Kate Clanchy - poet - is 'cancelled' by her publisher

Yes, but that doesn't really answer the question. If readers could recognise her, presumably they could also recognise other pupils too. Where does that leave the careful composite argument?

If the portraits are all careful unidentifiable composites, then how has almond-eyes girl identified herself to come out in favour of KC?

I don't think the explanation makes it much better - that after the exoticism of her multi- cultural, inner city class the Scottish pupils were drab and indistinguishable

She knows they’re not. She’s saying the fault lay with her - she even compares herself explicitly to Prince Philip’s racist remark. The issue with all this is context and you do need to see her arguments in each piece in full, as they all develop a theme which she then sometimes subverts.

As I’ve said up thread, it’s not unproblematic in places, but it really does try to explore race, class, prejudice. It’s not ‘a racist book’ and she doesn’t come across as ‘a racist writer’.

I would never either think of them or describe them as 'winter coloured and mouse-haired' or 'undersized, undeveloped'.

I think this is a fascinating comment. Are you saying that it is disrespectful of her to notice characteristics and describe them truthfully? "Undersized" can be true or false, it's not a value judgement. Should she deliberately try not to see her pupils? Or pretend she hasn't? Is this true of everything - race, disability, sex?

(When you say she is "talking about real life children", I don't know if you're aware that they are all extensively anonymised, and she is careful to say that she has made sure no one is personally identifiable. I think most of us agree that that's exactly as it should be, and writing about recognisable pupils would be an abuse of her position.)

as a teacher I don't think these books show the professionalism and respect for children that a teacher should.

I think you should read it. As a teacher.

Have you read the book, GrammarTeacher?

I admit I haven't read the books. Based on the quotations I've seen here; I don't like the sound of them. I get that she was trying to explore her own prejudices, but the way she talks about the children seems very disrespectful. I teach in a mainly black African school and I do indeed get the two or three white children in a class mixed up sometimes, but I would never either think of them or describe them as 'winter coloured and mouse-haired' or 'undersized, undeveloped'. I can see these descriptions are quite poetic, but she is talking about real life children.

I don't agree with cancelling anyone. But as a teacher I don't think these books show the professionalism and respect for children that a teacher should.

Sorry, @EishetChayil, I misread what you were responding to - forgive me. I get your point.

So as a Jew, I'm supposed to just "let it go" when people make remarks about my looks and my religious practises? If someone calls me a slur, I'm supposed to not see them as the "bad guy" because it might upset them.

No, of course not. Literally no one is saying racism should go unchallenged.

She hasn't lost her livelihood or career though. Still published. More coverage than she ever had before. At a time when her sales were flagging seriously (the main reason to part company with Picador). Every time it dies down and people move on another story gets released. It's clearly orchestrated.

The problem was she didn't apologise for her behaviour.

She did, though. Perhaps not quick enough. But she did apologise.

I thinkxxyzzis absolutely correct in saying one of the problems with Clanchy's approach is she seems to have imagined her audience would be other middle class white people, and this feels like an extension of that. Other middle class white people (ie, society) were supposed to come along and - gently and kindly and with lots of validation - explore her prejudices with her, free from the intrusion of actual minorites, who weren't supposed to read the book or have feelings about it - it's all very "We're talking about you, not to you".

I think this is true, but if your book has a central theme of overcoming prejudice, surely it is reasonable to assume that you're mainly talking to people who might share those prejudices? Or should she have assumed that the victims of racism needed as much education about racism as the white middle classes? Can't imagine anyone finding that offensive.

As to whether it is reasonable to sack someone for unintended controversy... I think her intentions are relevant. Firstly, on a personal level, because it is simply not proportional for someone to lose their livelihood and career (she may have a new publisher but she might not have got one) because of something she tried her utmost not to do, and explicitly asked the reader to overlook if in spite of everything she slipped up. And more widely, because if you condemn people to lose their jobs for inadvertent microaggressions you are telling them that getting involved at all is just one enormous gamble with everything they hold dear. It is a tactic designed to silence and it will work. I know an author who is currently rewriting her book to take out a rounded, complex Black character because she doesn't want to expose herself to being cancelled. Now, does white people including Black characters even touch the sides of racism? No, of course not. But does it help anyone if the characters in books get even less diverse? Also no. And if white writers think diversity is too dangerous to touch with a bargepole, publishers expect Black writers to fill the gap, and only ever write about being Black - witch is already a problem in publishing.

Basically I think it's quite a simple question: are we prepared to put aside anger in order to enable people to do better? Even if our anger is justified, even if we are so fucking tired of educating and persuading and manipulating that we could weep. Do we want to punish, or do we want to improve? If it's the latter, then we have to resist the urge to silence the truth - at all, ever.

If it's the former, and we can only bear to be with other entirely enlightened people, then we'd better make sure that either we have a Plan B, or we're the one in charge, because for as long as there's more than one person there we'll drop into the danger zone eventually.

So as a Jew, I'm supposed to just "let it go" when people make remarks about my looks and my religious practises? If someone calls me a slur, I'm supposed to not see them as the "bad guy" because it might upset them.

No thank you.

The things she describes doing and saying in school are a safeguarding nightmare. Particularly her attitude to the 'intern' raising a completely appropriate complaint about a male student.
But again, the point is being missed. Kate Clanchy herself said those quotations were offensive. So offensive she would never have written them and encouraged her followers to report the reviewer who mentioned them. They were not made up. They were in the book.
The sexualisation of young people within the book and the obsessive focus on looks as well as the moral superiority that leaks out of every page make it an awful book.
The problem was she didn't apologise for her behaviour.
She has had more coverage since this all started than she ever did before. Her books are widely available. She has not been cancelled by any definition of the term.
Those of us who object to the book are perfectly entitled to say so and point out the many, many issues. You are allowed to write bad reviews of books and you are allowed to criticise the work of others.

The point of whether or not one is allowed to have an opinion without having read the book has been discussed.

Clanchy offered to re-write it removing the problematic material - although as one commentator said it's a short book with large space settings and there's a lot to deal with.

I didn't say I was offended. My reaction to her comment about the homogenity of Scottish working class children was perplexment and puzzlement. It's a very odd thing to say.

I don't think the explanation makes it much better - that after the exoticism of her multi- cultural, inner city class the Scottish pupils were drab and indistinguishable

KimikosNightmare

I noticed that you chose to quote a reported account, rather than from the book itself. Are you saying that you are offended by selected quotes from a book you haven’t actually read?

In her book, when Clanchy first meets her Scottish pupils she struggles to tell these white working-class ‘winter-coloured, mouse-haired children’ apart – her eye, she tells us, ‘had been tuned in to the multiracial London pupils’. By contrast, her Scottish pupils are ‘undersized, undeveloped’.

It's not much better - even in context.

And, y'know, WoC and other affected minorities are part of "society" and are numbered among the people interested and wanting to talk. I think xxyzz is absolutely correct in saying one of the problems with Clanchy's approach is she seems to have imagined her audience would be other middle class white people, and this feels like an extension of that. Other middle class white people (ie, society) were supposed to come along and - gently and kindly and with lots of validation - explore her prejudices with her, free from the intrusion of actual minorites, who weren't supposed to read the book or have feelings about it - it's all very "We're talking about you, not to you".

We as a society; people who are interested and want to talk about it. I actually think that in personal relationships we should let a lot more go in order for conversation to be able to flow and for people to chat and seek to understand each other without barriers being put up or anyone being cast as the bad guy or demonised for having different experiences, perspectives or unconscious bias.