What do you think?
Rate this book
Contemporary Issues in the Middle East
The Rushdie File
This anthology of the Rushdie affair provides documentation from all sides with a chronology of events from the publication of the book to the present day, from Bradford to Iran and from India to the US and links them with the key statements by leading religious, political and literary figures.
- GenresNonfictionHistory
266 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
2 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
About the author
Lisa Appignanesi
59 books96 followersaka Jessica Ayre
Elżbieta Borensztejn was born on 4 January 1946 in Łódź, Poland, the daughter of Hena and Aaron Borensztejn with Jewish origin. Following her birth, her parents moved to Paris, France, and in 1951 they emigrating to Canada. She grew up in the province of Quebec - first in a small Laurentian town, subsequently in Montreal.
She graduated from McGill University with a B.A. degree in 1966 and her M.A. the following year. During 1970-71 she was a staff writer for the Centre for Community Research in New York City and is a former University of Essex lecturer in European Studies. She was a founding member and editorial director of the Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative. Through the eighties she was a Deputy Director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, UK, for whom she also edited the seminal Documents Series and established ICA television and the video Writers in Conversation series.
She produced several made for television films and had written a number of books before devoting herself to writing fulltime in 1990. In recognition of her contribution to literature, Lisa Appignanesi has been honoured with a Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres from the French government. In 2004, she became Deputy President of English PEN and has run its highly successful 'Free Expression is No Offence Campaign' against the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In 2008 she became President of English PEN. She writes for The Guardian, The Independent and has made several series for BBC Radio 4, as well as frequently appearing as a cultural commentator.
In 1967, she married Richard Appignanesi, another writer, with whom she had one son in 1975, Josh Appignanesi, a film director. They divorced in 1984. With her life partner John Forrester, she had a daugther, Katrina Forrester, a Research Fellow in the history of modern political thought at St John's College, Cambridge. She lives in London.
Elżbieta Borensztejn was born on 4 January 1946 in Łódź, Poland, the daughter of Hena and Aaron Borensztejn with Jewish origin. Following her birth, her parents moved to Paris, France, and in 1951 they emigrating to Canada. She grew up in the province of Quebec - first in a small Laurentian town, subsequently in Montreal.
She graduated from McGill University with a B.A. degree in 1966 and her M.A. the following year. During 1970-71 she was a staff writer for the Centre for Community Research in New York City and is a former University of Essex lecturer in European Studies. She was a founding member and editorial director of the Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative. Through the eighties she was a Deputy Director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, UK, for whom she also edited the seminal Documents Series and established ICA television and the video Writers in Conversation series.
She produced several made for television films and had written a number of books before devoting herself to writing fulltime in 1990. In recognition of her contribution to literature, Lisa Appignanesi has been honoured with a Chevalier of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres from the French government. In 2004, she became Deputy President of English PEN and has run its highly successful 'Free Expression is No Offence Campaign' against the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. In 2008 she became President of English PEN. She writes for The Guardian, The Independent and has made several series for BBC Radio 4, as well as frequently appearing as a cultural commentator.
In 1967, she married Richard Appignanesi, another writer, with whom she had one son in 1975, Josh Appignanesi, a film director. They divorced in 1984. With her life partner John Forrester, she had a daugther, Katrina Forrester, a Research Fellow in the history of modern political thought at St John's College, Cambridge. She lives in London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 19, 2013
Perhaps Goodreads Interns can read this book and get a real idea of what bullying and threatening authors looks like.
Perhaps it is difficult for people today to understand the furor that arose when Satanic Verses (SV) first came out. Even with the Danish Cartoons of a few years ago, it almost seemed to belong to another time. Perhaps this has to done with how the news media covered the cartoons. I’m not sure. Yet the conversation, the clash of culture and belief will occur again and again unless dialogue occurs, a dialogue that leads to cultural understanding and an acknowledgement that different cultures work differently. That they should be allowed to work differently without death threats.
This book is about dialogue and understanding, if it is about anything else other than Rushdie.
I’m a Yank. I believe strongly in the First Amendment. I think freedom of speech is essential for any society. I do, also, understand the fact that such freedom does not include making people listen to you when you do speak. Tom Cruise can say whatever he wants about mental illness. I, however, have the right to call him stupid and to refuse to see any of his movies, even the one with the cool Brits.
I do not have the right to threaten his life.
I will even concede, as much as find the action disturbing, that if Mr. Smith buys a book and wants to burn, he can.
He cannot burn my copy nor should he forbid me access to a copy.
Additionally, while I can legally call my boss all types of names without being locked up, no law says he can’t fire me. And should I ever be asked to endorse anything and knowingly sign a morality clause, then I am knowingly giving the company a right to penalize me for actions.
They can’t make me work for them. They can’t threaten my life.
The question of censorship, I will also grant, becomes murky when the idea of a nation or society’s security enters into the question. A government cannot be totally transparent in today’s world of the internet; too much information could fall into the wrong hands. If holding information back makes a search for a killer or rapist easier then the police should do that. The news, however, shouldn’t be either the government or the police’s lap dog. It is a complex question with a more complex and shifting answer.
Additionally, America isn’t like countries that have blasphemy laws (the U.K. for instance) or hate speech laws (such as Canada. Though America does have hate crime laws). There is a reason, a good one, for why freedom of expression is NO. 1 in the Bill of Rights.
I’ve read SV; I enjoyed the book, though I think The Enchantress of Florence is better. I must admit that if I were a devout Muslim, I would feel very offended.
