AND NOW SPUD STEPS INTO THE FRAY
(Pic: Danie van der Merwe)
Author John van de Ruit has responded to Justice Edwin Cameron’s controversial letter with a tongue-in-cheek reply from his character Spud Milton.
In December, Cameron – an openly gay Constitutional Court judge – criticised the hit film version of de Ruit’s best-selling Spud book for its “casual denigration of gays”, sparking a fierce debate and newspaper headlines around the country.
Issued by van de Ruit’s publisher, Penguin Books, Spud’s letter suggests that Cameron should accept that characters in books or works of fiction will speak and act according to their nature – even though this may offend some people.
Referring to a scenario in the book and film in which a teacher comments on novelists he believes were lesbians and says that he’d like to give them a thorough “rogering”, Spud says:
“It’s tempting to say that I shouldn’t have written that offensive statement down in my diary and then it never would have reached the screenplay and now the papers. I could have simply replaced it with a line as tame as a sleepy orange house cat. But that would not have been my true account.”
Spud goes on to write: “Seeing other people laughing at something personal and serious to oneself is difficult, like when people repeatedly mocked my late development and its nasty repercussions.
“What offends you, makes others lurch, makes some people laugh, makes a few debate and the odd person walk out. Still, it’s good to have debates about these things and perhaps I need to see the film again, this time with a pen and pad.”
Earlier, Spud the Movie producer Ross Garland said that he was seeking legal advice on whether the publication of Cameron’s letter was defamatory, but the letter from van de Ruit seems to suggest that at least the author and the book’s publishers acknowledge that open debate on the matter has value (and offers additional publicity for the film and book).
Alison Lowry, CEO of Penguin Books South Africa, affirmed this by stating: “Alongside Van de Ruit and Garland, Penguin supports freedom of expression and open minded, robust and informed debate. Read Spud. See Spud The Movie. And make up your own mind.”
Tickets sales for Spud The Movie recently passed the R15m mark at the South African box office with over half a million tickets sold in just six weeks.
Below is the letter “from Spud”.
Dear Justice Cameron
I have never written to a judge before and I must admit that I am rather nervous about doing so, especially to one as decorated and widely respected as you. Wombat, my grandmother, forbade me to respond to your open letter to Ross Garland and the subsequent newspaper reports because she said if I made a cock-up or any silly spelling mistakes you could get me hanged. (I think it’s now only Wombat left who thinks the death penalty is still in operation here.) Unfortunately, I then saw the headline of the Daily News:
“Spud endangers gays – Judge”
The article was faxed to me by a triumphant Boggo eight seconds after it was published. Boggo clearly hadn’t followed what you were saying in your letter because he squawked down the phone, “Hah! Always knew you were gay, Spuddy!”
When I tried to inform the idiot that there was a vast gulf between homophobia and homosexuality he sniggered and hung up. I don’t think he’ll ever get it.
Anyway, after numerous false starts to this letter I decided to consult Reverend Bishop, who grew instantly pale and told me that responding to you in writing would be akin to David taking on Goliath. Unfortunately, I’ve never been one to throw stones and since Mad Dog was expelled, I don’t even have access to a decent slingshot. So if these sentences strike you as lacking in intellectual rigour or as the mere ramblings of an inconsequential young lad, please cast them aside and think no further on them nor me. Better still, you could pretend that I am not even real and that I only exist in the imaginations of deranged people.
Let me first begin with a sincere apology on behalf of The Guv for his insensitive treatment of lesbians and gays in his English class. I agree that the term “rogering lesbians” was totally uncalled for and that our English teacher deserved finger tongs (or worse) for his poor form and obvious intolerance. (There’s probably a good chance that The Guv was drunk at the time and he was most probably showing off like he always does with his bizarre references and shocking opinions.) Remember he’s a cranky guy and often strange sentences pour out of his mouth. He frequently uses the word “rogering” like in first year when I was a still a spud and he advised me to “Roger the entire chorus line before the end of the month.” I don’t like his occasional bigotry, or his heavy drinking, but he has still changed the way that I look at the world around me. It’s tempting to say that I shouldn’t have written that offensive statement down in my diary and then it never would have reached the screenplay and now the papers. I could have simply replaced it with a line as tame as a sleepy orange house cat. But that would not have been my true account.
Like you, I also enjoyed the film but had one major reservation that also kept me awake at night. It wasn’t the homophobia, or the sexism, or the racism, or the scene when I had my balls polished. It wasn’t even the examples of statutory rape which Eve repeatedly deals out to Rambo (this despite Rambo greatly enjoying them). Nor was it when The Guv made me drink alcohol at age 13 and filled my head with the notion that life is absurd and insane and that we are all poor players in some never-ending Kafkaesque farce. What really drove me bonkers was that the character of myself was played by a blue-eyed Australian! I mean, if that isn’t a low blow, what is? Not that I’m xenophobic, mind you; it’s just that ever since Shane Warne, I just don’t like Australians that much.
