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

In context, it is entirely relevant. She is posing the question, "Why do my apparently multicultural kids deny their heritage?" (Whether she is right in her assumptions, whether he actually was Jewish, is in some ways a red herring. It is not racist to be intrigued about how communities address diversity of heritage within them.)

If it were relevant (I think it is, she is using it as one example of a cultural phenomenon that seems significant, you don't, fine) - how would you answer my questions?

If her pupil felt it was relevant to tell her, either directly, or indirectly by exploring Jewish heritage in his own work , then fine, no issues

But , absent that- what on earth was the relevance of Jewish "physicality" to Clanchy?

So far as all the "chocolate coloured skin" - why? I think we can all assume a Somali refugee won't be white.

But if that were the case and she did that deliberately, then her immediate response to the critical review would surely have been to point that out - not deny it?

I think that because the book itself is founded on the principle that it’s all about seeing race and class privilege and ‘what the kids taught me’ she was blindsided to think that anyone could possibly find her racist. So I think that’s why she effectively said “that’s not what I wrote” because she really didn’t recognise the criticism.

Sorry Kimikos didn't say that exactly but I'm referring to the "Victorian anthropologist" description.

I think that is the thing that makes me suspicious. As Kimokos said, it's like she wasn't even aware what a patrician tone she had, so much so that she forgot she even wrote like that.

Whereas if it was all a super-sophisticated deliberate technique, she would have known exactly what the reviewer was talking about and responded on that basis.

I think the book's tactic is to make the interior monologue unflinchingly explicit, complete with its assumptions and judgements - all the things you wouldn't, and indeed she doesn't, say

But if that were the case and she did that deliberately, then her immediate response to the critical review would surely have been to point that out - not deny it?

I don't think the expression of them as if they are simply your thoughts and you think it's OK to dissect people's appearance like that, is OK.

Yep, I'm pretty sure we're agreeing here - it's just that I think the book's tactic is to make the interior monologue unflinchingly explicit, complete with its assumptions and judgements - all the things you wouldn't, and indeed she doesn't, say - in the context of more abstract interrogation of power and prejudice, and I think it works. (Albeit relying on a patient, unalienated, attentive reader.) And you don't. But if we agree that it would be OK in principle, I don't think she should be punished for (debatably) failing.

Having said that I am also concerned at the hyperbolic reaction yesterday on twitter by one of the 3 women of colour to the recent articles about Clanchy.

QueenPeony I really do think, as an editor, that you need to read the whole book.

I do accept that and it's one reason I didn't comment publicly at all. I may have misunderstood.

So it's not the expression of prurient, looks-obsessed or stereotype-informed thoughts in itself which is insensitive and demeaning, it's the indiscriminate expression of said thoughts. Yes?

I don't think the expression of them as if they are simply your thoughts and you think it's OK to dissect people's appearance like that, is OK.

I think the discussion of those tropes and looking at how people express them and/or use them to categorise, humiliate, demean etc others is OK. Just saying them as your own thoughts and expecting people to understand that as subtle and reflexive is what I would not be OK with as an editor. I would also highlight the descriptions as potentially offensive, but that is not to say that nothing that someone might think is offensive can be published - that would be a discussion for author and editor/publisher.

But also very chilling to any writer, because anyone who's had a one-star review on Amazon (ahem, everyone) knows that judgement of a book's success or otherwise is pretty hard to establish conclusively one way or another. To make someone's livelihood dependent on it ("this book would be permissible if it were simply better" is effectively a way to prevent anyone daring to write at all.

It sounds to me, Peony, like we agree that a subtle, honest analysis of internalised prejudices that involves invoking those prejudices in order to interrogate them - that that would indeed be acceptable, you just don't think that it's what Clanchy was attempting. Is that fair?

So it's not the expression of prurient, looks-obsessed or stereotype-informed thoughts in itself which is insensitive and demeaning, it's the indiscriminate expression of said thoughts. Yes? So the question is whether she is successful at locating them in a context where they're relevant and part of a wider discussion of what they mean. You think she definitely isn't, I think she is, but actually that isn't a fundamental difference of opinion, just a literary judgement call.

QueenPeony I really do think, as an editor, that you need to read the whole book. Just following the issue on social media (as I did- but admittedly from the POV of having already read it months previously) it absolutely is extremely easy to say the extracts were ‘stereotyped and prurient descriptions of physicality’ and be outraged that they were ‘missed’ by everyone involved.

But the book gives masses and masses of context for how and why she’s describing in this way.

I think the publisher handled this absolutely terribly, on KC’s behalf. But I also think her critics have not acted at all proportionately and the hyperbole surrounding it by many people who haven’t read her book, just the extracts, has been off the scale.

is she really the sort of person that it is worth going after ?

