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

[ArabellaScott]

Picador are unpublishing - ceasing to distribute - all of Clanchy's books. The article says 'by mutual consent', but it's not a good thing to hear a poet/author being 'cancelled'.

Literature/poetry is not in a healthy state right now.

unherd.com/thepost/picador-cancels-poet-kate-clanchys-books/

In case you missed the brouhaha - Article from last year:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58151144

@ShinyHappyPeople
The biggest con of recent years has been to pretend it's a left-leaning impulse to burn books and shut down ideas. Those actions are right-wing. They always have been and they still are.

Which displays the biggest blind spot of the current left - they're in the grip of a 'no true Scotsman' ideology. Left wingers can't possibly suggest burning books and shutting down ideas, and if they do they are 'no true left wingers'. They're 'really' right-wingers, in disguise.

My reading of history suggests that the impulse to shut down those ideas disliked by (sometimes self-created) authority is common across many ideologies and bears no relation whatsoever to 'right wing' or 'left wing'. It's simply a human impulse that intensifies whenever a group has enough power to actually do it.

You can find it in the Roman era, when the authorities tried to shut down the annoying Christians - and then when the annoying Christians were in power they tried to shut down the pagans! You can find it in Stalinist Russia and in Francoist Spain. You can find it in the Labour Party, and the Tory Party.

The biggest con of recent years has been to pretend one political grouping contains all the virtues. Which can't actually be true, because all the political groupings are made up of human beings.

A publisher ending a contract is not burning a book.

Isn’t it? What purpose was there to burning books? To get rid of the thoughts contained within.

We aren’t talking about someone not being published in the first place, we are talking about someone who was published, to at least some acclaim, and then it was decided that some of the content should not be seen by the public because it didn’t fit in with a certain politic.

Isn't it?

Of course it isn't. Publishers terminate contracts with writers all the time. Books go out of print all the time. This is not "silencing", it is totally commonplace in the industry if a publisher no longer feels that the business relationship is profitable to them for any reason. Clanchy's books still exist. They can still be purchased, will continue to be available second hand after new copies have run out, and she is free to seek a contract for a new print run with another publisher.

I see your point @loveastatementnap but if Picador really wanted to destroy the book they wouldn't have reverted the rights to the author. They'd have kept the rights for the period of time they'd bought them for (3 years? Maybe 5) and pulped the rest of their stock. As it is by reverting the rights to Clanchy she's free to offer them to another publisher and I believe she already has a new publisher. Picador appear to be trying to distance themselves from this instead.

Books fall very quickly down front lists and back list titles get little attention.

I and other posters have repeatedly said that the language Clanchy uses is hurtful to us and the groups/minorities we are part of. Why is this so hard to understand? It isn't an attack on free speech, or "tribalism". It's a plea that racist, anti-Semitic, and classist language isn't published and defended.

@ShinyHappyPoster

The trend to silence and erase isn't an imperative of the 'left'. It isn't rooted in any kind of class consciousness. It's exactly the opposite. It's top down, hierarchical and paternalistic.

The biggest con of recent years has been to pretend it's a left-leaning impulse to burn books and shut down ideas. Those actions are right-wing. They always have been and they still are.

A big part of the problem is that some of the most prominent voices who claim to be on the left, obviously aren't. They are wedded to a strongly capitalist, individualist, anti-intellectual view which is bereft of social, political and historic context. They are trying to establish different strands to close down ideas, criticism and free speech. The inroads they are making in publishing and academic institutions are frightening. All of these 'incidents' need to be viewed together.

As some one else said- "the no true (lefty) Scotsman" defence.

Tonnes of books go out of print daily for a variety of reasons. Not sure how that constitutes cancelling or similar.

Why does the publisher owe it to Kate to continue to publish her works? Assuming they’re not breaking terms of a contract or similar I can’t understand what they’ve done wrong

@EishetChayil

I and other posters have repeatedly said that the language Clanchy uses is hurtful to us and the groups/minorities we are part of. Why is this so hard to understand? It isn't an attack on free speech, or "tribalism". It's a plea that racist, anti-Semitic, and classist language isn't published and defended.

Because while you may find 'almond eyes' offensive, the woman to whom this was addressed finds it the opposite. So why does your feeling of how she should feel about this term override her feeling?

@crosshatching

Some of these expressed concerns about free speech being curtailed need to place these concerns alongside the fact that all the descriptions that have caused controversy are of real children and young people. Moreover highly vulnerable children and young people. Even if their identities are obscured in the text they presumably will know who they are themselves and will have to read how an authority figure thought it fit to describe them to their readership.

Did you read the passages quoted from Clanchy's introduction, where she discusses precisely this, and explains that because children need privacy, she has created composite 'characters' to obscure children's identities? They are upthread, or you can read the whole intro on Amazon, I believe.

