flavorwire

flavorpill:

Find Events In Your City

Books

The Most Dangerous Novels of All Time

8

The decades-old controversy over Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses has been in the news again recently following the author’s cancelled appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival in the wake of reported death threats. This intended violence is not the first that Rushdie’s novel has inspired, and his is definitely not the first real-life danger to come from literature. In fact, several books are reputed to have inspired or informed violence over the years, to varying degrees. The debate over whether the impulse to violence can originate from media — whether film, video games, or books — is a complex one, and we’re not seeking to answer it here, though we tend to think that no piece of media can incite a healthy mind to violent deeds (and the violence in Rushdie’s case is definitely directly caused by dissent over the book). However, several real-life crimes have been linked to works of literature, and therefore we must consider them at least a little more dangerous than say, Pride and Prejudice. Nota bene: this is a list of dangerous novels, so any potentially harmful propaganda, religious texts and nonfiction are all ineligible. Click through to check out our list, and get ready to scan your friends’ bookshelves for signs of insanity.

The Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie

You may think this novel was only dangerous to Rushdie, but in fact more than 50 people died as a result of its publication — or at least as a result of the extreme reaction of the Muslim community. First published in the United Kingdom in 1988, this novel, a magical realist work that includes a dream sequence about Muhammad, caused outrage among many Muslims who accused Rushdie of blasphemy. In 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa against the writer, ordering Muslims to kill him, a ruling that stayed in effect until 1998. Rushdie was bombarded with hate mail and death threats, and was forced to enter the British government’s protection program. Meanwhile, despite Rushdie’s apologies and written reaffirmations of his faith, several people were killed and injured in anti-Rushdie riots, including the book’s Japanese translator, who was stabbed to death, and the Italian translator, who was gravely wounded but survived. In 1993, Turkish scholars attending the Pir Sultan Abdal Literary Festival refused to hand over Aziz Nesin, the book’s Turkish translator, to a group of Islamic extremists. In response, the group burned down the hotel, killing 37 people (though Nesin escaped). Only recently, Rushdie cancelled his plans to attend the Jaipur Literature Festival after reports of planned assassination attempts.

Tags: , , , ,

Comments (8)

“Fight Club” is a book that has dangerous potential. While Chuck Palahniuk defends it as a satire on the modern man, many have suggested it pro-anarchy and anti-authority. The book and the movie have also inspired real life underground fight clubs.

That only illustrates the irony of the book. Palahniuk is challenging society’s blind adherence to follow whatever social construct is sold to them. When the protagonist proposes an alternative social construct, men blindly jump on that train and become the same simple-minded drones that they were in their cornflower blue ties. Hence, the term “Space Monkey” and the oath to not use names or ask questions.

This book is a work of fiction. If you as an individual cannot discern the difference between fantasy and reality, psychiatric help may be required. ” FIGHT CLUB ” is also a work of fiction. First amendment rights, undertones and personal beliefs aside.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was one of the main things that started the war. The novel shed a light on slavery and its conditions like Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” shed a light on factory working conditions.

Damn. I would’ve liked to read this book!

wow @drew looks like you remember things really well from 6th grade social studies. <3 intelligent commentary

Re: Clockwork Orange–yes, the movie is fairly true to the book, although “Singing in the Rain” specifically was an improvised insertion not found in the book. The other, pretty major, distinction that makes the movie possibly rather more “dangerous” than the book, if either is, would be that the movie is based on the original bowdlerized American publication, which failed to include the final chapter in which Alex grows out of violence, semi-redeems himself, the idealized debauchery is put in its place as a fable’s version of immature urges taken to their extreme. Burgess’s reputation being based centrally on the cropped version of Clockwork Orange, since the movie, is made even more inaccurate given he himself found the fact that it was a story of redemption to be one of the most important aspects.

I’m so tired of people acting as if reading “The Catcher in the Rye” drove those men to kill. Rather than, oh I don’t know, thinking “Hey, maybe these guys were just crazy all on their own” — which would be the more logical conclusion. The Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951, John Lennon died in 1980 and Rebecca Schaeffer in ’89. Millions of people had read the book between those three dates and not murdered anybody. You’d think people would get over this idiotic theory by now.

Post a new comment



Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here.