I don't really see it like that – I don't "go after" anyone. This type of insulting, stereotyped, reductive representation of people is worth highlighting, criticising, examining, and rethinking. It is worth discussing and questioning how it's arisen and how these kinds of things can express inequalities and privileged standpoints. I mean that in an open and free discussion way, not a woke re-education camp type of way.

Just as I don't "go after" anyone, though, I also don't automatically defend anyone just because they're my type of person or because I don't agree with cancel culture.

Ultimately, whether you think she is a racist or not - I don't - is she really the sort of person that it is worth going after (I'm not accusing you of doing this personally)? Aren't there people with bigger platforms much more obviously spreading division and harm than her? I find the lack of proportion astonishing.

Yes. I think people went after her with such vitriol partly because she is well-meaning. What that means is firstly that she's vulnerable - her publishers presumably thought her politics were an asset, not a potential site for conflict - and secondly that, having had the best intentions, having as she thought done the work of interrogating her prejudices (and not having been warned off before the book was published), the only way she could have avoided it is by not writing at all. (I imagine that someone like Lionel Shriver, who must surely be considered more inflammatory, is significantly safer, because the controversies are part of her USP.) It highlights to what extent this is a power play, not designed to make the victim do better but to silence others. The message is: we don't care if you're doing your best, the crime is daring to speak at all.

It's not that I'm not sorry for her or don't think she's had a hard time. I do not support anyone being vilified, piled on, threatened, abused or any such behaviour and I myself didn't get involved in any way. I accept that she's apologised too.

But I still think this way of describing people was not OK and did IMO arise out of her middle-class sheltered viewpoint - just not realising that expressing every prurient, looks-obsessed or stereotype-informed thought that comes into your head is insensitive and demeaning.

I don't accept that doing that is somehow reflexively pondering on how young people of various ethnicities (including the underprivileged white kids) might be perceived. If someone has that sophisticated an understanding of what they're doing, they would surely be sophisticated enough to see that it very much might not come across like that to others, since it reads exactly as if it's just her own unfiltered assessments on the kids' bodies, faces, weight etc?

I can see why that's been used as an excuse and an attempt to play it down, that's understandable.

Absolutley, it's OK to talkabout, examione and critique such stereotypes and descriptions, and give examples.

But this is it, isn't it? To many readers this seems to be exactly what she's doing. It's just that she is presenting the truth of her own responses and trusting that she doesn't need to add And That Is Bad every time, because the book is explicit elsewhere about its examination and interrogation of prejudice.

@QueenPeony - there was an article in the Sunday Times yesterday about the saga in which KC says that her accusing people of making up quotes was inaccurate.

Clanchy could not believe the scale of the unfolding disaster. Her initial defensiveness is something she profoundly regrets. On initially saying the quotes were made up, she now says: “I meant that people on Goodreads were taking something to mean the opposite of the intention of the sentence.” This was confounded by the fact that some phrases had been distorted. She did not write “Jewish nose”, for example, but “Ashkenazi nose”. “I do wholeheartedly apologise. I apologise many, many times over. I am sorry,” she says.

I'm not sure I believe her but she does seem to have been in a very bad place when this row blew up (she was mid-divorce and both her parents had died within a few days of each other from covid) and she has apologised many times.

Ultimately, whether you think she is a racist or not - I don't - is she really the sort of person that it is worth going after (I'm not accusing you of doing this personally)? Aren't there people with bigger platforms much more obviously spreading division and harm than her? I find the lack of proportion astonishing.

Absolutley, it's OK to talk about, examione and critique such stereotypes and descriptions, and give examples. That's not what the book was about and if she was being "arch" or subtle, she wouldn't have denied using these phrases initially, would she?

Plus as an editor I would argue that being that arch and subtle is not clear enough.

Bit late to this but I work in the book industry. I have edited books where I've highlighted and criticised examples of exoticism, racist or stereotyped tropes, insensitive descriptions etc. I was absolutely horrified when I saw the excerpts from the book. I admit I haven't read it all and context may add something, but I know that I and publishers I work with would not have let these stereotyped and prurient-seeming comments on young people's physicality go by. We would have pointed them out and asked for a rewrite avoiding this type of description, because it's at the very least rude and demeaning. The same would go for stereotyped or unnecessarily physical descriptions of women, disabled people etc., it's not just about ethnicity, though that is a very sensitive topic.

I was not on Clanchy's side at all in the row, though I didn't take part in it. I followed some of the people who were criticising her because they seemed to make sense.

