DAY 365 | "Don't change or rewrite decades-old books for modern sensibilities": Salman Rushdie
Salman Rushdie warns free expression under threat in rare public address after attack
Rushdie delivered a video message to the British Book Awards, where he was awarded the Freedom to Publish award on Monday evening. Organizers said the honor “acknowledges the determination of authors, publishers and booksellers who take a stand against intolerance, despite the ongoing threats they face.”
Rushdie, 75, looked thinner than before the attack and wore glasses with one tinted lens. He was blinded in his right eye and suffered nerve damage to his hand when he was attacked at a literary festival in New York state in August.
His alleged assailant, Hadi Matar, has pleaded not guilty to charges of assault and attempted murder.
He told the awards ceremony that “we live in a moment, I think, at which freedom of expression, freedom to publish has not in my lifetime been under such threat in the countries of the West.”
“Now I am sitting here in the U.S., I have to look at the extraordinary attack on libraries, and books for children in schools,” he said. “The attack on the idea of libraries themselves. It is quite remarkably alarming, and we need to be very aware of it, and to fight against it very hard.”
Rushdie spent years in hiding with police protection after Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, or edict, in 1989 calling for his death over the alleged blasphemy of the novel “The Satanic Verses.”
He gradually returned to public life after the Iranian government distanced itself from the order in 1998, saying it would not back any effort to kill Rushdie, though the fatwa was never officially repealed.
Rushdie won the Booker Prize in 1981 for his novel “Midnight’s Children,” and in 2008 was voted the best-ever winner of the prestigious fiction prize. His most recent novel, “Victory City” — completed a month before the attack — was published in February.
He said publishers should allow books “to come to us from their time and be of their time.”In his speech, Rushdie also criticized publishers who change decades-old books for modern sensibilities, such as large-scale cuts and rewrites to the works of children’s author Roald Dahl and James Bond creator Ian Fleming.
“And if that’s difficult to take, don’t read it, read another book,” he said.
👉 Find related content on this blog
Source: The Associated Press, Jill Lawless, May 16, 2023
Disclaimer: If you are the copyright owner of a photograph, video, artwork, text posted to this nonprofit blog and want it removed, please contact me at mynarrowcorner@gmail.com and the item(s) will be promptly taken down.
.jpg)
I find this a complex subject. I agree 'almost' completely, that old books shouldn't be edited, and certainly not non-fiction. But lets take Agatha Christie's "Ten Little N-----s" as an example: the N-word may have been completely 'normal' for her and her community at the time, but it's now universally considered offensive. And I think it's fair to say that even at the time, one could have known it was demeaning and offensive. So does the text get changed, or does the entire story never get read again? I mean, which library or bookstore would ever carry a book by that title again? And is that word in any way essential to the story? Of course the critical point is: who decides? And yet if no-one decides, then the chances are some _otherwise_ excellent literature is lost. And it trivialises it to call such terms 'sensitivities'.
ReplyDelete-daniël
I didn't misunderstand him at all, it's just we differ (somewhat) of opinion. As I said, I generally agree with him. But there are cases where the language in question is entirely inconsequential to the fictional story - to the point it's not even necessary for historical context. Christie's book actually had other titles almost immediately after its initial release - proving she could have known it at the time - and none of which impacted the core of the story.
DeleteI recently watched an episode of a 2002 BBC comedy on DVD, in which they referred to a Chinese restaurant as "the Chinky"... even in the 70s I understood "Chink" to be a nasty racist slur. It was totally unnecessary to the story and the context. It's something they could have known at the time. So what now? The episode never airs again? Or it's confined to the collectors' DVD library? Or the edit that out?
I don't want to be in the business of tinkering or editing the past either, that's why I said it's complex. We are both anti-woke, but it's not as simple as you would like.
- daniël
I agree with Salman Rushdie: if you don't like a film/book because it contains some specific words/references, move on. That's what I do, actually. I don't think I'm being simplistic. I honestly don't think that we're dealing with a major issue.
DeleteI also agree with Rushdie. Who should be the arbiter deciding what changes should be made, when and where? Nobody, except the individual reader. Even changing one small thing, be it nigger, faggot, wop, dago, spic, chink, the list goes on, creates a slippery slope of danger. No. Face the reality.
ReplyDeleteNailed it. 🥂
DeleteThe 'reality' is, publishers and libraries and translators and broadcasters make these decisions all the time, and have done so for as long as they've existed. And authors make these changes too. Books don't mysteriously appear for people to read, everywhere and in every language. 'Slippery slope' is just a poor argument, always trotted-out by people who can't deal with gradations.
DeleteGradations are a slippery slope. The KJV Bible is an excellent example: not only was it translated, several committees did rewrites to make the language more "elegant". Much was admittedly lost in that effort, beyond just translating from one language to another. It also means that subsequent versions, e.g., NR, slipped the slope when they "modernized" the KJV.
DeletePeople who use slippery-slope as an "argument" should never go to the barber. After all, if the barber cuts one hair, who knows where he'll stop, he might make you bald.
Delete"Slippery slope" is a non-argument, it's as valid as "whatever" or "because I said so", used by people who can't think.
"Woke" is generally a black-and-white approach to the world. And "slippery slope" is black-and-white too.
J'applaudis et acquiesce les propos de cet auteur qui sait de quoi il parle pour être victime depuis des années d'une épée de Damoclès pour ne prendre que la figure historique du danger qu'il court ; bientôt on devrait réécrire Shakespeare pour ne pas déplaire à qui finalement, car aucune pensée ou civilisation ne peut se dire que rien ne l'offense donc l'humanité devrait tout interdire puisqu'il se trouvera toujours bien quelqu'un pour se sentir visé et donc offensé par une vision d'autrui qui n'est pas la sienne et devoir mettre en exergue de toute création une explication ne serait pas même suffisante car qui pourrait en être le légitime incontestable auteur(e)
ReplyDelete😎🙏
DeleteCambiar una sola palabra de un libro es querer borrar la historia de los idiomas.
ReplyDelete😎👍
DeleteWoke culture is a scourge. Can you imagine releasing a movie these days called "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"? You've got the perfect storm: sexism, white supremacy, people with "special needs", global warming (no snow/or too much snow because of man-induced climate change).
ReplyDeleteThe next Bond will be a Black, disabled, Muslim lesbian. Count me out.