Times Interview with Kate Clanchy - shared article in post

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002m0bl

I haven't read the whole thread so don't know if anyone has mentioned this but this is a great in-depth look at this story.

There seems to still be this idea that writers have to make nice about certain subjects. Thee are posts upon posts about how KC should simply have said nice things that are uncontroversial and left it at that.

Which would not have had much value as a book. It's the honesty of the text that makes it notable and worthwhile.

Because the book was all about examining the nuances of views and motivations, was my understanding. Much of what I read seemed to be deliberately investigating uncomfortable and 'problematic' dynamics. Perhaps also devil's advocacy and dramatic exaggeration for effect.

I haven't read the book, because I only became interested in Kate Clanchy when the podcast came up on my BBC Sounds feed two days ago, so I haven't had time to do it yet! But I have listened carefully to the podcast in full and was previously a teacher (working with similarly disadvantaged children), so have formed a point of view.

A few thoughts:

I find it intriguing that it was apparently a teacher who first posted the negative review on Goodreads. Search 'Goodreads Ceridwen Kate Clanchy' if you want to read it. I wonder if professional jealousy had something to do with why Kate Clanchy fell so far, so fast? She had been featured on the BBC, had won an award, been lauded in all sorts of places and had held rather jammy 'Writer in Residence' roles in schools. That type of role would be the daydream of many an exhausted English teacher, under constant pressure and bound by the curriculum...Where were Kate's teaching colleagues in all this (some would have been on Twitter, surely) and why did no one influential in the education sphere come to her defence?

From what I heard, I think the descriptions that Kate Clanchy used were ill-judged and a risky choice of words. I did find some of it uncomfortable listening. Although prompted by the children themselves (in some cases) I think that Kate could and should have known that these descriptions (and her intent) might, at the very least, be mis-construed by readers who did not know that context. Anyone working in schools knows what kind of language is commonly acceptable and she was a very experienced teacher, even if she hadn't been classroom-based for a while. There was a lot of publicity and CPD about equalities in schools, throughout the 2000s. For example, the obligation for schools to record racist incidents (including racist language) came in following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Was she not aware of what was acceptable? Or somehow felt that her own writing was a separate sphere and the same guidelines did not apply?

Unfortunately I think her decision to post a screenshot of the negative review on Twitter speaks to a certain over-confidence, an assumption of support, anticipating that others would rally round and swamp Goodreads with their protests. I am not sure what she was thinking. I know there is a tendency to use Twitter and other social media to share any random thought but it is a risky approach for anyone remotely in the public eye.

However, I do still feel sorry for Kate Clanchy as the account of it unfolding is horrific. The podcast makes it very clear that this was not one tweet or a single critical comment from the three main critical voices, it was described as 'relentless', day-after-day. It should have been discussed, done and dusted in one twitter thread, not carry on for months. Kate Clanchy seems, in many ways, broken.

Finally, I would ask those 'cancelling' her how much long-term work they have actually done with children and young people? Not just dashing into a school for a one-off workshop, or hosting an event for a bunch of enthusiastic young writers, but long-term work with a group of disadvantaged children or young people who don't necessarily want to be there and are quite happy to mock and disrupt what you offer them. It is hard work and idealism rapidly drops away. The article in 'The Critic' sums this up quite well.

FE Colleges are often looking for people to teach GCSE English re-takes and functional skills, if any of these 'right-on' writers fancy showing us how it's done?

When all is held in balance, Kate Clanchy did the work with the young people and I think that matters most.

No, in fact they made a TV show out of it!

Late to this thread as I have flu and have been listening to the podcast in between delirious naps….

i agree @localnotailwith your summary.

i thought it was interesting that This is Going to Hurt got a mention. I thought that books was vile and misogynistic but that writer wasn’t cancelled.

I disliked Kate Clanchy's writing, and tbh I get where the criticism is coming from. A lot of people cant' understand it, as she herself had good intentions and undoubtedly done a lot of good things. But her writing really is icky, the way she describes kids is very unpleasant and yes, colonial - its like a 19th century white lady describing friendly savages she encountered on some trip to the jungle. And all the derogatory descriptions of double chins, bosoms, facial hair etc...In my view, no one who really likes children would describe them in this way - it reads like these kids she taught were all somehow grotesque and odd looking. Its really strange that she is has no self awareness and no inner filter - surely at some point you read what you have written and think how it sounds?

