Wednesday, August 6

Denise Spellberg is a piece of work

...a very ugly, stupid piece of work.

Update
Wouldn't ya know. Someone claims that Sherry Jones, the author of the maligned book, "herself is a P.C. thug of the highest order".

5 comments:

murray said...

as a personal friend of denise, i can tell you that she's actually a brilliant person. don't talk trash about someone if you don't know them.

pkd said...

After reading a novel, she told the editor of a popular Muslim Web site that the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," asking him to warn other Muslims. It's a novel! In America, on what basis are novels not allowed to make fun of anything? Spreading the word to enemies of free speech hardly shows brilliance.

DocBud said...

Spot on, pkd. It is perfectly legitimate to comment on people's behaviour when they do something odious and reprehensible.

It is not brilliant to betray the trust someone places in you when asking for your opinion. The eagerness with which she publicised the book's contents suggests she wanted to see outrage in the Muslim community, maybe the odd riot, a fatwa against the author. What a nice person.

m.jenny99 said...

It is a historical novel first of all which is why it was sent to a professor of history for review- and if someone twisted religious history in a disrespectful way just to make a buck- any religious group be it Christian or Jewish would also say something. Denise has the right to do what was asked of her- to critique a work...and now we are bashing her because we don't agree with her professional opinion??? Come on people...

DocBud said...

What is religious history, m.jenny99? One cannot be certain of the accuracy of any religious texts or traditions. They are not written as objective history, they are written for the faithful. Religious sensibilities do not trump free speech, leastways they shouldn't.

"Denise has the right to do what was asked of her- to critique a work". Absolutely, having critiqued the work, she should have supplied her critique in confidence to the client. The fact that she contacted a third party who she would reasonably expect to publicise the matter further is a betrayal of trust and suggests she wished to foment trouble.