Well, Sir V.S. got one, so it's merely a matter of time -- and lobbying
Sir Salman may well get a Nobel Prize for Literature. In fact, his supporters have long campaigned for it, and when Sir V. S. Naipaul -- a fellow writer of Indian origin -- got the prize in 2001, there were some Rushdie backers who felt that Naipaul's cohort had simply done a better job at mobilizing what it takes for the Nobel.
What it takes is relentless lobbying. Just ask Jagdish Bhagwati, the University Professor at Columbia University, and arguably the world's greatest authority on trade and aid. He was trumped in 1998 by a fellow Indian, Amartya Sen of Harvard, whose Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences was awarded -- in the perception of many -- not so much for any sustained body of work that combined theoretical with remedial economics in the manner of Bhagwati, but at least partly because Sen's spouse, Emma Rothschild of Cambridge University reportedly master-minded a massive campaign that brought pressure on the Nordics who make decisions about the prize. Yes, folks, the Nobel is a political prize in most categories -- "literature" and "peace" most specifically, and sometimes "economics," too.
The late Irving Wallace wrote "The Prize," which, albeit through fiction, offered insights into the selection process, among other things. That was back in 1961, but those insights are no less true today. (Disclosure: I am friends with both Jagdish Bhagwati and his wife Professor Padma Desai, and also with Amartya Sen. My own brand of economics lean much more toward Bhagwati's: free markets and free people, less government, and lower trade barriers. I am less enamored of Sen's public-welfare theories, which were cited by the Nobel Committee.)
I have no doubt Sir Salman's supporters will gather fresh strength from his British knighthood, conferred by the Queen but by suggested by the soon-to-depart Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain.
All by way of saying that in the various Web discussions thus far, there appears to be considerable reluctance to acknowledge that:
(1) Major prizes and titles are largely political, with subtexts to them;
(2) Writers -- however pure practioners of their craft they might be -- are not beyond employing marketing ploys to drum up interest in their works. Sometimes this is done subtly. Sometimes writers hire P.R. firms (there are several in New York and London that specialize in "spreading the word" about writers who give them retainers). Sometimes their friends help create "buzz" before the book appears, and then advance its sales through favorable notices. (Question: How well did Clark Blaise, who wrote the single most important review that launched Sir Salman's celebrated "Midnight's Children" on the front page of The New York Times Sunday Book Review, know Rushdie? Not a coincidence that Blaise's wife, Bharati Mukherjee, is Indian-born, like Sir Salman.) The name of the game is back-scratching.
(3) Sir Salman may not have intended Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to react violently and issue a death fatwa. He's probably too decent a chap to have imagined that lives would be lost over his strange novel. But surely a man as sophisticated, knowing, worldly and cosmopolitan as Rushdie must have known that the law of unintended consequences was certain to kick in once his own op-ed article in the New York Times in defense of "The Satanic Verses" appeared.
The "controversy" shouldn't be over Islam. It begins and should end with Sir Salman. He did what most contemporary writers seeking enhanced celebrity do -- he drew attention to himself and his work. And he sure got that, and plenty of lucre, too.
Now here's something somewhat related that G2K members may not be aware of: The great Indian painter Maqbool Fida Husain is currently living in exile in Dubai. Why? Because a bunch of fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims objected to his recent work, "Mother India," in which he portrayed India in the form of a nude woman. They initiated court action against Husain, they issued death threats, and they even got a compliant judge to hand down an order seizing Husain's assets in India. There's a warrant out against the artist, which means that the moment he steps on Indian soil, he will be arrested and incarcerated. Typically, court cases in India aren't heard by judges for anywhere from three to ten years. Husain is 92 years old. He's also a Muslim. So what we should call this, an artistic fatwa?
Maybe there's a roman-a-clef for Sir Salman in this: "Satanic Paintings," perhaps?