Just got back from seeing Salman Rushdie give a lecture at the Lied Center. I haven’t read any of his novels, only one or two of his short stories a long time ago. All I knew was that he had written something called the “Satanic Verses,” and that this really pissed off the Ayatollah of Iran so much that he’d issued a fatwa calling for Salman’s head on a platter (Salman al’orange, smoked Salman, oh ho ho I am so witty). I didn’t really know what to expect going in, and almost didn’t go because I have a lot of studying and catch-up reading to do for my classes (hence, why I am blogging now, heh).
On our way in, we walked past the Phelps clan wielding their usual flamboyantly homophobic signs. They’re getting to be a fixture these days. I’ll know if the PR for an event sucks if the Phelpses don’t show up. A huge crowd of people were standing around the doors in the front of the auditorium, waiting to be let in. We weaved through the crowd and walked around the side, to a less crowded entrance, and subsequently were able to get really good seats.
After we sat down, Paul*, my roommate who we were saving a seat for, sat down and looked around nervously. “Man, we’re really close,” he said, tugging at his shirt collar. “Are we sure we really want to be sitting so close to a guy who has five million dollars on his head?” I laughed and said we’d probably be okay, and then I made the mistake of asking, so, have there been actual incidents beyond threats with this guy? He then rattled off a list of people surrounding Rushdie killed by his fanaticist opponents: 2 Italian translators, 1 Japanese translator (stabbed to death), 1 Norwegian publisher, and numerous publishers and bookstores that publish and carry his works have been the target of bombings. Then I was a little less happy about having a fourth row seat, and started to eye this guy in front of us who brought a backpack in, tossed it on his seat and left to go to the bathroom. Then someone pointed out that there were a lot of empty seats towards the front, whereas all the back ones were filled. Thereafter for awhile I kept jumping whenever I heard someone’s cell phone ring or random microphone feedback, which might sound like bombs ticking if you have genetic paranoia like I do.
We did not get blown up, however, which was good because Rushdie gave a hilarious and entertaining lecture. I wondered for awhile why so many people wanted to kill such an engaging and witty guy. Then he started making more and more digs at things such as intelligent design, the Da Vinci Code, and even sneaked in a little jab at Bush. It was all very funny, but I could definitely see how he could really needle people with no senses of humor.
He talked about a lot of things, in true storyteller fashion, but the predominant thread through the night was the role of the writer. Most importantly, the role that the writer has to play in history. That increasingly, in modern times, and especially in poorer, less well-off countries, the line between history and private life is nonexistent. So a Jane Austen in her day could write about a bunch of silly parties in which military officers merely serve the function of looking pretty, while on the continent at the same time, the Napoleonic wars are raging. But a Rushdie can’t write about his characters in a universe totally divorced from the India-Pakistan conflict, from the pantheon of 500 million Indian gods that play a great role in people’s lives. The personal really does become the political.
As in Rushdie’s case. He talked about the aftermath of the “Satanic Verses,” and how a lot of the people that were so vehemently opposed to the book hadn’t actually read it, nor any of Rushdie’s other works, for that matter. He talked about a meeting a Muslim guy who heaped lavish praise upon Rushdie. Prodded by his girlfriend, the fan reluctantly confessed that he had attended one of the early protest rallies in London against the “Satanic Verses.” But since then, he’d actually read the book and “didn’t see what all that fuss was about.” Rushdie’s response? “You asshole, you were the fuss!”
The anti-religious tone of the night did make me somewhat uncomfortable. The first person to ask a question was a representative of SOMA, the Society for Open-minded Atheists and Agnostics. Now, whenever I see a club or organization label themselves “open-minded,” that makes me think of the people that start off a sentence with, “I’m not a racist, but…”- meaning that in most cases, these organizations are the opposite of open-minded. SOMA seems to like to smear religious groups, in the newspaper and at their events, and seem about as dogmatic as groups like Campus Crusade for Christ. I don’t have a faith affiliation, thank you, but neither do I want to shit on people that do.
Anyhow, she asked him about the problem of religious fanaticism vs. rationalism in the world, and how to fix it. Sweet, an extremist binary. That’s totally open-minded. Anyhow, Rushdie isn’t terribly favorable towards religion, but I don’t really blame him – he does have pretty good personal reasons, such as a whole sect of fanatics wanting to explode him to death and all. I cringe whenever people take their reaction against Christian fundamentalism, and apply it to everyone that is religious. I was guilty of that at one point, when I was fifteen and it was cool to be anti-establishmentarian and stuff. Since then, my views have become more complicated, just like everything else.
I guess I can’t entirely blame the SOMA people, though they do seem like a bunch of pompous philosophy majors sometimes. It’s much easier to see the world in binaries. You can’t incorporate all the shades of grey into neat little multiple choice questions.
Back to Rushdie, at some point – when I’m finished with catching up on the reading that I’m supposed to be doing, and kicking ass on the tests that are currently ass-kicking me, I want to read “Haroun and the Sea of Stories.” I’ve always been a big fan of children’s books that are meant for adults. Much better than adults’ books written at the mental level of children (i.e., the Da Vinci Code).
*Physics boy. Hereafter I’m going to refer to people by made-up names, because the labels are getting kind of silly.
One Comment
I agree with you about the religion thing. Personally, I found it troubling that he thought his ideas and novels should be discussed openly in the public arena, while at the same time, he wants to relegate religion only to private life. While he used the example of the movie about him to argue that ‘bad ideas will die if they are let loose’ and that driving something underground will only strengthen it, he doesn’t seem to view a free exchange of ideas based on religion the same way, instead stating that he wants religion “back in the cupboard where it belongs”. I’m not saying he’s wrong; I just think there’s a tension there. Perhaps the second question-asker was right: maybe he needs to expand his world enough to include reason and rationality.
Post a Comment