly had a negative reaction to it.  So, Random House doesn't think it has a hit on its hands.  And to the contrary, it could cause the type of controversy they don't want (as opposed to the kind Dan Brown got, which I'm sure they'd love).

Personally (since this is my blog and you've chosen to read my egotistical take on matters I know little about), I think the whole prophet portrayal thing is silly.  The whole controversy over the Danish cartoons (and a subsequent brilliant commentary by the television show South Park) stems from the idea that you can't depict an image of said prophet, even though, as far as I am aware, that is never mentioned in the Qur'an, and in fact wealthy Muslims used to show off their status with elaborate statues of the man.  Plus, there was the whole fact that the people who depicted the prophet in those cartoons weren't followers of the religion and wouldn't be held to that rule even if such a rule existed. 

But this is different. First, it's not about the prophet himself, and second, no one as of yet has protested.  Instead, Random House is protecting its best interest -- not this woman, but its own company and reputation -- and it has every right and responsibility to do that.  Radio host Don Imus was within his rights to mock some nappy-headed hoes, but that doesn't mean his radio station, when faced with nervous sponsors threatening to leave and take their advertising dollars with them, was obligated to keep the shedded snakeskin-faced cowboy employed. 

What I think is craziest about the whole thing is not that people think Random House should publish this book even if the company doesn't want to (where was this active crowd when I was getting rejected by agents?) but how fast the story has gotten blown out of proportion.  The historian who first rejected the blurb request is now receiving, as she puts it, about three angry e-mail messages per hour of people suggesting she is aiding terrorism and recommending that she be fired.  Seriously?  So should she have just blindly approved the book and lied in her glowing blurb regarding it?  Just because it has something to do with Islam?  Otherwise she's no better than a terrorist?  Isn't she technically on the side of justice, valiently soldering on in this War on Terror by ensuring that all Islamic-based writings, which are of course inherently in support of the evil-doers threatening our free-wheeling way of life, get squashed before they can serve as steroids for those Kamikaze bastards? 

But the craziness doesn't end there.  The book's author is now facing rumors that her story is nothing more than soft-core pornography.  Huh?  How in the bloody blazes did that happen?  OH, I see the problem now: Muslim sympathizers like the history professor are coming between America and its shared love of reading and not-quite-explicate sex.  Now I get it.   

But even better than her book's de-evolution from a work of historical fiction to a script for a late-night Cinemax movie is her reaction to these reactions: "Isn't the university supposed to support the dissemination and free exchange of ideas?"  Hey, don't start blaming the university now, which didn't cause any of this and would have no control over it anyway.  That's like blaming a glass for spilling liquid after you dropped it on the floor.  It's not there fault scholars are accusing your book of possessing historical inaccuracies, and it's not their fault that you called the professor "irresponsible" for not supporting your book that scholars are accusing of possessing historical innaccuracies. 

It's as that professor said, seemingly foreshadowing her own fate: "You can't fool with sacred history and not expect there will be consequences."

Ah, the cutthroat world of book publishing.  Remind me again why I want to work in it?