Sherry Jones is going to be visiting for a day on my blog on November 1, and there’s an open forum (I’ve officially invited people who’ve read the book AND people who haven’t but are interested in the controversy). If you’re interested, please stop by–I think your view would be interesting to have there.

Moonrat

When controversy generates readership, it is, I suppose, a sound strategy to generate controversy. Only it seems to me that playing intrepid Rushdie heir doesn’t require much actual reader reaction, now freedom of speech controversies are, to steal another’s words, “inscribed in advance in the decoding and orchestration rituals of the media.”

Personally, I’d call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not that I’m in any way begrudging Sherry Jones her claim to fame. Nor am I particularly upset about it.

Thank you for highlighting this important issue.

I personally believe that controversial works of fiction, such as the one written by Jones, receive publicity through the disproportionate reaction of readers and protesting non-readers alike. The author could very well capitalise on this exposure she has received due to the unwillingness of many publishing houses to take on her project. Many people will soon be converted into potential readers, thanks to this marketing strategy.

So what if her work gets published? There are too many books out there as it is, and they are far less accurate (she says it’s fiction, so what are we upset about again?), more controversial and extremely offensive. Why focus on this one? The book is not marketed as a newly-discovered, well-researched version of what the author claims to have really happened. It’s fiction, so all its inaccuracies and false details can be forgiven, if not completely dismissed. That’s what Book Review columns are for!