A bit more on the PEN/Charlie Hebdo backlash before we call it a day. Whenever a handful of writers are unhappy, a manifesto can’t be far behind. And sure enough, the withdrawal of a few worthies as hosts of the PEN dinner honoring Charlie Hebdo quickly led to a sententious “statement,” circulated by email for signatories. A few dozen prominent writers were happy to join in the breast-beating, signing on to noxious windbaggery of this sort: “Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.” In other words, it’s not cricket for Charlie Hebdo to mock Muslim extremism, because you’re allowed to push violent, undemocratic ideas when you’re an oppressed minority.
Worse, even, than the “statement” were the elaborations by some of the signatories. For decades, quasi-Marxist ideas about “justice” trumping the rights enjoyed by the individualistic bourgeoisie have been infecting the arts, but the rationales for rejecting free speech are still repellent. Novelist Francine Prose, for instance, maunders on about “the narrative” of the murders (see above). Surely she’s aware that this isn’t about a “narrative”? Twelve people were killed because of a magazine. That is a reality. If you must construct a “narrative” where Muslim terror attacks are primarily bad because they encourage anti-Muslim cultural prejudices, it’s going to be a fictional one.
Novelist Rachel Kushner told the New York Times she didn’t want Charlie Hebdo to be honored because of the magazine’s “cultural intolerance,” which promotes “a kind of forced secular view.” The problem with Charlie Hebdo is secularism? Really? This is an awfully surprising definition of intolerance coming from a left-leaning writer. Kushner may be respectful of the religious liberty of Muslims who think blasphemy is punishable by death, but it would be plenty revealing to get her and her fellow Hebdo dissenters on record about the cultural tolerance owed to Christian pizza parlor owners who politely decline to cater gay weddings.
Robert McLiam Wilson, who has the distinction of being Charlie Hebdo’s only English-speaking columnist, notes that of the bevy of American and U.K. writers protesting Hebdo’s honor, almost none speak French. Hence, these writers claiming to be sensitive to language and cultural context are in no position to judge whether Charlie Hebdo’s satire is offensive. In reality, Charlie Hebdo is very left-wing, with impeccable credentials for crusading against racism. “Yes,” writes Wilson in the New Statesman, “Charlie is tasteless and discomfiting. Have I somehow missed all the gentle, polite satire? That amiable, convenient satire that everybody likes. If you speak French and you tell me you think Charlie is racist, I can respect that. If you don’t speak French and you tell me the same, well (how to put this politely?) . . . sorry, I can’t actually put it politely.”
The cartoonist Luz—who survived the Charlie Hebdo massacre because he overslept and went on to draw the cover of the first edition after the attack—announced last week that he would no longer draw Muhammad because “it no longer interests me.” There’s a very real possibility that Luz is saying he fears for his life. It could also be that he’s succumbing to the politically correct orthodoxy of his literary peers. Either way, the terrorists—and the self-righteous writers who enable them—are winning.
