The Literary Saloon follows up the censorship snafu at the Dubai Lit Festival that lead Margaret Atwood, in solidarity with a supposedly “banned” British author, to withdraw. Atwood has bone back on her decision and will now lead a panel, appropriately enough, on the issue of censorship. The book in question appears to have never been actually “banned” and the author and her publishing house seem to have used the charges of censorship as a PR strategy.
Every time you discuss a book being banned or reportedly being banned in the region, you always side with the authorities in question (Egypt, Dubai), while sounding terribly bitter about the fact that the resulting publicity has helped boost the profiles of the books in question. Of course publishers are going to exploit the situation; but if the books weren’t banned in the first place they wouldn’t have the opportunity to do so. The fact is that this particular book _was_ withdrawn from the festival because it has a gay sheikh as a character. So the morons who banned it deserve all the negative publicity they get, at once coming across as all cosmopolitan while secretly behaving like the cowardly toads they are. Maybe you should ponder whether the international outcries will help them to learn the error of their ways? Anyway, instead of getting so upset at the fact that authors are getting more publicity than your silly blog, why don’t you write a book in order to better channel your jealousies and frustrations? Hell, include a gay character, and it might even get banned. Then we’ll see how much you protest your publisher’s attempts at publicizing the incident… even more so if, as I strongly suspect, it was self-published.
Have you read any Margaret Atwood? Do you know who she is? I seriously doubt she is looking for publicity.
More to the point: have you even read the article in question, linked to above? It wasn’t Atwood’s novel that was banned, so it wasn’t her who created the publicity. She withdrew in protest at the banning of a novel by another author, then backtracked when it turned out it had been banned by the festival organizers and not the Dubai authorities. But what is the difference, since the organizers of the former were only acting to pacify the hypocrites who make up the latter? Maybe in her appearance Atwood should ask why a book with a gay character (who doesn’t even appear) should be banned, when almost every 5-star hotel in Dubai is a brothel. If this blogger had asked that question it might have led to an interesting discussion. Instead, she just sounds bitter at having been reduced to writing for a little outlet like this, while other more successful writers are making headlines.
I take your point about personal attacks. But it was more a personal observation on your tone. And nothing you write in your response suggests to me more generally that I was mistaken. Looking at your previous posts, you have consistently sided with the official version of events given by Arab regimes, when they state that a book was not banned following independent proof that it was in fact banned. Do you not know that Ministries of Information are generally called Ministries of Disinformation by the locals?
Moreover, you actually write:
“Usually, however – being experienced – they don’t give the real reasons for their rejections. They don’t say “It’s a stinker” or “The local Christians will barbecue us”. They say: “Not suitable for our purposes.” They know that if they tell the truth, they’ll be up to their noses in the merde.”
Firstly, it was clear from the email exchange that the reason given for the novel’s withdrawal was what there is a gay character. Okay, maybe that wasn’t the real reason. But does that excuse resorting to homophobia in order to justify its exclusion? In effect, you are condoning homophobia as a tool for offering indirect literary criticism. And again, the real issue is the hypocrisy: Dubai’s 5-star hotels are for the most part thriving brothels, yet the pretense of “Islamic” norms must be maintained at all costs. That’s the real story, and by suggesting that the novel does not conform to Dubai’s moral standards, the festival organizer feeds into this hypocrisy.
Finally, you don’t do yourself any favors by resorting to the I’m a White Woman jumping to the defense of insulted Arabs routine. I didn’t say ALL Emiraits are as described. I said the rulers are. In the same way, I’d say the rulers of the UK and USA deserve to be similarly described. Why the double standards when one criticizes the hypocrites who make up Dubai’s ruling elite?
I appreciate and quite enjoy reading this blog. What I took from the posts was that the issue and controversy/scandal around the Dubai festival is that it is much more complex than at first glance. It clearly involves more than two parties as well as the media which has taken advantage of the situation to write an exciting story. Who knows what actually transpired.
But as Margaret Atwood, quoted above, suggests, it is easy to jump to the defense of, or attack, the writer and book or the festival and its organizer. The posts here, about this issue, point to the fact that it is a convoluted situation. Yes, the banning and censorship of a book is deplorable, but is it simply that in this situation or as Ms. Atwood writes are “we all too ready to believe that This Is Exactly What Those People Do? To arms, Anti-Censorship Woman!”? Have we considered all and factored in the interests of all parties involved.