But in the world that Rushdie chooses to live, guess what, he has the right to say offensive things.
This book presents a collection of newspaper articles, op-eds, letters, interview transcripts, and government missives that were published during the first rush of the publication of SV. The book covers all aspects of the blaze, presenting Rushdie supporters, detractors, and those who tried to reach a middle ground. The text of the Fatwa is reprinted here as all various responses, including those from devout Muslims who disagreed with the edict.
It should be noted that it appears that Appigninsi, at least, is on the freedom of speech side (something that is clear from her interview in the movie The Rushdie Affair). The book, however, is very even and doesn’t succumb to stereotypes. The editors include thoughts from everyday people but also comments from established writers and politicians (Dahl and Carter, for instance). Sometimes it is surprising where people stand.
The book does seem to leave out an important detail, at least an important detail for a non British subject. Some of the debate over the publication of SV in Britain occurred over the use of the British Blasphemy law. Protestors argued that the book was a violated of the law, and if the law applied only to Christianity, then the law should be extended to all faiths. Apparently, British courts and law council said the blasphemy law only applied to Christianity. I would’ve liked to see a copy of this law, for it is impossible not to see the fairness of applying such a law to every religion (or better yet, getting rid of the law itself). Why should Christianity be the only protected religion? While I disagree with what the protestors were trying to do, I have to admit they do have a point about this law. It seems really unfair and racist.
Yet despite this omission, the book is very balanced and is NOT one sided. In fact, the book explores the issue fully, including essays that examine why British Muslims in particular and Muslims in general responded in such way, and the examination does not say because religion made them – it is about society and poverty and everything else. The editorial comments are kept to an absolute minimum, allowing the texts to speak and letting the reader reach a conclusion.
Perhaps it is difficult for people today to understand the furor that arose when Satanic Verses (SV) first came out. Even with the Danish Cartoons of a few years ago, it almost seemed to belong to another time. Perhaps this has to done with how the news media covered the cartoons. I’m not sure. Yet the conversation, the clash of culture and belief will occur again and again unless dialogue occurs, a dialogue that leads to cultural understanding and an acknowledgement that different cultures work differently. That they should be allowed to work differently without death threats.
This book is about dialogue and understanding, if it is about anything else other than Rushdie.
I’m a Yank. I believe strongly in the First Amendment. I think freedom of speech is essential for any society. I do, also, understand the fact that such freedom does not include making people listen to you when you do speak. Tom Cruise can say whatever he wants about mental illness. I, however, have the right to call him stupid and to refuse to see any of his movies, even the one with the cool Brits.
I do not have the right to threaten his life.
I will even concede, as much as find the action disturbing, that if Mr. Smith buys a book and wants to burn, he can.
He cannot burn my copy nor should he forbid me access to a copy.
Additionally, while I can legally call my boss all types of names without being locked up, no law says he can’t fire me. And should I ever be asked to endorse anything and knowingly sign a morality clause, then I am knowingly giving the company a right to penalize me for actions.
They can’t make me work for them. They can’t threaten my life.
The question of censorship, I will also grant, becomes murky when the idea of a nation or society’s security enters into the question. A government cannot be totally transparent in today’s world of the internet; too much information could fall into the wrong hands. If holding information back makes a search for a killer or rapist easier then the police should do that. The news, however, shouldn’t be either the government or the police’s lap dog. It is a complex question with a more complex and shifting answer.
Additionally, America isn’t like countries that have blasphemy laws (the U.K. for instance) or hate speech laws (such as Canada. Though America does have hate crime laws). There is a reason, a good one, for why freedom of expression is NO. 1 in the Bill of Rights.
I’ve read SV; I enjoyed the book, though I think The Enchantress of Florence is better. I must admit that if I were a devout Muslim, I would feel very offended.
But in the world that Rushdie chooses to live, guess what, he has the right to say offensive things.
This book presents a collection of newspaper articles, op-eds, letters, interview transcripts, and government missives that were published during the first rush of the publication of SV. The book covers all aspects of the blaze, presenting Rushdie supporters, detractors, and those who tried to reach a middle ground. The text of the Fatwa is reprinted here as all various responses, including those from devout Muslims who disagreed with the edict.
It should be noted that it appears that Appigninsi, at least, is on the freedom of speech side (something that is clear from her interview in the movie The Rushdie Affair). The book, however, is very even and doesn’t succumb to stereotypes. The editors include thoughts from everyday people but also comments from established writers and politicians (Dahl and Carter, for instance). Sometimes it is surprising where people stand.
The book does seem to leave out an important detail, at least an important detail for a non British subject. Some of the debate over the publication of SV in Britain occurred over the use of the British Blasphemy law. Protestors argued that the book was a violated of the law, and if the law applied only to Christianity, then the law should be extended to all faiths. Apparently, British courts and law council said the blasphemy law only applied to Christianity. I would’ve liked to see a copy of this law, for it is impossible not to see the fairness of applying such a law to every religion (or better yet, getting rid of the law itself). Why should Christianity be the only protected religion? While I disagree with what the protestors were trying to do, I have to admit they do have a point about this law. It seems really unfair and racist.
Yet despite this omission, the book is very balanced and is NOT one sided. In fact, the book explores the issue fully, including essays that examine why British Muslims in particular and Muslims in general responded in such way, and the examination does not say because religion made them – it is about society and poverty and everything else. The editorial comments are kept to an absolute minimum, allowing the texts to speak and letting the reader reach a conclusion.
Displaying 1 of 1 review