Salman Rushdie is to make a sci-fi television series in the belief that quality TV drama has taken over from film and the novel as the best way of widely communicating ideas and stories.
"It's like the best of both worlds," said the novelist in an interview with the Observer. "You can work in movie style productions, but have proper control."
The new work, to be called The Next People is being made for Showtime, a US cable TV network. The plot will be based in factual science, Rushdie said, but will contain elements of the supernatural or extra-terrestrial. Although filming is yet to begin, a pilot has been commissioned and written. It will have what Rushdie described as "an almost feature-film budget".
Showtime has announced that the hour-long drama will deal with the fast pace of change in modern life, covering the areas of politics, religion, science, technology and sexuality. "It's a sort of paranoid science-fiction series, people disappearing and being replaced by other people," said Rushdie, 63, best known for Midnight's Children and The Satanic Verses. "It's not exactly sci-fi, in that there is not an awful lot of science behind it, but there are certainly elements which are not naturalistic," he said in the interview, which will appear in full in the Observer later this month.
The idea that Rushdie might create a television show came from his US agents who suggested that he would have more creative influence than with a feature-film script.
"They said to me that what I should really think about is a TV series, because what has happened in America is that the quality – or the writing quality – of movies has gone down the plughole.
"If you want to make a $300m special effects movie from a comic book, then fine. But if you want to make a more serious movie… I mean you have no idea how hard it was to raise the money for Midnight's Children."
Deepa Mehta, an Oscar-nominated director, is currently making a film version of Rushdie's 1981 Booker Prize winning novel, under the title Winds of Change, that will be co-scripted by the author. "I'm in this position where, for the first time in my writing life, I don't have a novel on the go, but I have a movie and a memoir and a TV series," said Rushdie, who is working on an account of the most famous and troubled era of his life – the period when his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses put him at the centre of a dangerous international controversy.
In 1989, Tehran radio broadcast a fatwa, or religious edict, from the Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran, which called the book blasphemous and put a price on the author's head. Rushdie lived through the next decade in hiding.
The former advertising copywriter's first novel Grimus, was partly science fiction and his novels since have often been described as examples of the vivid literary school of "magical realism".
Rushdie agreed that "my writing has always had elements of the fantastical" but said that he was drawn to television by the comparatively high status of the writer in the process. "In the movies the writer is just the servant, the employee. In television, the 60-minute series, The Wire and Mad Men and so on, the writer is the primary creative artist.
"You have control in the way that you never have in the cinema. The Sopranos was David Chase, West Wing was Aaron Sorkin," he explained.
Rushdie said that he is also considering doing much of the writing for an ensuing series alone. "Matthew Wiener on Mad Men writes the entire series before they start shooting, and if you have that, then what you can do with character and story is not at all unlike what you can do in a novel."
The Next People is being made by Working Title, the film company behind many of the most successful British Films of the last 20 years from Four Weddings and A Funeral to Bean, Shaun of the Dead and the Nanny McPhee films.
Rushdie has written the first draft of the script and will executive-produce the show, alongside British producers Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner and Shelley McCrory, the former NBC executive who runs the company's TV projects.
Comments in chronological order (Total 62 comments)
12 June 2011 12:56AM
Rushdie has written a TV script and blithely states TV is a better medium than the written word. Who'd have thunk it?
12 June 2011 1:01AM
Nah, there's no way you could ever compare Mad Men to 1984 or something of that ilk.
12 June 2011 1:03AM
Where does he say it's better than the written word? It's only natural for an artist to want to explore various different media for their art. It's not really any different to if he had decided to write a play, is it?
I for one am looking forward to this enormously. I read Grimus last year and thought it was fantastic, and, although I've not got around to reading anything else of his yet, I think that what I have read, combined with his reputation, indicates pretty well that The Next People will be something really special.
12 June 2011 1:17AM
Lovely, I`ll be interested to see it, but first:
Oh come on, Rushdie. When have the novels ever communicated widely? When James Joyce and Herman Melville died drunk and penniless? When Dostoevsky gambled like crazy just to scrape by? In the 19th century, when 90-95% of people in the richest countries lived in poverty? It was always the small minority that read serious novels, and will for quite some time (if not forever). In fact, considering the higher levels of education, affluence and higher populations in general, I dare say far more people are reading serious literature today than in, say, 1842 or 1951.
