Rushdie, By Way of Example

Salman Rushdie serves as the perfect example of what happens when the accusation of propaganda becomes a cudgel against art.

From Johann Hari, by way of Andrew Sullivan:

Ah, the critics say, but he brought it on himself. He wrote things he knew were "provocative". George Galloway, completing his journey to the theocratic far right, has sneered that his novel is "indeed positively Satanic", and said "he turned 1.8 billion people in the world against him when he talked about their prophet in a way that can only be described as blasphemous."

This is exactly analogous to saying a woman wearing a short skirt is responsible for being dragged into an alley and raped. It is also flecked with a form of soft racism, since Galloway assumes all Muslims are excitable children who can only react to querying of the Koran with attempted butchery.

But of course the only one's who are being "provocative" are the religious leaders who openly called for Rushdie's murder. What does it say when your entire religious culture is based on propaganda (or is there any distinction between the two?)

The Satanic Verses is an all right novel, but Rushdie's masterpiece remains Midnight's Children, a magical realist novel about the founding of modern India and the children who made up its first generation. He should be congratulated on his knighthood and rewarded with many new readers.