(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI statement: Re: Jonathan Ball Publisher’s decision to not publish Robert Kirby’s novel “Songs of the Cockroach” The Freedom of Expression Institute is deeply distressed that Jonathan Ball Publishers have taken a decision not to publish Robert Kirby’s novel “Songs of the Cockroach” on the basis that defamation action […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an FXI statement:
Re: Jonathan Ball Publisher’s decision to not publish Robert Kirby’s novel “Songs of the Cockroach”
The Freedom of Expression Institute is deeply distressed that Jonathan Ball Publishers have taken a decision not to publish Robert Kirby’s novel “Songs of the Cockroach” on the basis that defamation action may be taken against the publishers by the Democratic Alliance and other characters (or their families) mentioned in the novel. The decision was also taken because Kirby apparently did not disclose that one of the character’s names was an anagram for a public figure (a point which Kirby has contested). The publisher sought a legal opinion, which advised it that – in theory – such legal action would be possible and the non-disclosure of the anagram was sufficient reason for cancellation of the contract. Furthermore, in a letter to the FXI, Mr. Ball has described the decision not to publish as a commercial one, as the company did not want to open itself up to further defamation action.
The novel is set in the future and tracks the actions of a series of characters – some fictional, some real – in the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the New National Party. In the process, the novel satirises the history and current state of opposition politics mercilessly, portraying the DA as a party driven largely by the “failed dream” of white supremacist aspirations. A range of fictional and real characters are pilloried in the process, including long-dead members of the National Party. Some of the characters that the publisher is particularly concerned about include JG Strijdom who is said to have died of syphilis and whose family allegedly deserted him on his deathbed. The character whose name is alleged to be an anagram of a Cape Town-based academic is portrayed as a medical academic reduced to a vagrant on the streets of Cape Town.
The decision of Jonathan Ball Publishers to not publish the novel on these speculative bases is nothing more or less than a “bangbroek” approach to publishing. If publishing decisions were to be driven by the fear of attracting defamation action primarily, then the publishing industry would grind to a halt. The promotion of literary forms such as political satire would become impossible, as would investigative journalism and a range of other activities that are premised on pushing the boundaries of free expression. The fact that we enjoy constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and a more enlightened defamation law has been made possible partly because some publishers, artists, journalists and writers have been willing to take courageous stands in the face of adversity. The FXI has on many occasions supported them when legal action has been taken, and has done so on the basis that the “publish and be damned” ethic is necessary to extend the boundaries of free expression. If publishers are going to cave in at the “in theory” possibility that legal action may be taken, then South Africa’s proud tradition of adventurous publishing coupled with progressive and activist lawyering stands to be reversed. In fact, we consider the apparent non-disclosure of the anagram – which Kirby has contested – an excuse for not publishing, rather than a
substantial reason.
For Jonathan Ball publishers to argue that the decision to not publish”…is not an issue of freedom of the press or of expression, [but]… a straightforward question of defamation” is disingenuous and an obfuscation of the issues at stake. If the threat of defamation action has influenced their decision to not publish, then the book cannot reach the public arena. The effect of this is de facto censorship. It will also have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in that other satirists will think twice about producing books, which run the same risk.
South Africa needs publishers that are driven by a passion for literature and the belief in the power of literature to transform society. Political satire has a particular role to play in this respect. Robert Kirby’s book is funny, obscene, often pornographic, unforgiving and insulting. It is also extremely poignant. It must be published. The publisher who decides to take it on may well face defamation action, but we suspect that the political party concerned (which in any event is now defunct) and the individual characters will be more mature than that. We also suspect that in view of the latitude the courts generally give to speech aimed at political figures, and to artistic speech, those protesting defamation will have a hard time proving their case. Also, in view of the complexity of the treatment of a number of the characters in question, which often involve satire mixed with poignancy, we could envisage long legal arguments about matters of literary interpretation, which could have a further chilling effect on free expression. We would like to think that the real-life characters concerned would not want to associate themselves with legal action where the merits and demerits of the literary devices of satire are put on trial. South Africa’s political and artistic cultures are done a disservice by the timid “softly softly” behaviour displayed by the publisher and its legal advisors.
