Power Games
I won't be surprised if next, Salman Rushdie wins the Nobel price for Literature. That is how it has always been: a power game. Those being knighted or awarded 'prices' have to be those who are - agreeable, conform to and serve the powers that be. They 'give' to and promote those whom they choose. It is just a few decades ago that Henry Miller's books were banned in the U.S.A, under the pretext that they were 'obscene', when in actual fact, the main reason for his writings being banned was that - they were anti American and anti capitalist (though he was an American). And D.H. Lawrence? He was considered to be a 'pornographer' and was officially persecuted and his works were censored; and he had to spend most of his adult life 'in exile'. On the other hand, as a slap to the then Soviet Union - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Price for Literature in 1970; and yet - not Maxim Gorky and not even Tolstoy or *Dostoevsky, did win the price.
I find Miller's writings, at times, repulsive and very objectionable - but, whatever way I look at it, he was an exceptionally brilliant writer; I do not agree with some of what D.H. Lawrence say and am very much against his personal lifestyle, but, few writers in English, very few indeed - are as imaginative and gifted as D.H; he is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers ever. Right next to James Joyce. Maxim Gorky, to me, was a much more superior writer than Solzhenitsyn; as for Tolstoy - he is, without doubt, one of the greatest of all novelists; any one who has read 'War and Peace' and 'Anna Karenina' would agree. And can any one who has read any of Dostoevsky's books not consider him a genius?
Even political personalities, are treated in the same way: Dawda Jawara, the Gambian leader was knighted and, yet, due to their anti West outspokenness, and inspite of the much that they have contributed to Africa - never could/can Nelson Mandela or Julius Nyerere become 'sirs'. Mr. Mandela had to even share his Nobel Peace price with De Klerk - the last symbol of South Africa's apartheid.
In 1990, after the violent reactions that Rushdie's 'The satanic Verses' provoked, I decided to read the book. I read the book slowly, taking my time with it. Rushdie can write well. But his fame is not due to his writing well as there are hundreds of thousands who can write just as good in English as he; his fame and his many awards are mainly due to the subjects he bases his writings on. Subjects that are pleasing and very much in tune to/with the West's thinking; more so 'The Satanic Verses' - under any other circumstances, a shallow book . Non of Rushdie's books served his masters as this. For he, a 'Muslim', to write such a book was the best he could do for them. It served their purpose and agenda very well. Just as Solzhenitsyn's writings served the West against the then Soviet Union. And today, as the West has declared Islam their number one enemy, Rushdie is, even, a much more important tool. So why not 'sir' him?
For one reason or another, some books or writings are **banned in certain countries or societies at certain times or for ever. In actual fact, there is nothing really like 'Free Speech'. All the major Western countries have banned certain books at certain times, for some reason(s). But when it serves them, the same powers will spare nothing and go to pains to promote certain writings or books and their authors; and never cease to mention 'free speech'. Now, as he has become even more important, to them - Rushdie will continue to receive many more prices and awards. After it being weighed and considered, he might even get the Nobel Price. Period.
** List of banned books in different countries on: Yahoo, DegreeDirectory, Bookrags
* Dostoevsky lived and died (1821-1881) before the Nobel Prices were being awarded. The Prices have been awarded since 1901. As it is, the Nobel Price is not posthumously awarded. The point is - he too, like Tolstoy, won't have been awarded the price due to what was considered his 'extreme' views, then. Note: though, without doubt he should have, Mahatma Gandhi didn't win the price or many of the other wards now being given to Rushdie. Why? He was considered too 'radical' and 'distant' to the West. Unlike Rushdie.
I find Miller's writings, at times, repulsive and very objectionable - but, whatever way I look at it, he was an exceptionally brilliant writer; I do not agree with some of what D.H. Lawrence say and am very much against his personal lifestyle, but, few writers in English, very few indeed - are as imaginative and gifted as D.H; he is undoubtedly one of the greatest writers ever. Right next to James Joyce. Maxim Gorky, to me, was a much more superior writer than Solzhenitsyn; as for Tolstoy - he is, without doubt, one of the greatest of all novelists; any one who has read 'War and Peace' and 'Anna Karenina' would agree. And can any one who has read any of Dostoevsky's books not consider him a genius?
