Step Across This Line: Collected Nonfiction 1992-2002 (Hardcover)

by Salman Rushdie (Author) "I wrote my first short story in Bombay at the age of ten..." (more)
Key Phrases: bloody chamber, satanic verses, ruby slippers, Midnight's Children, New York, Professor Steiner (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Roughly one-fourth of these essays deals with the response of the media, various governments and Rushdie himself to what he calls the "unfunny Valentine" he received on February 14, 1989, from the Ayatollah Khomeini: the fatwa calling for his death. Everyone, it seems, had a script for Rushdie to follow, though none of these fantasies resembled the rather simple one the author fancied (and which seems to have been realized), which is that his problems gradually disappear and he be allowed to resume a more or less normal writerly life. To paraphrase an idea that appears in several of these essays, the problem is that frontiers cross us rather than the other way around: we are going about our business when our country is divided (as happened to Rushdie's native India in 1947) or we encounter a shocking work of art or our enemies declare they will kill us. Many respond to unnerving changes by embracing religion, but, says Rushdie, "ancient wisdoms are modern nonsenses"; in place of sectarian fervor, he recommends intellectual freedom, a simple concept yet a rigorous practice, as this book proves. These essays range over literature, politics and religion, as well as Rushdie's two private passions, rock music and soccer. They are united by a play of sparkling intelligence seasoned with sly wit, qualities that would serve the world at any time in its long, flawed history. After all, says Rushdie, the story he loved first and still loves best, perhaps the story of all humanity, is The Wizard of Oz, a fable that tells us the grown-up world doesn't really work, that adults can be good people and still be bad wizards.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Thanks to some Iranian ayatollahs, Rushdie is probably the most famous writer still alive. Although he remains under partial protection, he has continued to write since 1989, producing several novels and many articles. This first collection of short nonfiction includes material about his life under the fatwa ("Messages from the Plague Years") but ranges from discussions of The Wizard of Oz and rock music to his February 2002 lectures on human values at Yale. The title is well chosen; Rushdie tends to be confrontational, and the white-hot publicity has not mellowed him-a 1999 piece debates whether Charlton Heston or Austrian writer Peter Handke, a supporter of Slobodan Milosevic, should be dubbed "Moron of the Year." Although some of the pieces themselves are a bit dated, Rushdie has added updates in footnotes, and in any case he always makes his point. For large collections or journalism special collections.
Shelley Cox, Special Collections, Southern Illinois Univ. Lib., Carbondale
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 416 pages
• Publisher: Random House; 1st edition (September 10, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0679463348
• ISBN-13: 978-0679463344
• Product Dimensions: 9.5 x 6.4 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.5 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (18 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #999,396 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #54 in

  Books > Literature & Fiction > Authors, A-Z > ( R ) > Rushdie, Salman

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Intelligent, 3.7 stars, October 6, 2002

By	[e-mail] (Edmonton, Alberta Canada) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

This is the second collection of non-fiction by Salman Rushdie and like its predecessor "Imaginary Homelands," it covers a decade's worth of writing. Unlike the previous volume it contains fewer book reviews and literary criticism. Instead, it can be divided into four parts. More than half the book consists of various essays and articles. The second consists of articles Rushdie wrote against the fatwa imposed on him by the Iranian theocracy for writing "The Satanic Verses." The third consists of the monthly columns he has been writing for the past few years and the fourth consists of the title essay.

What is the result? Let's start off with the columns, which are generally the weakest part of the book. They are mostly unremarkable journalism and are often facile. Particular examples would include Rushdie's pieces on the new millenium, an outburst of creationism in Kansas, the rise of Jorg Haider and the apotheosis of Joseph Lieberman. But not all of them are so average. There are good pieces on the crisis in Kashmir, the military regime in Pakistan, the campaign against destructive and wasteful Indian dams, and the civil war in Fiji. There is a rather sharp and critical piece against J.M. Coetzee's "Disgrace." He has an amusing jibe against James Cameron's claim that his remake of "Solaris" will combine "2001" with "Last Tango in Paris": ...There is one particular turn of his phrase in his article on the police killing of Amadou Diallo. Rushdie states that it would be "unimaginably awful" to have Diallo's killers patrolling the street, and then he stops himself: it would all be too "imaginably awful" to have that, given the persistence of police brutality and the ineffective measures against it. There is also his denunciation of V.S. Naipaul for his callous response to the pogroms in Gujarat.

A reader may have concluded from the previous paragraph that much of Rushdie's best writing is about India and the Indian subcontinent. And while this is not true of all his writing (one highpoint of "Imaginary Homelands," was a lovely review of "If on a Winter's Night a Traveller") it is largely true of this one. There are good pieces on Gandhi, the 50th anniversary of Indian independence, and Indian literature in English, as well as an account of his return to India. The latter is quite good on the sinister BJP government, the impotence of the Congress party, and the widespread corruption, poverty and sectarianism. India, Naipaul once commented, is not a very subtle country, and Rushdie reminds us of that fact in the contrast between billions spent on nuclear weapons instead of relieving the horrible droughts that ravage much of the country. It is actually rather honest of Rushdie to include a paragraph which in retrospect somewhat belittles the terrorist threat from Afghanistan, when it would have been easier to highlight those columns which supported the American overthrow of the Taliban. One striking article is a short one Rushdie wrote on the Taj Mahal. He notes how the building is a classic example of kitsch and cliche, and how the entrance is surrounded by swarms of unpleasant peddlers. He also notes that it was in fact the British who preserved the building from the 19th century onwards. But notwithstanding all these reservations Rushdie points out that the Taj Mahal is still a stunningly beautiful building. Rusdhie also includes an interesting essay about the unsuccessful filming of "Midnight's Children," which was scotched because the governments of India and Sri Lanka rather cowardly and bigotedly refused to allow the BBC to film there.

