Your Danish Cartoons Hangover Update

* here's a fine round-up of links pertaining to the decision by Yale University Press not to run the Danish Muhammad Cartoons or any other illustrations of Muhammad in Jytte Klausen's new book The Cartoons That Shook The World. It's pretty much all there: statements that are alarmist and even outright false, statements that run counter to the arguments made in the book they're publishing, the negative commentary that's out there from various columnists, the fact that Klausen seems to have been sort of kept in the dark about details of this strange vetting process. It's worth a read, but what a depressing mess.

* I still wonder how much a bad book contract plays into this -- it's hard for me to think that any author with a good contract as to what they'll be allowed to do can have a book and not be granted something as fundamental as showing the cartoons. I mean, even our dopey contract for the Stan Lee book wouldn't have put us in a position of not being able to run a photo of Stan Lee. Maybe there are different standards with an academic press, I don't know.

* on the other hand, the publicity is such this book might do very well -- at least in terms of academic books -- because of these actions, and that's maybe something to keep in mind as a second wave of opinions develop.

* one thing I hope for is that the lack of illustrations will be front and center when and if people decide on the ultimate value of this book. It sounds like a respectable, well-researched book, but I hope reviewers don't fall for that trap where the book is judged as if these publishing decisions were beyond anyone's control. The lack of cartoons is a choice on the same level as anything in the book's selection of interview subjects or the scope of the studies involved: it should have a definite impact on how the work is viewed.

* here's a statement by one of the experts contacted by the Press, and while at least this person's views don't seem to run totally counter to the press release, which is an improvement, I'm not sure the specifics of the statements match up. There's a big difference between declaring something a gratuitous publication -- a judgment with which I disagree -- and noting past actions and making an argument for a likelihood of violence, which is what seems to have been claimed by the Press.

* I'm not sure how legitimate this is, and any road paved in part with rhetoric where the notion of Saudi money gets bandied about in just those terms is usually a road with at least one exit to wackadoodle-land, but the general idea that if an academic press is going to be swayed by general political predictions they could also be swayed by specific financial interests doesn't sound like it should be completely off the table.

* finally, it's not like Anders Fogh Rasmussen has stopped having to answer questions about the whole affair. It's hard to imagine this helps him in his current position; whether it hurts, I can't tell.
 
posted 8:20 am PST | Permalink
 

---

 
Daily Blog Archives
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
 
Full Archives