There are loads of money in American cable television, admit it.
12 June 2011 1:28AM
@CaptainoftheMoon
I recommend The Enchantress of Florence. In my opinion, it is his best novel by far.
12 June 2011 2:52AM
Good for him. I wonder when all the ''We don't own a television, they sap the mind y'know'' snobs will turn up for a rant about 'dumbing down.'
12 June 2011 4:11AM
Poor fellow, he has been convinced to waste his time on a tv series while he suffers in Atlanta Georgia (the bible belt as well as the "noir" belt ?). One hopes he reconciles with everyone (particularly the Iranians) and everyone loves each other and is happy and jolly and kind towards each other.
12 June 2011 6:33AM
Has Rushdie neither read nor understood Marshall McLuhan's dictum: "The medium is the message"? meaning that the form of the medium embeds itself in the content. Therefore a novel is a novel; a film a film and TV, TV. I curl up with a book; I go to watch a movie; I spend the evening in front of the TV. TV and film can never convey the knowledge a book does - which is why books still sell and novelists are feted. Certainly philosophy and ideas are best revealed by books. Naked Lunch translated into something entirely different when made into a film, for example.
I suspect, despite his brilliant and flowery prose style, that Rushdie was always a reluctant novelist as is Martin Amis. Neither are natural story tellers like a Tolstoy or Nabokov. Rushdie has reached the limits of his novel writing capacity, for the moment.
12 June 2011 7:00AM
a) Salman Rushdie says TV drama series have taken the place of novels
except Rushdie never said that
what he did say and it is in quotations is this:
b ) "It's like the best of both worlds," said the novelist in an interview with the Observer. "You can work in movie style productions, but have proper control."
Lets give the author of this piece the benefit of doubt and accept it is lazy journalism or sentionalism.
It is like a student who rather than answer the actual question asked, writes eveything he or she knows of the subject, looks impressive but worthless.
12 June 2011 8:43AM
And his sci-fi credentials are....? I expect it'll be as bad but in a different way as the stuff produced by kids who've never read anything else.
12 June 2011 8:52AM
Now that attitude is what stands in the way sci-fi's diversification and development.
12 June 2011 9:05AM
Pompous, contrivedly intellectual and deeply boring TV. Yeh that'll be a hit.
12 June 2011 9:08AM
It will be great to see how this works out. Some of the best multi-episode television series now goes into the artistic canon alongside the greatest works in other forms.
12 June 2011 9:16AM
Having read "Midnight's Children" I suspect this is going being beautifully produced, worthy and dull as hell. The article's claim that the plot will be based on factual science doesn't bode well. No lost islands, treks or weeping angels then!
Of course I hope to be proved wrong. But British TV SF with the exception of Doctor Who is usually a disappointment.
12 June 2011 9:32AM
I think he's right - the quality TV drama series today is up there with the novel (and more satisfying then the ninety minute movie). Maybe someone at the BBC should take note, in view of the piece in the Guardian a few days ago stating that the BBC is thinking of cutting back on drama. A short-sighted move if ever there was one.
12 June 2011 9:33AM
There's something in what Launcelot George says: Rushdie the reluctant novelist. He` reached his limits with The Satanic Verses, and has tried to write on fuelled with bombast and hyperbole. It might be good for the novel, if not for TV, if he switches media.
12 June 2011 9:33AM
Why can't a TV show have equal (or greater) artistic value to a novel? Paintings have artistic value. So does music. So does drama. Modern technology has given us a medium that can combine all these elements. It's logical that a TV show can be considered artistic as well. Whether Rushdie can achieve this however is another matter.
12 June 2011 9:34AM
@Sunburst: Oh come on, Rushdie. When have the novels ever communicated widely?
Um, Dickens? The entire 19th Century.
The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men are television as art. Multi layered with superlative acting, directing to go with the writing. Of course, the novel will always be able to communicate at a deeper level as it stimulates the imagination more than TV can do. However, bravo to Rushdie for trying something new in his long and illustrious career.
I'm sure his memoirs will be a right riveting read as well.
