Monday, January 5, 2009 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

Assassins of the Mind

by Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair

Thanks to Catalin for the link.

When Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on novelist Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, it was the opening shot in a war on cultural freedom. Two decades later, the violence continues, and Muslim fundamentalists have gained a new advantage: media self-censorship.

At a dinner party that will forever be green in the memory of those who attended it, somebody was complaining not just about the epic badness of the novels of Robert Ludlum but also about the badness of their titles. (You know the sort of pretentiousness: The Bourne Supremacy, The Aquitaine Progression, The Ludlum Impersonation, and so forth.) Then it happily occurred to another guest to wonder aloud what a Shakespeare play might be called if named in the Ludlum manner. At which point Salman Rushdie perked up and started to sniff the air like a retriever. “O.K. then, Salman, what would Hamlet’s title be if submitted to the Ludlum treatment?” “The Elsinore Vacillation,” he replied—and I find I must stress this—in no more time than I have given you. Think it was a fluke? Macbeth? “The Dunsinane Reforestation.” To persist and to come up with The Rialto Sanction and The Kerchief Implication was the work of not too many more moments.

Click here to continue reading:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/02/hitchens200902

Posted: Monday, January 5, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #312719 by xmd on January 5, 2009 at 12:47 pm

"media self-censorship..."

Cowards

Other Comments by xmd

2. Comment #312725 by Apathy personified on January 5, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Good article and a very good point - Who's going to stand up for free speech if those who make their living out of it throw in the towel?

Nothing is sacred - everything should be held up to scrutiny and criticism, full stop.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

3. Comment #312732 by boozec on January 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm

That was excellent but I can do without the anti-Iran propaganda.

Other Comments by boozec

4. Comment #312733 by FatherNature on January 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Bravo Christopher.

When I read the Satanic Verses it appeared to me that the real reason for the fatwa was a veiled, but unmistakable, uncomplimentary reference to Khomeni (piss be upon him) himself.

Other Comments by FatherNature

5. Comment #312751 by Apathy personified on January 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm

boozec,

That was excellent but I can do without the anti-Iran propaganda

As it was the then Iranian head of state that that put the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, it's quite hard to write a piece that isn't slightly anti-Iran.

However, if you are refering to the very last sentence, (And, by the way, the next time that Khomeini’s lovely children want to make themselves felt, they will be armed not just with fatwas but with nuclear weapons.) fair enough - unnecessary and out of tone with the rest of the piece i felt, smacked of fear mongering really.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

6. Comment #312766 by Quetzalcoatl on January 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Extremely well-written article, Hitchens at its best. Gets right to the heart of the problem.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

7. Comment #312774 by robotaholic on January 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm

That was excellent but I could do with a little more anti-Iran propaganda.

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #312778 by Tzsak on January 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm

"That was excellent but I can do without the anti-Iran propaganda."

...What?

Other Comments by Tzsak

9. Comment #312798 by boozec on January 5, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Yes, I was refering to the last sentence of course.

Other Comments by boozec

10. Comment #312889 by amalthea on January 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Great piece of writing. I don't really have a problem with the anyi-Iranian sentiment, in the same way I don't object when he has a go at Europe, or anyone else for that metter. He has his own pet-hates, and we do too. Until religion ceases to be a political entity in its own right, we'll have to suffer more 'Gaza Strip' news stories, more glimpses into Rwanda, and even closer, the Baltic states going about their ethnic cleansing, without a word from the UN (until afterwards, of course).

I'm admittedly not an expert on international affairs, but maybe, just maybe, it should be against international law to kill innocents, or use them as a human shield. As I say, not an expert and maybe naive, but I quite like this little planet we have, and I'd hate to get all dead because some old f*cker in Saudi Arabia isn't getting laid enough (probably at all) and decides to have people killed in the name of Father Xmas, St Nicholas, Mohammed, the Tooth Fairy or whatever the heck god he is deluded enough to follow.

(off to read some more history. maybe if i know it I won't have to repeat it....)

And a happy new year to you all!

A

Other Comments by amalthea

11. Comment #312904 by Lucas on January 5, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Wow, that second to last paragraph says it all. I sure wish more people saw the world this way.

