Times Interview with Kate Clanchy - shared article in post

The whole sensitivity reader thing is so cowardly on the part of publishers. If they really cared about diversity they would look at their own management structures and address the fact it's pretty much always a white man at the top making the financial decisions. It's purely about avoiding social media storms, not about making anything better.

Sensitivity readers are a blight on the publishing industry. They are required to find fault in order to justify their existence and are aided and abetted by social media.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Cardinal Richelieu

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/i-do-have-almond-shaped-eyes-my-teacher-kate-clanchy-described-me-beautifully-vtwp50b06

https://archive.ph/Qngpp

'Critics labelled this description patronising, insulting, offensive, colonialist and racist. This upset me. I am that girl with the almond eyes. I did not find it offensive.
To be clear, I would not dream of commenting on whether other words and phrases Kate has used are offensive to others, but “almond eyes” is a term that I have often used in my own poems. My almond-shaped eyes are at the core of my Hazara identity. Hazaras are an almost invisible ethnic group in Afghanistan.'

@DeanElderberry you really should read the article because you’re comments are coming across badly and from a position of ignorance.

And your description of her not being cancelled is pretty disgusting and echoes abusers. “What do you mean, I don’t let you speak when I can STILL HEAR YOUR FUCKING WHINING VOICE.”

She was 100% cancelled. She was treated appalling by her publisher, who kowtowed to a trio of nasty bullies no doubt motivated by a large dollop of professional jealousy.

And has publishing really leaned anything? I don’t think so.

It's interesting that we've reached a point where, in certain sections of polite society, mere acknowledgement of the existence of certain physiological features is apparently seen as bigoted and hateful.

I hope we're seeing the beginning of the end of this disturbing culture of cancelling. It's the modern equivalent of the stocks or the gladiator arena. People may say or do things that are wrong but that doesn't mean they deserve to have their lives entirely destroyed. Surely only murderers and rapists deserve that?!

I haven’t read her books, though I used to read, admire and enjoy the children’s poems she shared, with pride and affection, on Twitter. I remember my mother and sister, who had both found the books moving, being shocked by the depiction of them in the press after everything blew up, and wondering what they had missed.

But what I find really bizarre is the way that her publishers went from “this is writing we deem worthy of publication, which we will promote and benefit from”, to “this is exploitative, racist writing and its author should be ostracised.” She wasn’t cancelled for any behaviour or comment - it all came down to the content of the book itself. Which they had explicitly chosen to publish. I don’t understand how they could then turn round and act like victims themselves, going “oh! We didn’t know THAT was in the book!”
I know she says in the interview that some of them turned out not to have read it, but surely her own agent and whoever decided to publish it had?!!

“She wasn’t a pretty girl, even by the standards of the IU… she was fat, a swathe of freckly flesh bulging out of her collar, blurring her jawline, giving her premature double chins.”

There is a lot to criticse with her so called writing. But the worst was reading her description of a child's physical changes after being raped. It came across to me as absolutely unhinged and sociopathic.

To me, she's no different to creative types making poverty porn... Getting paid off the back of exploiting others under the guise of 'giving a voice to the voiceless' .

The fact she is still getting any airtime at all is a disgrace and clearly demonstrates she has not been 'cancelled' how ever much she doth protest...

Yes. This is seem everywhere (and even sometimes on this board).

Everything is portrayed as clear cut - someone's either bad or good. No discussion is allowed, no nuance - you're just expected to accept someone else's viewpoint if they're OTRSOH. We know this yet for (often understandable reasons) allow the shouty ones to insist on one narrative . And people suffer.

I've not read KC's books or followed the issues closely. But I thought the article was credible and chimes in with a lot of what been clearly evidenced about toxic bullying / cancelling in the publishing industry.

What I find interesting about this particular incarnation of shunning is the way once someone is designated as a hate figure you are allowed or even expected to work yourself up into a frenzy of indignation that becomes totally disconnected from what the person actually did or said. Anyone who suggests they deserve a fair hearing is as bad as them.

I feel sorry for her. I think she was only trying to give these kids a voice and some confidence.
(disclaimer - I used to vaguely know her and she was lovely)

How was she 'cancelled' or 'shunned'? Her book was reprinted, numerous articles by her giving her version of the affair have been printed, and she is now a writer in residence at an Oxford college. That is not cancellation.