I was then really dismayed to find some kind of division between "GC" and "woke" in this row and to see some of the GC women I admire defending her - and to find that those I agreed with tended to be wokesters who I massively disagree with on other issues. I am opposed to "cancel culture" as a thing, in terms of views and freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean horrible stereotyped descriptions and prurience are OK, especially in a book like this about real people - they're not and it should never have got as far as being published like that.

I really don't think being on the side of reality in the gender debate, or being opposed to cancel culture, means you can't understand this.

I wouldn't "cancel" KC but that doesn't mean she has to be defended over this.

OK, she is (I think) essentially saying, 'this person had a Jewish name and looked Jewish and therefore I was surprised to learn that he wasn't Jewish'. (Tbf to Clanchy I have simplified it in order to explore the point I'm interested in.) Yes, I think we can all see why that would alienate people. But I have two questions - and they are genuine, good faith questions.

1: She is relying on appearances and stereotypes to draw a conclusion here - but the conclusion is not a value judgement, it is not hostile or linking a physical stereotype to anything derogatory. Obviously it goes without saying that 'he had a Jewish nose and therefore I was surprised that he was generous with his money' would be deeply, deeply offensive. But a lot of our feminism is based on the argument that physical differences do not translate to behaviour, and that noticing someone's real body does not mean that you are making assumptions about their minds, personalities, capabilities, etc. So if this is offensive (and clearly to some people it is, extremely) how do we analyse that offence? Is it recognising that someone embodies a particular stereotype - i.e., the involuntary combination of seeing their real body and being familiar with the stereotype? Is it the idea that noticing that a combination of factors hint at a certain ethnicity must be wrong? Is it different in some way from being surprised that Sven Hogland with his height and blond hair denies any Scandinavian connection? Or that a pupil has dark skin and an Afro and denies any African heritage? Unless we accept that 'Jewish' is a derogatory or imaginary term in itself (which seems to me much worse than what Clanchy is doing here), I would (genuinely) like someone to explain which part of this process is the bit that should be avoided. (And don't say, "she shouldn't care if he's Jewish!" because in context it is clear she doesn't give a damn, except to be curious about how the community at large appears to reject multiculturalism.)

2 (and I think this is the bit that concerns me more, in the context of Clanchy's punishment): OK, let's agree for argument's sake that it was a racist thought process, and move on. So. If we notice prejudice in ourselves, and want to think aloud about how it works and how we combat it, what needs to change? In this example, what should Clanchy do differently? Basically she has four options: a) make sure she does not notice her pupils' physicality; b) make sure she is as unfamiliar as possible with stereotypes and racism; c) lie about what went through her head, and maintain the pretence that it is as easy to defeat prejudice in your thoughts as it is to defeat it in speech; d) never talk about it, and give up on the problem, because it is better to pretend it doesn't exist. If she is not allowed to admit to racism, ever, even in order to analyse it, then isn't she being asked to pretend 'she never sees race, only people'? - that claim which is rightfully lampooned by activists (including feminists, if you replace 'race' with 'sex').

Given that I have only asked questions, and in good faith, it is weird and significant, I think, that I feel so uncomfortable about writing this. There is a huge pressure to pretend (even on an anonymous forum, where the stakes are very low) that when it comes to racism, and social justice, etc etc, you already get it. That your thinking is perfectly enlightened, or at least that when you slip up you are enlightened enough not to labour the point, so that if you don't quite get it you abdicate all responsibility to someone who claims very confidently that they are the authority. All you have to do is shut up and - no, not even #bekind, but #bowdown. Because saying, yes, but why? is stupid or malicious or apologist.*

But that doesn't work. I support Clanchy because she is talking about it, because she is honest, and because her book inspires people (including me) to ask these questions and really want to know the answers. For all those reasons (and others that I won't repeat), it is wrong to punish her.

*(I will not get into the Catch-22 of being told you cannot speak unless you listen to X's experiences, and defer to them, but also that it is definitely not X's job to educate you. It may not be fair, but if X insists they are the only people who can do it - rightly or wrongly - then by definition it is X's job.)

Likewise, she never used 'big nose' or 'Jewish' referring to the child - she said he had an 'Ashkenazi nose', which again, is more specific and has different nuance and implications

I have a lot of time for your posts Arabella but I don't see any different nuance or implications here beyond Clanchy showing that she knows there are Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews and no doubt Falasha Jews.

What's an "Ashkenazi nose" anyway? Jamie Lee Curtis, Scarlett Johansen, Rachel Weisz , Tony Curtis and John Gordon Levit are Ashkenazi Jews. They are / were all very attractive people but I've never noticed anything particularly remarkable or uniform about their noses.

"Ashkenazy" is being used as a synonym for "Jewish" being a synonym for "big".

(Cross posted with Arabella.)