12 June 2011 9:34AM
How about this for a plotline?
In the future The Writer finds himself on another planet where despite taking it upon himself upon himself to ultra-critical of its past actions their liberal values mean that his opinions are accepted, if not welcomed. The Writer then turns his attentions to fellow-visitors to the planet where he "re-imagines" the words of their founding father. The fellow-visitors are very unhappy about this and then word comes from another planet that The Writer's life must be terminated. Being ultra-liberal the first planet provides The Writer with free protection at vast expense to its citizens until all the fuss dies down. The Writer is profoundly grateful and takes every opportunity to express his gratitude to his hosts. He thinks "maybe this planet isn't so bad after all".
12 June 2011 9:46AM
@exliontamer - you forgot that The Writer pays loads of tax and that a government has responsibilities to protect people from criminal harm. Not sure it needs to be ultraliberal to do this.
I imagine a platoon of ultraliberal literary types are now hunting you down for the offence that you just caused. Look out for Penguin Classics laced with poison, using Amazon marketplace as its paramilitary wing.
12 June 2011 10:21AM
Hmm, Salman Rushdie to do TV. I wonder what he'll do to captivate audiences? Perhaps a satirical twist with paedophiles (a la Chris Morris) that forces him to go into hiding again. It's more likely however, that the accompanying publicity will be far more exciting than the end product. Take "The Satanic Verses" - huge media circus, uproar from the Muslim world, one fatwa and two assassination attempts. By the time I finished reading it I felt like I had taken Temazepam. Naturally, I'm curious as to how plots which develop at the speed of a tortoise on ketamine, will entice audiences accustomed to a media diet that seems to exclusively cater for four year olds with ADHD. Perhaps Farishta could now be an X-Factor star. Perhaps Chamcha could demonstrate an unexpectedly good tango on "Strictly..." (after that is, regaining human form and getting released by customs at Dover). Perhaps not...
12 June 2011 10:45AM
I'm not sure the BBC has done 'drama' for 30 years or more now. 'Drama series', yes, but not the single plays dealing with contemporary issues by writers who seemed to want to write about what they saw in the world rather than what they'd seen on television. Have you noticed how every character in a 'drama series' always feels familiar from another 'drama series'?
12 June 2011 10:46AM
If I may intervene? I did not tell the Observer reporter that I thought TV drama was taking the place of novels. I don't believe it is. I did say that the best TV drama series were comparable to novels. I'm sorry to have been misquoted. And thanks to everyone above for their generous remarks about my work.
12 June 2011 11:09AM
Likewise, you could say that a lot of books fall short of Mad Men or cinema. Apples and oranges.
As for the misquote by the Oberserver, that's disappointing.
12 June 2011 11:20AM
Not really. David Chase and Aaron Sorkin were showrunners - they did write (Aaron Sorkin in particular wrote practically the first four seasons of West Wing) but most American hour-long dramas have writing rooms, with episodes outlined and broken by everyone and written by one or two people, because of the sheer amount of material that needs to be produced for 20+ episodes per season. UK shows, with shorter seasons, are more likely to have all episodes written by the same person or people - possibly that's what's happening here as it's Showtime rather than a network. The showrunner role has much more to do in terms of executive producing (where the control is), coming up with overall storylines and arcs, and directing. Rushdie will no doubt have more creative control because of the power of his name, but it would be interesting to know who is producing this project.
12 June 2011 11:54AM
At least no apologists for the fatwa or the book burning have crawled out from under their stones to comment.
Yet.
12 June 2011 12:16PM
It seems that owaingr watches TV and probably never read a book. Anyone who uses a non-word like thunk is definitely not a book or anything else reader.
12 June 2011 12:17PM
I don't own a television, they sap the mind y'know.
12 June 2011 12:42PM
Think I'd rather watch Doctor Who, to be honest.
12 June 2011 12:57PM
Philip Roth said this some time ago. Rushdie is a writer who benefitted for a while from quite unjustified praise, and who nobody reads anymore. Being a vain man, he's hunting for ways to attract the attention he regards as his due. I would have thought he might be grateful for a bit of anonymity! Be careful what you wish for, Salman...
