Salman Rushdie

[Declan]

Sorry but that is nonsense.

 

Knighthoods and honours should be for the foremost practitioners of their fields and that includes literature (though Rushdie's not one of these).

 

What devalues these awards is that they've been handed out to charity workers.

[Chinahand]

I feel this Guardian article reasonable accurately sums up my feelings:

 

LINK

 

"I am delighted for him," said fellow novelist Ian McEwan said last night. "He's a wonderful writer, and this sends a firm message to the book-burners and their appeasers."

 

John Sutherland, academic and former Booker prize judge, suggested the award might represent a tacit olive branch from those who perhaps had failed to support Sir Salman as he might have hoped.

 

"It's astonishing that Tony Blair, among others, has been so reluctant to be seen shaking Rushdie's hand, and here he is getting a knighthood from the Queen," said the emeritus professor of literature.

 

"Public figures have been very, very reluctant to support Rushdie, particularly when he was under direct threat of assassination. It's a brave and entirely commendable decision by the people who advise the Queen - I would be curious to know if the recommendation came directly from Downing Street, though."

 

...

 

"It does set the mind speculating what went through his mind when he accepted [the knighthood]," said Prof Sutherland. "He is a nomad. He has a supra-national, post-colonial style, so that it is very hard to say who owns him. And now he has pledged himself in the personal service of the monarch! For the writer of The Satanic Verses, which was extremely rude about England, it's certainly unusual."

 

I still find it amazing that people blame Rushdie for being sentenced to death for writing a book about a person having a mental breakdown in which he dreams that he's the angle Garbriel talking to Mohammed.

 

I also think his literary merit is justified - the list of awards presented to him is impressive (see the wiki on him), he cultived other Indian authors, and helped to create a literary movement discussing the issues of post-colonialism and ethnic identity. These issues are a major part of our world, to allow the medieval book burners say whether we should or shouldn't celebrate this man's works is for me simply beyond the pale.

 

I can't think of another author who currently has such an influential set of works - if there wasn't the fuss about the political reaction to this award I can't imagine his detractors being so exercised over this award. If it was Ian McEwan being knighted would people really be saying he isn't as worthy as Irish Murdoch.

[VinnieK]

I agree pretty much with Declan with regards to the quality of Rushdie's work. Rushdie's prominence as a writer owes everything to the content of his work and little to his style or qualities as a writer, in which he's pretty mediocre - burying his themes beneath turgid prose and working in established genres such as magical realism rather than doing anything interesting or important with literary forms themselves. As such it's hard to make the case that he deserves a knighthood for services to literature.

 

However, the honours system has always been politically influenced, from rewarding civil servants for little more than doing their jobs to trying to associate the establishment on popular culture (such as the Beatles MBE's), and within this context you can see the reasoning behind awarding Rushdie a Knighthood: He's the right age and the most well known and, with the possible exception of Amis, the most establishment of the baby boomer authors. Furthermore, his knighthood is a cheap and efficient way for the Government to state that they will not be cowed by extreme and violent opinion.

 

Of course violent opposition to his knighthood should be condemned outright, but that does not then mean that his award is justified.

[Pragmatopian]

What devalues these awards is that they've been handed out to charity workers.

 

Would respectfully disagree. It is entirely proper that exceptional people who have given their time in the service of others should be recognized for their efforts.

 

The British system doesn't have anything akin to the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, which is exclusively for those who excel in artistic pursuits: Knighthoods, CBEs, OBEs and MBEs can honour people from any walk of life. I think this sends out a positive message that everyone has the potential to contribute.

[VinnieK]

I also think his literary merit is justified - the list of awards presented to him is impressive (see the wiki on him), he cultived other Indian authors, and helped to create a literary movement discussing the issues of post-colonialism and ethnic identity.

 

I think it's a bit much to credit him with creating the post-colonialist scene, he was certainly a part post colonialism, but so were a considerable number of other authors such as Buchi Emecheta and Hanif Kureishi, not to mention much older post-imperal authors such as A.S. Byatt, Anthony Burgess, and Jan Morris and literary theorists such as Edward Said. What separates Rushdie from any of these authors, many of whom are considered "better" writers in terms of their craftsmanship?

