thank you, ezra klein, for hosting the salman rushdie. and thank you, thank you, thank you, mr. rushdie, for creating and provoking and for writing. peace from a most happy cow🐄…
Very compelling interview, thank you. Perhaps Rushdie’s attacker’s inexplicable behaviour (at around 49 min in) was simply wanting to impress his ‘more worldly’ influencers in Lebanon. Very ordinary, probably immature guy wanting to prove he could do something completely extraordinary and unexpected. The banality of evil again.
That is an absurd take on the attack. The attacker most likely felt the weight of being anonymous and the grievances against Islam. The attack is more important than the attacker, once the attack is done, he again falls into an anonymous void, but Rushdie carries the attack with him as testament to Islam. That is not banal in any way. It is more literary than anything Rushdie could write.
@@martinvanburen4578 Unless the attack is processed through the act of writing, I don’t see how it can be ‘literary’, unless you think living, breathing and having thoughts are literary. Young, unremarkable men often feel they need to prove themselves by committing a violent, sometimes murderous act - I don’t think Rushdie’s wounds automatically becomes ‘a testament’ and then ‘literary’, if that is what you are saying.
the funniest vision ive had all day is that of salmon rushdie sitting in the chair gettting interviewed in a neckbrace head bandaged arm in a sling cast on his leg talking about it was supposed to be funny people thought of me as a funny writer
thank you, ezra klein, for hosting the
salman rushdie. and thank you, thank you, thank you, mr. rushdie, for creating and provoking and for writing.
peace from a most happy cow🐄…
Buy the book and read it. It's good.
Why wouldn't people subscribe to NY Times podcasts when their content is just heaps above the content freely available on UA-cam?!
Very compelling interview, thank you. Perhaps Rushdie’s attacker’s inexplicable behaviour (at around 49 min in) was simply wanting to impress his ‘more worldly’ influencers in Lebanon. Very ordinary, probably immature guy wanting to prove he could do something completely extraordinary and unexpected. The banality of evil again.
That is an absurd take on the attack. The attacker most likely felt the weight of being anonymous and the grievances against Islam. The attack is more important than the attacker, once the attack is done, he again falls into an anonymous void, but Rushdie carries the attack with him as testament to Islam. That is not banal in any way. It is more literary than anything Rushdie could write.
@@martinvanburen4578 Unless the attack is processed through the act of writing, I don’t see how it can be ‘literary’, unless you think living, breathing and having thoughts are literary. Young, unremarkable men often feel they need to prove themselves by committing a violent, sometimes murderous act - I don’t think Rushdie’s wounds automatically becomes ‘a testament’ and then ‘literary’, if that is what you are saying.
@@aurelia5614 It's literary the moment the act is explained to anyone else...when viewed alone, it is just an act to witness
the funniest vision ive had all day is that of salmon rushdie sitting in the chair gettting interviewed in a neckbrace head bandaged arm in a sling cast on his leg talking about it was supposed to be funny people thought of me as a funny writer
Nice interview