We live in nervous times. Last month Random House announced it would not be publishing a controversial novel about the Prophet Mohammed and his child bride in the US after what it described as "credible and unrelated sources" had informed them the work "could incite acts of violence among a small radical sector".
Coming just a few days before Sherry Jones' debut The Jewel of Medina was due to hit bookshelves, the decision sparked more interest in the novel than any marketing campaign and the usual suspects quickly came out of the woodwork. Salman Rushdie, who
se 1989 novel The Satanic Verses prompted the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa, led the protests, accusing Random House of allowing itself to fall victim to intimidation and setting a dangerous precedent.
Given the column inches devoted to the row, it was only a matter of time before savvy publishers decided to wade into the debate and next month readers on this side of the Atlantic will get to see what the fuss is all about thanks to Gibson House which has been busy describing the book as "a novel of quality and skill that casts light on a beautiful subject we know too little of in the West".
Having previously released provocative works like Alexander Litvinenko's Blowing up Russia, the company certainly has form when it comes to controversy and it inevitably raises the question whether their promotion of Jones is more to do with boosting their own profile than any concern for freedom of speech.
The critics no doubt already have pens poised to deliver their verdict and Jones should prepare herself for a great deal more scrutiny than most other authors.
Having given the website IslamOnline.net a sneak preview of the manuscript, writer and poet Marwa Elnaggar cast her eye over the book and her conclusion seems to suggest that it's all been a lot of fuss about not very much at all. While she criticises Jones for factual inaccuracies, she struggles to get even remotely hot under the collar and goes so far as to say its publication should not be stopped.
It seems sensible advice and a quick look back through history shows those who wield the censorship stick are more often than not guilty of political correctness and misguided sensitivity. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was banned in China for portraying animals and humans on the same level, Gulliver's Travels was once denounced in Ireland as "wicked and obscene" and in the 1980s a sensitive librarian in Colorado removed a copy of Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory unhappy at its poor philosophy of life.
It's impossible, of course, to talk about literary censorship without mentioning Lady Chatterley's Lover and the sex scenes which the authorities feared were so salacious, it would corrupt the moral core of even the most upstanding reader.
The subsequent court case became a major public event and showed that turning books into forbidden fruits only whets the public appetite.
The Jewel of Medina may pose some uncomfortable questions, but not asking them does nobody any favours.
The full article contains 527 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
