Satanic speculations

Robert Coates takes a devilish look at Salman Rushdie's controversial bestseller

The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. Published 2000 (first published 1988) by Picador Books, New York & London, 576 pages, US$16, ISBN: 0 312 27082 8.

WHEN the first �fatwah�, or holy execution sentence, was pronounced on Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses in 1988, I was, like others who had not read the book or Rushdie's other work, none the wiser. All the media fuss of the "liberal freedom of speech versus mediaeval theocratic mullah mind-set" sort of left me rather cold.

Out of curiosity I started reading some of Rushdie's other books and realised that, far from being the caricature of a westernised ex-colonial with a niche market in the language of Shakespeare or Chaucer, he actually produced extremely rich work with far more than an inkling of skill and humour. Rushdie is possibly one of the best writers to have come out of the English language for quite a while. Furthermore, I actually enjoy reading him. 

Rushdie certainly pre-dates the Harry Potter phenomenon by several years in terms of both inventiveness and sheer delight. Indeed Rushdie�s main virtue or fault, depending on your perspective, is that he seems to have anticipated real events and trends by almost twenty years. Had The Satanic Verses been written today, Rushdie would surely be on the principal hit list of Bin Laden (assuming he is still alive) just as he was with the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who died the year after the book was published in 1989. Furthermore, while I am certain that Margaret Thatcher perfectly fitted Rushdie's type-cast of immigrant hater in "jolly olde England" back in the 80s, as I read the media-pitch now, it seems that this theme is much more relevant in Blair�s "liberal" new Labourism today. Rushdie was way ahead on Bolliwood�s invasion of the Western film and advertising industry, but most of all it is the strange intermix of good and bad, bad guy and hero, naughty and nice that has got today�s political show down to a tee.

To tell the truth, I would probably vote either Rushdie's Midnight�s Children or The Moor�s Last Sigh as being better novels from a strictly stylistic point of view. The Satanic Verses develops through a sometimes bewildering array of characters, sets, times and dimensions. At times these are masterly: the Indian film star Gibreel, the public school Bombay radio star Saladin (and where was Richard Coeur de Lion?) trying to be awfully English, the Grangehill teenage karate expert � absolutely "wicked". At other times, the characters are simply, well, bewildering: Pamela Lovelace, the phoney Sloanie social worker, the butterfly mystic with her spurned Mercedes bound aspirant lover and critic, the flat-footed-mountaineering blonde bombshell. Possibly closest to the rub is the rather fetched re-enactment of the Prophet Mahound. It starts in a convincing play-set and degenerates into a rather less convincing brothel where the auld satirist enemy of the Prophet works it out as the eventual husband of twelve whores, to be stoned of course, who have taken the names of the Prophet's wives. Well I suppose if you were asking for a balanced review from an Ayatollah or a chat-show on Al Jazira, this may possibly not be the best way of going about it.

However, where Rushdie really hits a chord is in the rather apt depiction of the confusion of good and evil, good guy bad guy in the struggle, finally final between the Angel Gibreel and the devilette Saladin. Apt, as it seems to sum up very eloquently the rather confused conceptions of our gallant leaders of democracy as they go for the chap who blew up the Twin Towers, Bin Saddam ... or something similar. So what sort of reception might Salman Rushdie�s The Satanic Verses  have received had it been written today rather than in the 80�s? I add my own estimates of the probability of death threats or GBH in a few interesting cases.

Osama Bin Laden, if alive, would no doubt not have taken too kindly to the objective criticism of blasphemy, pulling the Prophet�s beard and generally ridiculing someone's religion. On the other hand, he would be unlikely to have read it. Odds? Probably quite high: 2 to 1 against. George W. Bush would also be unlikely to read it since his reading material rarely extends beyond 'Superman' and Exxon�s annual profit reports. But given his probable confusion of the book's author with Muslim dictators, terrorists, etc., there is a fair chance of action, although the hit rate would have to be placed rather low unless, of course, Rushdie happened to be hiding in a Chinese embassy. An evens chance. Given Tony Blair's obviously liberal and welcoming attitude to the UK�s multi-racial society, retaliation would not be very likely unless Rushdie were hiding out in Baghdad, in which case it would have to be a "dead" certainty: 100 to 1 against in the former case and 1000 to 1 for, in the latter. Saddam Hussein? Unlikely unless he could convince George W. Bush that Rushdie is the real Osama. Odds? 50 to 1 against. Last but not least, Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi would be most unlikely to react unless, of course, Rushdie were to join the Italian judiciary.

Salman, we eagerly await your next novel � perhaps a head-on assault of Lord Vodemort? Just one word of advice: I should leave the Christian Fundamentalists alone if possible.

Robert Coates holds two honours degrees from the University of Edinburgh, where he specialised in mediaeval history with a thesis on the Normans in Sicily. An Adelaide Australian who was brought up in Fife, Scotland, he has been teaching English at the University of Brescia in Italy since 1987.

Note: This review was first published on February 10 2003 by JUST Book Reviews.

Return to top

Home  |  Feedback  |  About us  |  JUST Response