Some children saying they don't feel oppressed is great, but it doesn't diminish the horror of her writing about the 'Ashkenazi nose' of a boy with no known Jewish family as though he was a beetle she was pinning down in a display case. It doesn't take much knowledge of 20th century history to understand why she cuts such a sinister figure. The book is full of dehumanising, othering, descriptions of children who, as I have said repeatedly, did not volunteer to encounter her or to be categorised.

Thanks for posting OP. I read the book before the row blew up and thought it was humane and beautifully written with a poet’s ear for language. As someone said above, Clanchy is careful to position herself as a secure middle class Brit, and part of the way the book works is to emphasise how different the students seem to her before she connects with them through language and poetry. I didn’t think there was anything racist or condescending in her writing and was appalled when she was hung out to dry by her publishers and the Society of Authors. It seems another case of how those attempting to do a good thing are torn apart for some minor infringement while actual racists, sexists etc get a free pass.

We are all allowed to criticise none of us are entitled to call for cancellation.

Yep.

'Cancellation' is an odd idea altogether. Is it really new? Were people cut off, fired, unpersonned like this in the past? 'Sent to Coventry' and shunning used to happen, but social media seems to have fuelled a particular type of witchhunt.

No, you really are not.

The letter states: "We thank those for their concern over our wellbeing, but can very gladly clarify to any readers concerned that we have experienced no safeguarding or consent issues, and we have never felt excluded from the process. Though well-meaning people appear to want to defend us, in some ways their intervention is often disempowering and causing us distress, because it does not reflect our reality. We do not need defending: we will speak for ourselves."

Clanchy students defend author over safeguarding criticism share.google/TtHorVBWn24nb7ktW

Clancy was a sufferer of the Barbara Streisand effect.

If she hadn’t complained about a reviewer, none of the blow up would have happened. She claimed the reviewer had made up quotes - but they were all in the book.

The book was awful. She sneered at those children, and she shouldn’t have exploited their experiences for her own personal gain.

That's a hard read and demonstrates what a mess we're in with this repeated public denunciation of people - so often led by the media looking for a story.

it's particularly important to know that the young people involved have consistently denied the allegations and that they are still in regular contact with her. The extent of her loss is significant and it's interesting that her ability to uncover actual facts about what happened has led to apologies from some of her critics.

Actually listening to those involved and evaluating complex situations is so often abandoned in favour of listening to online voices with strong opinions.

I've read it now. As usual, she has left out the bit where she tried to doxx the woman who left an unfavourable review on Goodreads and get her sacked. For writing in an online review site that she did not like the book or the disrespectful language in it. Sacked.

I am not convinced Clanchy was ever 'cancelled' - she has certainly been published in the papers and weeklies about this repeatedly over the last four years, but the message now seems to be that women like her should not have to face the consequences of their actions, that's for the little people.

I am centering the children's experience. She used them. It should never have happened.

I think you are failing to grasp the difference between criticising and cancellation. We are all allowed to criticise none of us are entitled to call for cancellation.
You seem to be inserting yourself into this without considering the children's experiences which you seem to diminish.
Different people will feel differently.

No I haven't read the article. I read excerpts from the book before the online row, then after the row I read the book, then I read several articles by Clanchy over the next years.

I feel no need to read yet another.

The whole incident was nasty, people should not write lightly disguised descriptions of school children who have been forced into contact with them.They particularly should not use racial, national, appearance based stereotyped descriptions of them. Children are not publicity fodder for do-gooders.

Fashion and peer pressure tend towards cancellation.
I’m not surprised they supported her when their own words (chocolate skin and almond shaped eyes for example) were attributed to her by her detractors and used as the basis of her cancellation. Have you read the article linked?

Thank you for the share token, op.

It's fascinating that people who criticised Clanchy's writing (and I read the first excerpts and was shocked by them well before the online stuff blew up) were 'attacking her' and 'hysterical' and 'frenzied' and 'sanctimonious'.

But she is a special, first-generation successful (really?) white (relevant why?) woman so has to be validated.

I think this is a prime example of the hysterical frenzy of cancel culture. Actually have I crossed a line there with 'hysterical'
“I’m interested,” Clanchy says, “that all the people who attacked me were women around my own age, often exactly my own age, often white women just like me. I think that we’re the first generation of women to have succeeded and got anywhere. But the men can relax, because we’re just going to form a circle and shoot each other.”

Seriously I'm starting to worry at this behaviour among successful women who should have enough battle scars to stand firm instead of crumbling before sanctamonious 'sensitivity readers'.