The main purpose of SHAIKH-DOWN, as I’ve already said, was to outline a scenario (yes, an unlikely one) for revolution on the fictional island of Belaj. My two British characters (Cass the runaway housewife and Eddy the bisexual banker) are little more than outside observers to this event (Eddy accidentally makes a major contribution), but the principal Arab characters (Nayla the Amir’s niece and Rashid the gay pilot) are deeply involved. The contrast between these two pairs of characters was essential to the book I set out to write.

Nayla is a counterpoint to Cass who has left her cheating husband in England and found ‘sanctuary’ with her brother in Belaj. Nayla doesn’t have the option to leave her faithless husband, although she has taken a lover (not something a Muslim woman would find easy to do, I am sure). Even her husband’s murder doesn’t set her free, since her brother quickly
marries her off to a Shaikh from another country. It is this husband who will turn her into a female Che Guevara.

Similarly, Eddy has the freedom to move from a failed (heterosexual) relationship in London to a briefly happy gay one with Rashid, whereas Rashid is under pressure from his family to marry and live a ‘normal’ life.

The revolution, in which Rashid and Nayla play key roles, will not improve their chances of finding the freedoms which Westerners enjoy. This is meant to provide the book with an ironical coda, as is my ‘fantastic’ projection that the revolution in Belaj is the first step on the road to a Middle Eastern apocalypse .

The debate on this site makes it plain that my attempts to be ironical (or funny) are not communicating themselves to Arab readers. Is there any chance of moving the debate beyond the book’s cover (and my lack of contact with female intellectuals in the Gulf) to the different options facing unhappily married Muslim women and gays compared to those in the West?

The extract on my SHAIKH-DOWN website doesn’t include Rashid (who enters the story a few chapters later) but it does offer a first glimpse of the way I’ve tried to depict Nayla and her brother and her uncle the Amir.

You’re Just Oversensitive

Once again, though very similar to You’re Being Overemotional, this one has a slightly different nuance.
What you’re implying is that the Marginalised Person™ is looking for offence where none exists.

Once again, you’re disowning your own responsibility, and this is absolutely the crux of any derailment – you just can’t repeat or reinforce it often enough. No matter what, none of this is your fault – nothing you said that was hurtful, offensive, bigoted or discriminatory is really to blame here, because you said it in all innocence! After all, what reason have you ever had to examine your ingrained prejudices? Why should you start now?

So you want the Marginalised Person™ to know this is how you feel and that you really believe the responsibility is all theirs – if they weren’t looking so hard for offence, everything would be a lot more pleasant!

(For you)

and

You Just Enjoy Being Offended

Closely related to the above point, it’s another critical element of a successful deraling. You really need to make sure the Marginalised Person knows you consider their issues to be completely trivial. It’s insensitive in the extreme – it also exemplifies your lack of awareness and empathy.

By demonstrating you have absolutely no concept of what a particular issue or point may mean to them both within their conversation with you and beyond it, you get to show off just how cocooned and protected in Privilege® you really are. Remember how maddening this is for a Marginalised Person™ – it’s a Privilege® they do not share and will probably never know so to witness it being so blithely owned and used to diminish their experience is bound to get their blood pumping.

But absolutely best of all, you are being obnoxious and hurtful enough to tell them outright that they enjoy facing discrimination and prejduice. Enjoy it so much, in fact, that they “look” for reasons to be hurt and offended! Wow. This one is almost breathtakingly perfect as a derailment tactic, it lacks any sort of conceivable class and humility and goes straight to smug viciousness. The very idea that anyone enjoys being hurt and discriminated against as a daily practice is so preposterous it could only be believed by a Privileged Person® who’s never really experienced or known what it’s like.

The fact is, many Marginalised People™ go out of their way to avoid these sorts of debates and confrontations because it’s such a painful and unenjoyable experience. Those you are encountering in this circumstance have likely made a conscious choice to do so, even knowing it will probably go bad. For you to spit in the face of their choice in putting themselves on the line by suggesting it’s all fun and games for them just adds a particularly piquant insult to injury.

*
I’m flattered, truly I am. Gee, thanks for reading.

(your repeated argument that there are in reality Arabs who want to sleep with white air stewardesses is of course true, just as there are in reality mean greedy Jews and black street criminals who are also good at dancing. But to characterise a group of people according to lazy stereotype at best shows a profound lack of imagination and at worse is racist.)

I worked with the artist on the design. The gentleman flying off the camel in the direction of the airhostess is meant to be a caricature of the kind of Arab with a weakness for cabin crew ladies (there were quite a few of these in Bahrain in my time, and I believe there still are). There is also an intended IRONY – a blonde stewardess is going to join the plot to eject the Amir off his throne, an Amir whose regime tortures and murders some of its teenage citizens.

Lens sees a racist subtext in the dogs running across the desert. Lens hasn’t read the book. Most of the British characters in the novel have adopted stray dogs. The Brits were doing this when I was in the Gulf and they’re still doing it – all over the world (I’ve just come back from a dog-sitting trip to Spain).

The bulldog is one of the symbols of Britishness (meant to draw attention to our pugnaciousness). And we are very sentimental about our pets. I brought two Bahraini salukis back to England – Sadie and Sophie, who also appear in the novel. (Sadie narrowly excapes being shelled by a tank on the morning of the coup that unseats the Amir of Belaj.)

That’s really all there is to say about the cover. But thanks again, Lens. I realize you have some serious points to make about the British colonial mindset and I am taking them onboard, but your fraught analysis of my artwork brought a smile to me and my cabin crew chums.

Ps. To whomever was asking about Michael Totten, as a Lebanese, I will tell you he is as inherently unaware of and full of arrogant assumptions about Lebanese society and politics as Mr. Gee seems to be about the Gulf.

TeakLipstickFiend (a white, Western woman)

Careful not to go anywhere near an Arab land, since according to David, all Arabs would obsess about your “Western totty” and the overwhelming stupidity of Arab women might actually be contagious. Please, in the interest of your own safety, avoid any and all Arabs, specifically those in the Gulf. We’re nasty over here.

Maybe you should read this and you might just get it (though it seems unlikely):
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/09/29/your-joke-is-not-my-joke-racism-and-sexism-in-jokes-and-satire/#more-3306

The extract I read of you book is not funny, it is not satire, it is not even sexy. It is tired, unoriginal, clearly offensive to the people of the Gulf (see comments above and in the article link I have posted), sexist and painful to read for anyone with an intelligent mind. I’d rather read Dan Brown or Katie Price.

Frankly it reads like some tawdry novel from the 70s purchased by a dirty old man who doesn’t dare buy real pornography.

I’m sorry to hear you’re writing another book.

Sincerely,
TeakLipstickFiend (a white, Western woman)