Even political personalities, are treated in the same way: Dawda Jawara, the Gambian leader was knighted and, yet, due to their anti West outspokenness, and inspite of the much that they have contributed to Africa - never could/can Nelson Mandela or Julius Nyerere become 'sirs'. Mr. Mandela had to even share his Nobel Peace price with De Klerk - the last symbol of South Africa's apartheid.
In 1990, after the violent reactions that Rushdie's 'The satanic Verses' provoked, I decided to read the book. I read the book slowly, taking my time with it. Rushdie can write well. But his fame is not due to his writing well as there are hundreds of thousands who can write just as good in English as he; his fame and his many awards are mainly due to the subjects he bases his writings on. Subjects that are pleasing and very much in tune to/with the West's thinking; more so 'The Satanic Verses' - under any other circumstances, a shallow book . Non of Rushdie's books served his masters as this. For he, a 'Muslim', to write such a book was the best he could do for them. It served their purpose and agenda very well. Just as Solzhenitsyn's writings served the West against the then Soviet Union. And today, as the West has declared Islam their number one enemy, Rushdie is, even, a much more important tool. So why not 'sir' him?
For one reason or another, some books or writings are **banned in certain countries or societies at certain times or for ever. In actual fact, there is nothing really like 'Free Speech'. All the major Western countries have banned certain books at certain times, for some reason(s). But when it serves them, the same powers will spare nothing and go to pains to promote certain writings or books and their authors; and never cease to mention 'free speech'. Now, as he has become even more important, to them - Rushdie will continue to receive many more prices and awards. After it being weighed and considered, he might even get the Nobel Price. Period.
** List of banned books in different countries on: Yahoo, DegreeDirectory, Bookrags
* Dostoevsky lived and died (1821-1881) before the Nobel Prices were being awarded. The Prices have been awarded since 1901. As it is, the Nobel Price is not posthumously awarded. The point is - he too, like Tolstoy, won't have been awarded the price due to what was considered his 'extreme' views, then. Note: though, without doubt he should have, Mahatma Gandhi didn't win the price or many of the other wards now being given to Rushdie. Why? He was considered too 'radical' and 'distant' to the West. Unlike Rushdie.
Comments
Personally, I think it rather stupid that Rushdie was knighted. What, are they just giving out knighthoods these days? His book, from what I hear, is not that well written. And it was just a book. I think you have to write very well to get a knighthood for that- like on the Joycian level.
But I would also disagree that he is Muslim. By his own admission he no longer believes.
And I don't know that he is following his masters in this. The West tends to support freedom of expression, no matter how vile the thoughts. I can still go into a library and check out a book on how to make a bomb, or one that supports anti-Semitism. Indeed, the Rushdie affair has many similarities to the outcry over The Last Temptation of Christ movie a decade earlier, which was deeply offensive to many Christians, who protested outside theatres. (And equally a rather stupid move, as, like in the case with Satanic Verses, it caused the sales of the movie to increase far beyond the [rather poor] quality of the movie.) While the movie didn't come to some more conservative areas of the US, there was never a thought that it might be pulled from theatres by the federal government, and only a slim hope that it would be pulled by the studio producing it. It doesn't matter how vile the expression might be- in America, the freedom to publish is sacrosanct.
I know, compared to many places the US and European countries have a much more liberal aproach to the rest of the World - when it comes to expressions of thoughts. But I don't like them claiming and pretending to have absolute 'free speech' when that's not the case. There is hypocrisy involved. The only reason Muhammad Ali was put under house arrest. and hence denying him his best years to fight in the ring, was not beacuse he refused to be inducted in to the US army, but beacuse he was very vocal then; some people in power just didn't like some of what he was saying and they decided to 'fix' him.
I didn't want to write any thing about 'The Satanic Verses', which is in a way promoting it. But as I have realised that almost all Muslims who hate Rushdie never read the book, I had to point out that it is a poorly written book and it's only due to the subject it has and what it has provoked, that has made it known. Infact, Rushdie is no great writer at all - as I said, it is his subjects that have made and built him.
I know Rushdie repeatedly states that he has no religion and is atheist. He has to imitate Europe's greatest writers, thinkers and artists, otherwise he won't be able to build a name for himself.