Because while you may find 'almond eyes' offensive, the woman to whom this was addressed finds it the opposite. So why does your feeling of how she should feel about this term override her feeling?

Several of us have raised problems with Clanchy's terminology other than just the almond eyes thing, have you not read any other comments?

@SevenWaystoLeave

I read this book when it first came out, and there was one part in particular that left an uncomfortable taste in my mouth, which was the boy with the "fine Ashkenazi nose".

I just want to mention this because some posters have suggested Clanchy uses the language she does to highlight and deconstruct her own white middle class perceptions of the Other - but I think this example illustrates there is no such deconstruction going on. She describes this boy as having an "Ashkenazi nose". She assumes he is Jewish based purely on his physical appearance - based, in fact, on an extremely pervasive and offensive stereotype of what Jewish people are supposed to look like, ie having a big hooked nose. The boy tells her he is not Jewish. Right here would be the perfect moment for some introspection, to recognise her own stereotypes and prejudices that lead her to this assumption. But she does no such thing, instead she continues to insist she must be right, that this boy is Jewish and he is either lying to her or his family have hidden his heritage from him out of some imagined shame. So self-examination whatsoever, just doubling down on big nose = Jewish.

Honestly, as a Jewish person, I found this gross, it upset me on a visceral level, that she held this anti-Semitic stereotype and then leant into it, clung to it, and even dared to justify it by inventing a narrative about a family so ashamed of their Jewishness they hid it from their own son (what exactly does she think is the source of this shame? Why does she think being Jewish is a shameful thing to a Jew?). There is no deconstruction here. It's just racism.

I was also made uncomfortable by her descriptions of working class children and of kids with ASD. I admit I wasn't so sensitive to some of the descriptions of race, but I am not a WoC and if you're not part of a minority group you don't necessarily know or recognise those particular pain points. Given my visceral reaction as a Jewish person to some of her writing, I am perfectly prepared to believe WoC describing having the same reaction to other parts of her book.

I have no doubt Clanchy is well-meaning as a person and that she has genuine affection for the pupils she's worked with but that does nothing to mitigate the harmful and offensive stereotypes she propegates. That her publishers ended her contract is not "silencing" her and honestly it sounds ridiculous to me to insist that. No one is entitled to a book contract, and most of us will never have one. Picador haven't published my memoirs, am I being silenced by this? Clanchy is still absolutely free to seek another contract, write more books, and to speak on any platform she chooses, as she has done so. If she struggles to find a new contract, or if people disagree with her or don't want to listen to her, this isn't "silencing", it's the consequences of her actions. The right to free speech doesn't guarantee you a receptive audience and it certainly doesn't guarantee you a book contract.

@ArabellaScott and what would you say to this poster?

@user1471504747

Tonnes of books go out of print daily for a variety of reasons. Not sure how that constitutes cancelling or similar.

Why does the publisher owe it to Kate to continue to publish her works? Assuming they’re not breaking terms of a contract or similar I can’t understand what they’ve done wrong

Her contracts with the publishers have been cancelled, her books returned to her and distribution ceased. In the normal course of things, books remain in print pretty much indefinitely. Book selling plays out over the course of years, usually. This is not, at all, the same as going 'out of print' in the way that most books do.

@SevenWaystoLeave

Because while you may find 'almond eyes' offensive, the woman to whom this was addressed finds it the opposite. So why does your feeling of how she should feel about this term override her feeling?

Several of us have raised problems with Clanchy's terminology other than just the almond eyes thing, have you not read any other comments?

My point was a general one. If many of the children/people involved have defended the terms used (which they have), then why do I take the views of some people over theirs? No race or nationality has a monolithic viewpoint. Some people find these terms offensive; some don't. So which view do I give most credence to? Or is it even possible to acknowledge that there are some terms or words that are insensitive or inappropriate to use but that the rest of the work may contain useful insights? Are all writers required to be completely pure? What about when perceptions of certain words changes? Do we retrospectively cancel those without requisite purity of language?

In the normal course of things, books remain in print pretty much indefinitely

This is not true at all. Very few books continue to sell enough copies to be kept in print indefinitely - most are lucky to have a shelf life of a decade or two. Books go out of print all the time. Most books that have ever been published are now out of print. Publishing is a business, they do not continue to print books which aren't profitable to them.

@ArabellaScott did you read @SevenWaystoLeave post about the "Ashkenazi nose"? Did you understand it? Are you saying that a Jewish person needs to suck up the use of racist tropes and anti-Semitic language because the particular individual that the author is talking about doesn't mind being referred to in that way?

My point was a general one. If many of the children/people involved have defended the terms used (which they have), then why do I take the views of some people over theirs? No race or nationality has a monolithic viewpoint. Some people find these terms offensive; some don't. So which view do I give most credence to? Or is it even possible to acknowledge that there are some terms or words that are insensitive or inappropriate to use but that the rest of the work may contain useful insights? Are all writers required to be completely pure? What about when perceptions of certain words changes? Do we retrospectively cancel those without requisite purity of language?