There is a certain element of nostalgia in some of the other pieces. One can see it in the review of the Rolling Stones' 1994 concert. It is also present in the long essay on "The Wizard of Oz," which is full of many interesting details about the movie (Frank Morgan's coat was bought second-hand and it turned out to have been owned by L. Frank Baum himself), and where Rushdie makes some piccuant comments. (Such as that the conclusion to the movie is a cop-out, and less often remarked on, that if the Wicked Witch of the East is so evil, how come the Munchkins live in a such a pleasant and attractive place?) Rushdie clearly admires the film as a seminal experience in opening his mind, and says little about the novels. (He seems unaware of Baum's socialist and rather daringly feminist ideas-one central point of the later novels is how one character changes from a boy to a girl). There is a rather weak essay in response to George Steiner's comments on the decline of the European novel. Rushdie may be able to name 13 great novelists of the past half century. But none of these are of the stature of Proust or Kafka, and one could name far more from the first half of the 20th century. On the other hand there is an interesting essay about soccer (Rushdie is a fan), and the articles where he writes in his own defence are important to read. They are not important to read simply because Rushdie is a brilliant writer being attacked by a cruel theocracy, but also because they remind us that he is not alone, that brave people are struggling to support secularism and democracy in the Muslim world, and whether in Turkey or in Bosnia or in India, they deserve our support. As a result this book reminds us more of the author of "The Satanic Verses," and "Shame," rather than of "Fury" and "The Ground Beneath Her Feet."

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Formidable intellectual firepower, March 28, 2005

By	Sirin (London, UK) - See all my reviews

This collection of Salman Rushdie's non-fiction spanning the early years of the Iranian Fatwa to the immediate post September 11th aftermath displays all the characteristic intellectual pyrotechnics that Rushdie is famous for. There is much in this book for readers who engage with global culture and politics to enjoy. The first essay is an extended piece of film criticism on Rushdie's first acknowledged literary influence - the Wizard of Oz, a movie which reflect's his accustomed condition of a person uprooted from his homeland and adjusting to a strange and, at times, unnerving new world. In 1989, Rushdie fell victim to one aspect of these turbulent modern times - Islamic Fundamentalism. Many of the essays focus on the terrorist threat that hung over Rushdie following the publication of the Satanic Verses, a satirical riff on the birth of Islam. Before that time, Rushdie was a staunch advocate of an approach to life that was founded on the principles of secularism, freedom of expression and liberty of thought, and his experience under the Fatwa strongly redoubled this conviction. The final essays entitled 'Step Across this Time' were written in the massively uncertain September 11th aftermath and discuss the nature of frontiers and their significance. Rushdie argues that we are all living in a frontier time in which great changes are thrust upon us all the time. We must develop a frontier spirit of humanistic liberalism, become custodians of freedom and justice in order to thrive in this current climate. This is the central thread of Rushdie's argument that he returns through repeatedly in these essays and he musters all his considerable intellectual powers to state a formidably powerful case for liberty.

Step Across this Line is not just about the critical political issues of this era however. Also included are an exquisitely tounge in cheek autobiographical piece about Rushdie's experiences as a twenty year old living above a boutique in West London called Granny Takes a Trip. This was my favourite essay in the book and I hope Rushdie decides to write more autobiographical descriptions of his youth in the future. Essays on football and rock music link sublimely with more intellectual subjects such as post colonial Indian literature - a subject on which Rushdie is extremely knowledgable and a secular cry to the world's six billionth person to eschew the restrictive power structures of religion and embark on his or her own ethical development.

Rushdie is a controversial writer who doesn't shy away from stating his opinions bluntly and forcefully, and his views on subjects such as religion are fiercely contested by those who reject his secular view of the world. But I would strongly recommend this collection of writing to intellectual readers who will appreciate these outpourings from a man who is a genuine global thinker, assiduously well read and a first rate writer.

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Astonishing curiosity and analysis with a contradiction, June 23, 2004

By	Algernon D'Ammassa (Los Angeles, CA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This is a collection of essays and opinion columns encompassing Salman Rushdie's arrival in New York and his continuing work as a novelist and critic.

His essay on THE WIZARD OF OZ is a beautiful piece, written as a migrant and a father, in which he explores "one final, unexpected rite of passage," when we must inevitably disappoint the expectations of our child and be exposed - like the wizard as portrayed by Frank Morgan - as humbugs.

At times, Rushdie's thought seems constrained by double standards. Although the long section relating the story of the campaign to defend him from Ayatollah Khomeini's death sentence is valuable, I was disappointed it did not include his own infamous public embrace and then disavowal of Islam. Perhaps it is a moment he would rather forget, even though he could submit this as evidence of the fact that scripts were continually being forced upon him by various parties during his years in hiding. There is even a darkly amusing echo here of Muhammad's disavowal of the so-called "Satanic" verses mentioned in a certain famous novel. It is, however, an event that belongs in the record.

Rushdie's views on the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism (which is to some extent a war on violence wrought in the name of Islam) is surely of interest given his personal experience with radical Islamists. Yet a contradiction in his moral reason appears over the course of his writing. He upholds, as a basic principle of morality, the view that an individual is responsible for his murders no matter what his rationale is. Hence, it is unacceptable to excuse terrorism on the basis of anti-Americanism. On the other hand, Rushdie is willing to relieve individuals of personal blame in order to blame religion itself for murder. He writes, "...religion is the poison in the blood... What happened in India, happened in God's name. The problem's name is God."

If an individual kills for the sake of a totem, why is that God's fault rather than the individual's? Why is it okay to blame a person's religion, but not their politics?