But. Her book is nowhere near as bad to cause her to be "cancelled" and to create this pile on - she does not deserve that. It is what it is, and it should be left to the reader to judge what they have read - we are not children, we dont need our morals to be policed and for someone to tell us what is good or bad.

Also, her publisher was crap, they should have either not publish her or stood up for her. Its all a bit ridiculous and was blown out completely out of proportion. But I guess it reflects the time - just very unfortunate she ended up under the microscope. Hope she can get back to normality.

I reported that comment to @mnhq but clearly they think the comparison was fine and dandy to make.

Yes. I wonder if that poster (and the poster who criticised me for calling it out) are proud of themselves.

She still seems to be trying to make sense of what happened. I don't think they'll ever be a satisfactory explanation. It was just mad. Some of the people going for her seemed to have forgotten whatever criticisms they had (legitimate or not) and were just enjoying orchestrating the mob that had assembled to listen to them. The one who started a competition to mock her tears over the loss of her mum! That's just vile and insane. Has fuck all to do with the book. I'm prepared to believe there's context missing, but, failing some kind of mental break on the part of Singh, nothing that could excuse that cruelty. All the people who participated in that should be ashamed.

' She is not sure who to blame, or if she blames. For most of our conversation she justifies mobbings as “just a madness”. She points out that “many animals do ostracism and tearing apart”. At one point, she says anyone would have done what her persecutors did, in their position.'
...
'“I’m not going to say it’s salutary at all. I don’t think anyone learned anything except that people can be bullied. I think it’s horrible and I think I was only diminished.” '

I would just venture to add the word 'yet'. It can be placed at a couple of points and be useful.

It's very sad to hear how much she's been 'diminished' by the past few years, but I guess that should be unsurprising. Any human would be.

She also refers to people treating her work as being a white saviour, something that a couple of people on this thread said.

She is right. Those people are mad.

I agree. That is mad. I didn't feel insulted.

TBF she's referring to her being compared to Jimmy Savile so I think her opinion is justified. It is mad.

Anyway. Getting back to Kate Clanchy

https://archive.ph/YuGBZ

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2025/11/kate-clanchy-has-nothing-to-teach-us

She calls MN 'just mad' 😁

I think you’re right.

On the slightly wider view of the arts and these eye wateringly high but ill defined standards to which artists seem to be held these days, I wonder what impact that will have on artistic output by this generation.

In previous generations artists seemed to be left to get on and do their thing and it either worked or it didn’t but now it seems like some creativity is being stifled at source. Some of our greatest artists have been quite troubled people driven to produce art.

Certainly if any of Musicismboyfriends claims are remotely true, much freedom and creativity will be tied up in form filling and risk assessments.

Looking back on these posts - I’m finding this bit very hard to believe.

I agree. Also, how will universities know if students have had former trauma if they haven’t talked about it?
What about if a student creates something that could be triggering for another student?
Also, there has been no reply from musicismyboyfriend so maybe it was all a wind-up.

Isn't there the problem that raising the issue of mental health problems might paradoxically encourage them? A bit like everyone feeling itchy when headlice are discussed. I believe this is a recognised phenomenon. One reason why responsible organisations are very careful about mentions of suicide.

I work at a university in the arts - even the level 6 students are supervised and protected by ethical frameworks to protect them when working creatively on something, such as a traumatic experience, which might cause them undue harm. They are discouraged from doing so and have to provide paperwork to acknowledge this, it’s basic safeguarding.

Looking back on these posts - I’m finding this bit very hard to believe. Do universities REALLY discourage students from making certain pieces of art on mental health grounds?

@musicismyboyfriend - are you sure you have understood the safeguarding practices correctly at this university?

Exactly. It sounds utterly suffocating although maybe it explains why there are few mental health specialists available to help younger kids - they are all ensconced in a nice arts university where apparently the mental health care is extremely engaged and hands on to preventative levels. Maybe even gold standard?

I wonder where this utopian university is?

Among other reasons, yes. We are multi-faceted here 😊

It's fucking nuts. And these are adults, who presumably are responsible for their own emotions and experiences.

It's all so patronising and pathetic.

I reckon it means getting students to regularly sign agreements that they are fine and not traumatised by the institution and will seek help if they need it.

May on the face if it look like 'care' but is actually litigation-proofing.

It also sounds incredibly intrusive and infantilising. I would have hated it when I was at school, let alone university- what a stultifying atmosphere to try to study in.

I'd also be interested to know how the PP is actually qualified to monitor her students in this way- is she a trained mental health professional?