The thing is, "Don't caricature Jews as having big noses" is such a basic, basic beginner's concept in Anti-Semitism 101, it is not just my opinion, it is extremely widely recognised as an anti-Semitic trope. Like honestly, I don't see any excuse for being all, "But is saying Jews have big noses offensive, we just don't know" when anyone who knows anything about how anti-Semitism manifests would be aware of this trope and how pervasive it is. But Clanchy fell right into this extremely basic stereotype and couldn't even manage to recognise or deconstruct that.

So knowing that, I have no faith whatsoever that she has the knowledge or sensitivity to be writing well about any minority group that she's not part of, and as such I have no idea why the world should owe her an audience (and honestly she wouldn't be owed an audience even if she did write well because as previously mentioned, no one is entitled to a book contract, and not having a book contract does not mean you are cancelled or silenced, it just means no one currently wants to publish your book)

[quote heartonthetyne]**@ArabellaScott* did you read @SevenWaystoLeave* post about the "Ashkenazi nose"? Did you understand it? Are you saying that a Jewish person needs to suck up the use of racist tropes and anti-Semitic language because the particular individual that the author is talking about doesn't mind being referred to in that way? [/quote]
And this case, the particular individual she was talking about did mind - he wasn't even Jewish and he told her as much, she just refused to believe him because how could he not be Jewish with that nose

I mean seriously, do people actually need to be handheld through why that's offensive as fuck?

Have you read the book, Seven?

I find it very difficult to defend Kate Clanchy's book. No, I haven't read but the quotes just seem indefensible. I likened it to reading like the fictional work of Martin Amis, Will Self or Lionel Shriver, but thinking more of it and having seen more of the problematic quotes , they sound more Kingsley than Martin Amis.

I don't want Kingsley Amis pulped or cancelled- his work was of its time and his views and Lucky Jim is still very funny.

For me the differences are (a) Amis' horrible characters are fictional (even if he was possibly funnelling his own views through them) (b) no- one ever thought Amis was a particularly nice person and (c) he wasn't in a position of mentoring and teaching vulnerable children and then making use of that work for his own commercial benefit.

What has Clanchy learnt from these children? That well- educated, well - off middle- class white people can be biased , snobbish and condescending? The problematic quotes damn her out of her own mouth, so it's not clear what she has been taught.

I'm also unconvinced about the pleadings to take them in context. It reminds me of past discussions on here of articles written by Paris Lees and Rod Liddle. The full articles were online but some posters very determinedly chose to take parts out of context to reinvent what had been said because they don't like Lees or Liddle. "Take it in context" - if, and only if, it suits the agenda being pled.

But this bothers me too.

The 3 women all complained Clanchy had re-victimised them through the media reporting on her parting with Pan MacMillan yet they all proceeded to tweet about her daily, repeatedly, over the last week (don’t know about today as two of them have now locked their accounts)

I read Singh's Twitter feed. Now there's a woman who's never lain awake at night plagued by self- doubt. Singh is so sure of her rightness in everything. Any disagreement or criticism is taken as an attack on her because she is a woman of colour. There was a very interesting twitter thread about her interaction with a student and her hyperbolic accusations.

Bit of fence sitting there but I suppose I don't feel like supporting either side.

[quote heartonthetyne]**@ArabellaScott* did you read @SevenWaystoLeave* post about the "Ashkenazi nose"? Did you understand it? Are you saying that a Jewish person needs to suck up the use of racist tropes and anti-Semitic language because the particular individual that the author is talking about doesn't mind being referred to in that way? [/quote]
No, I am absolutely not saying that. This thread is a very good demonstration of how people tend to put words in other people's mouths and make assumptions about motive.

@ArabellaScott

Have you read the book, Seven?

Yes, I have, as I said in my original comment.

Bit of fence sitting there but I suppose I don't feel like supporting either side.

This is also part of the issue. Why do we have to feel there are two sides and we are duty bound to support one or the other?

(not directing this at you, Kimikos, just the subject in general as with so many subjects at the moment.)

@ArabellaScott You haven't actually read this book, as I think you said in an earlier comment?

@APileofLogs do you know how she is doing? I can't imagine how she could come back from this. It must be horrendous.....

....but I still maintain she's being scapegoated. For a number of reasons I don't think the book should have been published (as well as the horrible quotes, I find it worrying from a teaching perspective. I am an English teacher, and if someone wrote what she has about either the staff or students at any school I've worked at she'd have been asked to leave. I can't fathom how she's working!). BUT IT'S PUBLISHING'S ISSUE. It's absolutely the big publishers, big agency and big prize. She's been published recently, and has been supported by these large institutions. They really need to be examining the industry that put this book out- NOT the person who wrote it. They're washing their hands of responsibility, but the very publication of this book shows the institutionalised problems in the industry!