12 June 2011 1:07PM
Television is for idiots.
12 June 2011 1:13PM
Rushdie is write, bland TV has replaced thinking and reflection and creativity. In a way Rushdie himself is to blame because of this genre of experimental novels which the ordinary public simply do not unrerstand. hat has killed reading. Go back to the Victorian novels of Dickens and Wilkie, the American novels of Fennimore Cooper and washington Irving. They were tales of adventure but also inproved the mind, because novels were a ay of exploring how other lives are led and instruction manuals on what a good life is.
12 June 2011 1:46PM
Maybe he could be roped into writing an episode of ` Dr Who '....?
12 June 2011 1:59PM
I see. It's a remake of Invasion of the Body-Snatchers. And the plot of just about every other sf short story from the 60s/early 70s.
I wonder if the butler did it.
12 June 2011 2:06PM
Sir Salman Rushdie is absolutely correct. HBO has completely revolutionised, not only television drama, but literature in general. Although it does remain to be seen whether this can be repeated at television networks with different models. I think not. Nevertheless those trotting out the usual clichés about bland TV - as if the whole medium was a monolithic whole - should be treated with utter contempt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abJ8PZXZOhxA#
Interesting read.
12 June 2011 2:29PM
By the way, Dr Who isn't science fiction, it's fantasy. And kid's fantasy at that.
12 June 2011 2:33PM
For anyone who didn't get the butler reference:
Iain M Banks: Science fiction is no place for dabblers
12 June 2011 2:38PM
"Booker-prizewinning novelist to write sci-fi drama for television, citing The Wire, The Sopranos and Mad Men as an inspiration"
..............................
Not Outcasts then ?
12 June 2011 2:58PM
The Wire, The Sopranos, Mad Men:
The 3 most overrated, overhyped shows in the history of telly.
12 June 2011 3:29PM
I had a dream in which I watched a TV Drama about Bill Clinton running a cheese shop in Leeds market. He looked very pleased with how it was going. The thing is, I think it would work.
12 June 2011 4:02PM
Money grubbing copy cat.
12 June 2011 4:05PM
Ooh goody, more glossy US TV sci fi with intellectual pretentions. Just what the world has been short of lately.
As for Salman, he was good in the 80s and as consistently crapped out ever since. He's out of inspiration and wants a cheque.
12 June 2011 4:23PM
As Mark Kermode says, good sci-fi is about ideas. Salman Rushdie has excellent ideas. Midnight's Children didn't win Booker of Bookers for nothing - it is staggering. He does a great turn in magical realism - is that so different to sci-fi?
All the negative comments seem to be from people who haven't read his stuff or begrudge him his talent.
TV is in something of a golden age right now, and certainly better quality than cinema. Give me Game of Thrones over Lord of the Rings anyday. I look forward to Rushdie's work in any medium.
12 June 2011 4:32PM
Some it seems struggle when falling from fame.
12 June 2011 5:23PM
@Siouxfire 12 June 2011 8:52AM
" And his sci-fi credentials are....?
Now that attitude is what stands in the way sci-fi's diversification and development."
Not really..... it simply means that, if a proponent has absolutely no sci-fi credentials, and cannot build on the contribution of his peers of that genre, he is unlikely to offer anything of substance.
Life is tough. Deal with it.
12 June 2011 5:25PM
I can't help the feeling that this is going to be just as overrated and void as Mad Men.
12 June 2011 5:37PM
It is understandable of Rushdie to dismiss the novel. The man has failed to write one worth reading since 1981.
12 June 2011 5:58PM
Books are filtered through the individual imagination. That means that if you and I read the same novel, our imaginative processes will flesh out the description, characterisation, etc. so that our perceptions and memories of the book will be slightly (or sometimes very) different. However, when you and I watch the same TV programme, the imagination has no room to work in, no space in which to extemporise and personalise; image, plot, characterisation - everything is done for you. That doesn't mean TV is bad, but it can never be as personal and as creative a journey as reading a book.
12 June 2011 6:02PM
....and so (I omitted to conclude), when we watch a play or a film on TV, we both see exactly the same thing.
12 June 2011 6:05PM
surely computers replaced TV... certainly why i cant keep it together for long enough to read a book