3 ms·

The first paragraph mentions Salman Rushdie, which reminded me of this[0]. For anyone interested in free speech, victim blaming and such, these Dahl quotes are

The first paragraph mentions Salman Rushdie, which reminded me of this[0]. For anyone interested in free speech, victim blaming and such, these Dahl quotes are interesting: 'In a letter to The Times of London, Dahl called Rushdie "a dangerous opportunist," saying he "must have been totally aware of the deep and violent feelings his book would stir up among devout Muslims. In other words, he knew exactly what he was doing and cannot plead otherwise. This kind of sensationalism does indeed get an indifferent book on to the top of the best-seller list, — but to my mind it is a cheap way of doing it." The author of dark children's books and stories for adults (who himself once had police protection after getting death threats) also advocated self-censorship. It "puts a severe strain on the very power principle that the writer has an absolute right to say what he likes," he wrote. "In a civilized world we all have a moral obligation to apply a modicum of censorship to our own work in order to reinforce this principle of free speech."' [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/arts/04iht-15donadio.6482640.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/arts/04iht-15donadio.64826...

Jun8 10y ago
Sadly, Dahl was not the only one attacking Rushdie: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/12/salman-rushdie-john-le-carre https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/12/salman-rushdie.... Christopher Hitchens was a staunch defender of him during the Satanic Verses debacle and was disgusted by the lack of reaction (or, when there is a reaction, the lack of bravery to make it public) in the religious and literary communities: "One might have thought that such arrogant state-sponsored homicide, directed at a lonely and peaceful individual who pursued a life devoted to language, would have called forth a general condemnation. But such was not the case. In considered statements, the Vatican, the archbishop of Canterbury, the chief sephardic rabbi of Israel all took a stand in sympathy with–the ayatollah. So did the cardinal archbishop of New York and many other lesser religious figures. While they usually managed a few words in which to deplore the resort to violence, all these men stated that the main problem raised by the publication of The Satanic Verses was not murder by mercenaries, but blasphemy. Some public figures not in holy orders, such as the Marxist writer John Berger, the Tory historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, and the doyen of espionage authors John Le Carré, also pronounced that Rushdie was the author of his own troubles, and had brought them on himself by “offending” a great monotheistic religion. There seemed nothing fantastic, to these people, in the British police having to defend an Indian-born ex-Muslim citizen from a concerted campaign to take his life in the name of god."
- danielnixon 10y ago
  Speaking of le Carré, you might enjoy this exchange between Rushdie, Hitchens and le Carré in The Guardian: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/burning/le-carre-vs-rushdie.html http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/burning/le-carre-vs-rushdie.h...

Jun8 10y ago

Sadly, Dahl was not the only one attacking Rushdie: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/12/salman-rushdie-john-le-carre https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/12/salman-rushdie.... Christopher Hitchens was a staunch defender of him during the Satanic Verses debacle and was disgusted by the lack of reaction (or, when there is a reaction, the lack of bravery to make it public) in the religious and literary communities: "One might have thought that such arrogant state-sponsored homicide, directed at a lonely and peaceful individual who pursued a life devoted to language, would have called forth a general condemnation. But such was not the case. In considered statements, the Vatican, the archbishop of Canterbury, the chief sephardic rabbi of Israel all took a stand in sympathy with–the ayatollah. So did the cardinal archbishop of New York and many other lesser religious figures. While they usually managed a few words in which to deplore the resort to violence, all these men stated that the main problem raised by the publication of The Satanic Verses was not murder by mercenaries, but blasphemy. Some public figures not in holy orders, such as the Marxist writer John Berger, the Tory historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, and the doyen of espionage authors John Le Carré, also pronounced that Rushdie was the author of his own troubles, and had brought them on himself by “offending” a great monotheistic religion. There seemed nothing fantastic, to these people, in the British police having to defend an Indian-born ex-Muslim citizen from a concerted campaign to take his life in the name of god."

danielnixon 10y ago
Speaking of le Carré, you might enjoy this exchange between Rushdie, Hitchens and le Carré in The Guardian: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/burning/le-carre-vs-rushdie.html http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/burning/le-carre-vs-rushdie.h...