Other Comments by Lucas

12. Comment #312964 by Robin Burgess on January 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm

I'm begining to be convinced that (at least part of) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should apply to Bonobos.

EDIT: Oh, fiddlesticks, I wrote on the wrong comment section.
Well, anyway, what can I say here? These fatwah people are insane.

Other Comments by Robin Burgess

13. Comment #312965 by NewEnglandBob on January 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm

Thank you Hitch. Well stated.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

14. Comment #312968 by Lastandfirstmen on January 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm

I do not believe Hitchens is anti-Iran. He just does not care for a potential nuclear theocracy - He praised the Iranian intellectuals that signed the letter against the fatwa - He only laid into the regime - Thought it was more free speech than propaganda.

Other Comments by Lastandfirstmen

15. Comment #313001 by debacles on January 5, 2009 at 6:49 pm

"That was excellent but I can do without the anti-Iran propaganda. "

I could do without the politically correct incorrect stance. Why don't you start a pan-flute band or something?

KKIIIDDDING

But honestly...Hitch is a fantastic writer and just a brilliantly honest intellectual. How did his brother turn out to be such a loser?

Other Comments by debacles

16. Comment #313033 by eclampusvitus on January 5, 2009 at 7:57 pm

Want to have some fun?

I post at a little forum in Alabama, the Times Daily forum. I'm DeepFat.
http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/4771054867

That is the Religion forum.

It's open to everyone, of every opinion regarding religion.

Enjoy.

ECV, aka, DF

Other Comments by eclampusvitus

17. Comment #313067 by Lucas on January 5, 2009 at 8:37 pm

This was a very PRO-Iran article, if by Iran we mean the people, not their government or religious leaders. I very much want Iranians to be as free as I am.

Other Comments by Lucas

18. Comment #313192 by Layla Nasreddin on January 5, 2009 at 10:55 pm

I love Rushdie's work -- Midnight's Children is one of my favorite books. I especially like the bit at the very beginning where the protagonist's "grandfather" (it's complicated) hits his head on a rock while prostrating in prayer, and from that moment on, "he resolved never again to kiss earth for any god or man." Also, there is a dashing Englishman with a prominent center-parting in his hair who turns out to be integral to the story (with several cruel twists in the end). (I swear to dog that when I saw some younger photographs of Dawkins, I thought of this character.) As if that were not enough, there is also a young (very nominal) convert to Islam whose (Muslim) name is Laylah.

It's a thick, sprawling (and potentially really confusing), involved book, with dozens of characters and locations and heavy on what is sometimes called "magico-realism" ("magical" events being placed into a "realistic" setting and simply accepted as part of the natural order of things). The Satanic Verses has many of the same traits.

Oh, and I quite enjoyed the article, too! What a privilege to know this man and be able to speak with him!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

19. Comment #313265 by Jesus86 on January 6, 2009 at 1:23 am

I was watching the news in the Middle Common Room of my college at Oxford the day the fatwa was issued. I remember thinking instantly that every civilized country on the planet would have to denouce this travesty, and grew ever more mystified as the days and weeks passed but no world leader summoned the courage to do so.

Fast forward 20 years, and imagine my horror as the "human rights commissions" in my native land (Canada), started piling on the fatwa bandwagon by persecuting Ezra Levant (for republishing the "Danish cartoons") and Mark Stein (for republishing excerpts of his book "America Alone")... It's enough to shake one's faith in democratic institutions to the very core.

Other Comments by Jesus86

20. Comment #313337 by Inside centre on January 6, 2009 at 3:42 am

#19 Jesus86

It's worth pointing out that in a democracy, we only get freedom of expression and such as long as there's no strong opposition to these freedoms, the majority want to keep them and this majority vote on the issue. One only has to spend time with the electorate to have their faith in democracy accordingly shaken.

Other Comments by Inside centre

21. Comment #313609 by Duff on January 6, 2009 at 11:43 am

Yeah, stop piling on Iran! We all know it was those dastardly Norwegians who issue those fatwas!

