The Jewel of Medina and the Cowardly Surrender of Random House
As a fellow author (UK: Past Imperfect and Ascension Day), I strongly endorse Andrew Klavan’s views here. Indeed, the point he raises with Dan Brown’s DVC (and there’s been many others in similar vein) raises an interesting legal issue, and it might be that Ms Jones has strong legal grounds here – under ‘unequal and uneven’ judgement being applied by Random House in its decision.
Yes, Random House have a right to protect their interests on various grounds – but they should also be seen (in law) to apply that judgement evenly across the field.
They did not do so with Rushdie or indeed with Dan Brown and a score of others. There’s also been many, many books about the Mafia or corrupt police depts or politicians.
Does that now mean that if said groups started threatening violence, Random House would do the same and cave in on publishing?
Surely not. And if they did do so, does that then mean that publishing from hereon in – what is and isn’t published – is decreed by the level of violence and threat that the parties spotlighted decide to levy.
If so, then it becomes a ridiculous state of affairs. No Sopranos because a local New Jersey Mafia boss feels they’re being depicted badly. No criticisms of Christianity or Scientology because of the same?
It’s never-ending, and the losers are both publishing and freedom of speech.