I guess the point I’m making is that it would probably be impossible to read any of my diaries or watch Mr Garland’s film without being slightly offended by something or other if you feel really strongly about that particular cause or standpoint. Seeing other people laughing at something personal and serious to oneself is difficult, like when people repeatedly mocked my late development and its nasty repercussions. My limited experience of life is that many people say offensive things, like Rambo, who deliberately tries to antagonise people with his verbal abuse and ultra cool demeanour. You mentioned the word “faggotism”. I guarantee that you won’t find that word in any dictionary because Rambo made it up to look cool and have power over us because the word was his. I don’t like the word either and would never have thought to use it myself, but I still wrote it down because he said it and I was there and the moment happened before my very eyes. I don’t think Rambo accused Vern of “fagottism” by lazy accident. He said that word specifica
The reply. Brilliant……
Judge Cameron was NOT over sensitive. 1. Cameron loved the books, only disagreed with the film.
2. He has reason – they “PC-ed” the film up – Fatty, white in the book, became black, ugly references to blacks, Jews and the ANC were taken out. All good and all very PC. Question – why not for gays?
3. By implication it says: racism and anti-Semitism is not ok and must be removed, but homophobia is.
the good judge. Rudi, c’mon……………WELL DONE John… oops sorry Spud :))
Love the reply. I am happy to see that the Judge did get a reply from”Spud” and happy to see that he is taking it into considerations.
I am still a supporter of Spud I have to say though!
The media slant. Yes, this is most certainly a most witty and entertaining response by a celebrated author. I do, however, agree with Rudi. This response serves to distract people from the very specific issue that Judge Cameron raised. If you are going to make a movie politically correct by editing out more offensive stereotyping form the original work then why are gay images the last on the list? If we don’t have people like the good judge upholding a better image for gay people in South Africa how do we hope to be a better beacon for countries throughout the continent where homophobia leads to beatings and imprisonment if not worse?
Wrong approach!. The only way gay people are going to uphold a good image in this country is by being good people. It’s that simple. The fact of the matter is that most of us are superficial, promiscuous, oversensitive people who appear to disgust most straight people. When we behave like decent, morally principled human beings, we will get more respect from others. This is something that is earned, not acquired by suing someone and laying down “anti-homophobic laws” for our protection.
I have no problem with this movie or its characters. It’s a work of fiction. FICTION!
Agree. 100% Agreed
0wn up. its called passing the buck reply to Judge Camerons letter – should we tolerate this bull – Our Gay Associations need to take this matter to court – it will no doubt end in the constitutional court and set a president – i for one will not support the movie at all and hope others do the same !!
VTMwwDQHqW. comment6,
vEpeuHPkGpA. comment3,
Here’s a thought. Despite my high regard for the good Judge, I have disagreed all along with the notion that Spud (the movie) should have been purged of its homophobic slant, simply because that would not be an accurate portrayal of a very real situation in private shool boarding establishents – certainly in the historic context in which the book was written, and perhaps today too. I don’t believe that justice is done by ignoring reality, and while I take the point that other issues in the book may have been doctored for the sake of political correctness (while homophobia was not similarly ‘corrected’), here’s the interesting point: NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT INTO THE OPEN IF THE MOVIE HAD COVERED IT UP! Fact is that even in the mainstream media, simply by raising the issue more good is done than would have been the case had it (homophobia in these establishments) been swept under the carpet or excised by a movie editor. That’s good, isn’t it?
perhaps. Perhaps, but they were still not right in leaving the homophobia in. Why is Fatty black when he is white in the book?
Jaco. You have a point there! x
Back again. Wouldn’t it have been refreshing if John Milton just said; ” I’m so sorry. No offense was intended. I realise that gay people are ridiculed needlessly daily and all future showings will be accompanied by a disclaimer reading: ‘no gay person or group was harmed in the making of this film and the cast, distributors and anyone associated with it distance themselves from any such practice and view it as socially unacceptable'” (OK, this was a bit tongue in cheek too, but his humorous response is simply a cop-out and attempt at avoiding a real and hurtful issue.) The point I’m making is that ANY disclaimer would serve the purpose. How long will we allow our friends, brothers and sisters to be scared into trying to live straight lies (no, not a typo, if I wanted to say “lives” I would have) and hate themselves for being different? As I said before, the cruelest discrimination is to allow someone to live with the inner conflict of hating themselves for something they cannot change. This type of inner conflict is true insanity. If our constitution preaches acceptance, our daily language, arts and culture should reflect the same.