Other Comments by Duff

22. Comment #314093 by bethe123 on January 6, 2009 at 7:46 pm

RichardDawkins.net would seem to be guilty of self-censorship also, or how else to understand the absence of Mohammed and/or Allah t-shirts on the site...as opposed to t-shirts about the "God of the new testament"?

Other Comments by bethe123

23. Comment #314102 by Sowester on January 6, 2009 at 8:17 pm

Comment #314093 by bethe123
RichardDawkins.net would seem to be guilty of self-censorship also, or how else to understand the absence of Mohammed and/or Allah t-shirts on the site...as opposed to t-shirts about the "God of the new testament"'

Given the rate at which the athiest "A-Train" seems to be accelerating, I don't think it will be long somehow....I live 45 seconds walk from a very popular Mosque and I would happily pose outside it with such a shirt on...or might that be seen as being a little inflammatory....

Naaaah - let the competition for the best T-Shirt slogan begin!

Other Comments by Sowester

24. Comment #314389 by nalfeshnee on January 7, 2009 at 5:17 am

Re t-shirt slogans, a sneaky one that gets Islam and Christianity and Judaism (and many more) in one fell swoop might be:

"No Angels."

At first look, it seems to be a girl band fan shirt.

But if angels really and truly do not exist, then:

* Jesus was not the Son of God (Gabriel)
* Large parts of the OT from the word go are bollocks (wrestling with angels, angels with fiery swords, etc.)
* Mohammed was mentally disturbed and not receiving dictation

It has always astonished me why the creator of the universe needs lackeys as often as he does. Even a very late arrival like Mormonism couldn't get away from the "angel visitation" meme. (Smith was visited by no less than four!)

Oh, and it's a positive t-shirt to boot, since of course Old Nick himself is, technically, an angel.

Refs to start you off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_in_Islam
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/angels.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/angels.html

Let me know if I win a prize :=)

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

25. Comment #314622 by BrandySpears on January 7, 2009 at 11:16 am

Boozec, criticism of the lunacy of Islamic Republics is not not a criticism of Iranians. Let the criticism begin!

Other Comments by BrandySpears

26. Comment #314704 by stephenray on January 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Having read Christopher Hitchens' article, I followed a Vanity Fair link to watch the video and read the article about him being 'waterboarded'.

I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Mr Hitchens for his bravery in undertaking this fearful experiment, so that it might spread the understanding of this ghastly practice throughout what its inhabitants are pleased to refer to as 'the free world'.

Other Comments by stephenray

27. Comment #315673 by NakedCelt on January 8, 2009 at 7:07 pm

Wait...

Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech. Among its contributors is almost every writer worthy of the name in the Arab and Muslim world... To indulge the idea of religious censorship by the threat of violence is to insult and undermine precisely those in the Muslim world who are its intellectual cream... What could be more "offensive" than that?

The Muslim world has "intellectual cream"?

What has this guy done with the real Christopher Hitchens' body?

Other Comments by NakedCelt

28. Comment #315733 by ty90 on January 8, 2009 at 10:55 pm

NakedCelt on January 8, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Wait...

Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech. Among its contributors is almost every writer worthy of the name in the Arab and Muslim world... To indulge the idea of religious censorship by the threat of violence is to insult and undermine precisely those in the Muslim world who are its intellectual cream... What could be more "offensive" than that?

The Muslim world has "intellectual cream"?

What has this guy done with the real Christopher Hitchens' body?

I am willing to bet that they do exist...like M&Ms and oh yeah...

we need to have a Richard Dawkins.net t shirt pool !
Whoever gets the best set of slogans gets a free shirt...
any ideas?

How about the class Mad : What, me worry?

How about the worst possible image of each figure and a big bold font saying: Religion isn't sexy anymore.

Or: Atheists do it because they want to.

meh that was utter crap.

Anyway, how about we think of slogans and comment them on a thread or blog?

Other Comments by ty90

29. Comment #316392 by gawddawg on January 9, 2009 at 9:01 pm

I agree with boozec's comment about anti-Iran propaganda. I remain totally unconvinced about Hitchens' stand on Iraq, and I think he is playing into the hands of larger forces who are driving the Iranian nuclear weapons issue.

Other Comments by gawddawg

Reload Comments | Back to Top