 

I can't think of another author who currently has such an influential set of works

 

Here's the crux of the matter. Who has he influenced, and in what way? He may have influenced young indian authors, as you say, to start writing in the first place, but that is more by example and personal involvement than the quality and literary importance of his work, which really isn't that great. Sure hand him out a gong for services to free speech or encouraging young authors or whatever, but for literature itself? No.

Edited June 19, 2007 by VinnieK

[Beavercheese]

I can understand the "Charity workers" comment in some respect, but would think that those individuals whom have made such a decent contribution to the people of the nation or service to their country and its inhabitants should be justifiable cause for a knighthood as it in some respects defines what a Knighthood should be about...

 

I am just concerned that it will get to the stage where the owner of the "Crazy Frog" will get a gong for his influence on the nation and its mobiles!

 

So the general consensus "appears" to be that the Knighthood in this case is given more for political reasons than for actual ability/prose ?

[Declan]

I can't think of another author who currently has such an influential set of works - if there wasn't the fuss about the political reaction to this award I can't imagine his detractors being so exercised over this award. If it was Ian McEwan being knighted would people really be saying he isn't as worthy as Irish Murdoch.

 

Well I for one would. But it isn't McEwan getting it, even though McEwan's record is as strong as Rushdie's. Why is that? Is it because of the ancient controvesy that he is so keen to remind people of at every opportunity?

[Declan]

What devalues these awards is that they've been handed out to charity workers.

 

Would respectfully disagree. It is entirely proper that exceptional people who have given their time in the service of others should be recognized for their efforts.

 

 

Sorry I didn't explain myself well, I didn't mean that exceptional charity workers shouldn't be honoured. I meant that too often it is handed out for services to XYZ and to Charity. This is bullshit, honour the foremost writers, musicians and sportsmen because they are the foremost in their fields, but don't do it for their charity work.

 

This is particularly true with Rock Stars, if Paul McCartney is worthy of a knighthood it is because of what he's achieved through his music, not because of his animal rights work. What happens is middling musicians (Cliff, Elton etc) get put on the same level or higher as the ones who truly made a difference by opening a few faits and bashing out a tune at a funeral.

[Pragmatopian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6769671.stm

 

FFS! If I were the monarch I'd change my mind and elevate him to the peerage just to piss these jokers off. While we're at it what about a dukedom for that Danish cartoonist and sovereign status over a small commonwealth nation for those guys who wrote the Jerry Springer Opera?

 

[Lonan3]

Perhaps it's time for a complete revision of the honours system. Possibly there should be an equivalent of the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres to remove entertainment/literature etc into a separate category. Then another category for those who given exceptional service in a particular area, another for those who have worked to publicise or raise funds for charities/good causes over a considerable period and so on.

[Chinahand]

This BBC article explains the process how he was awarded the Knighthood.

 

Initially a nomination is made - could be by anyone, looks like in Rushdies case it was a group called Pen - then the Arts Committee evaluates the nomination, if it thinks it has merit it goes to the main committee for final consideration before going to the PM and the Queen - both of whom could have objected.

 

So if we are keeping this solely in the arena of the Arts then these people thought the award was justified on grounds of Literary Merit:

 

Lord Rothschild, banker and philanthropist

Jenny Abramsky, BBC director of radio and music

Ben Okri, novelist and poet

John Gross, author and critic

Andreas Whittam Smith, former Independent editor

 

After they made their decision, it was up to the Mandarins and Politicians to decide if the politics around an award should rule it out.

 

I've enjoyed Ben Okri's works, and the name Rothschild is well known, though this particular descendent is unkown to me and I don't know much about the others - though basically I agree with their opinion - plus I'm glad the politicians didn't back down. I do feel that the free speech issue is a part of the award, and I would presume it would have been a subject of debate in the main committee after the Arts Committee had made its decision.

[Declan]

But was the thought in the back of their minds "he stood up to those so-and-so's"?

[Albert Tatlock]

This BBC article explains the process how he was awarded the Knighthood.

 

Initially a nomination is made - could be by anyone, looks like in Rushdies case it was a group called Pen - then the Arts Committee evaluates the nomination, if it thinks it has merit it goes to the main committee for final consideration before going to the PM and the Queen - both of whom could have objected.

 

So if we are keeping this solely in the arena of the Arts then these people thought the award was justified on grounds of Literary Merit:

 

Lord Rothschild, banker and philanthropist

Jenny Abramsky, BBC director of radio and music

Ben Okri, novelist and poet

John Gross, author and critic

Andreas Whittam Smith, former Independent editor

 

After they made their decision, it was up to the Mandarins and Politicians to decide if the politics around an award should rule it out.

 

I've enjoyed Ben Okri's works, and the name Rothschild is well known, though this particular descendent is unkown to me and I don't know much about the others - though basically I agree with their opinion - plus I'm glad the politicians didn't back down. I do feel that the free speech issue is a part of the award, and I would presume it would have been a subject of debate in the main committee after the Arts Committee had made its decision.

But with free speech comes self-regulation, responsibility and commonsense. All actions have consequences whether they are done under the banner of 'free speech' or 'irresponsible speech'. For the reasons I stated earlier, I still think the timing of this was all wrong: they should have nominated him by all means, but any award should have been offered when relations were not so strained - because there have been additional threats made by Muslims who are too stupid to think for themselves, and who have no concept of the phrase 'free speech' in their religion.

 

I'd love to know what most of the squaddies facing daily attacks think of this? Would they have done it for 'free speech' if the 15 Navy hostages were still being held in Iran. FFS! This is political ineptness of the first order.

 

Plus since when have we been fighting for free speech in Iraq and Afghanistan? Aren't we there fighting terrorism and looking for WMD? - and not arming terrorists with propaganda that they can use to further recruit?

[VinnieK]

But with free speech comes self-regulation, responsibility and commonsense. All actions have consequences whether they are done under the banner of 'free speech' or 'irresponsible speech'.

 

As I've made clear previously, I don't believe Rushdie deserves the award on merit, but nor do I believe that such an award should be prohibited on the grounds that some maniacs out there believe that violence and threats are a justified expression of religious or cultural indignation.

 

For the reasons I stated earlier, I still think the timing of this was all wrong: they should have nominated him by all means, but any award should have been offered when relations were not so strained

 

That depends on what you believe the government's intentions were. In a sense the timing is excellent as it allows them to cast themselves as stout and resolute defenders of free speech (such an effect would be diluted were Iran and Pakistan simply to ignore Rushdie's knighthood with sage maturity instead of resorting to ridiculous threats). I assume that the Government simply decided that the benefits of the decision outweighed the diplomatic consequences (which so far has consisted of bizarre sabre rattling) or the possible actions of a few demented zealots, rather than being guilty of "political ineptitude".

 

Ultimately, the opinions of extremists, be they motivated by ideology, religion, or racism cannot be modified by accomodating or pandering to those opinions or to react to them with silence for fear of provoking them further - this simply demonstrates that they have the power to influence government and encourages them further. Instead they need to be confronted, openly criticised, and brought out into the open where it can be demonstrated that they have no power or influence. I agree that this could be done better than by handing Rushdie a gong, and that the Government's decision to knight him is probably more self serving than they will claim, and as I mentioned before I don't believe he deserves is, but I would more prefer that he receives his knighthood for the above reasons, than to see him denied it because some fascist theocracy wants to bully the world into silence with veiled threats of future conflict.

 

Say, after a hypothetical period of race riots, the BNP employed some implicit threat of violence in an attempt to prevent a particular author being honoured or even published (for whatever reason). I for one would prefer to see their threats be met head on and to see people criticise those issuing the threats than I would seeing them being quietly appeased.

 

I still think Rushdie am well rubbish though, like.

[grant]

In the Express, "£80,000 bounty to kill Rushdie offered by the Organisation to Commemorate the Martyrs of the Muslim World."