Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

558 replies

ArabellaScott · 21/01/2022 14:23

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
ArabellaScott · 30/01/2022 09:37

I'm halfway through, you'll all be glad to hear. So far some interesting questions are being raised about assumptions made according to looks, various prejudices, etc.

I'm interested to see whether there is an arc and this issue will be further explored later on, an examination of the writer's prejudices or presumptions would seem to be an integral part of the book. I think the author is a subject/character in here as much as the pupils.

The title suggests it might. Other questions to do with didactic teaching methods and multiculturalism and the welfare state are all really interesting. Some of this is provocative, yes. Maybe that's the point? Are these all subjects we can't even discuss at the moment? Which issues are we not allowed to talk about and who is given license to talk and who is silenced?

I can see.why this won the Orwell Prize, actually. And perhaps it is bigger than Clanchy, in a way.

Anyway, on to the second half...

OP posts:
NoSquirrels · 30/01/2022 09:38

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’.

ArabellaScott · 30/01/2022 09:40

Having worked with children in some of the most deprived areas of Europe (in Glasgow) I can say that 'undersized ' is completely and chillingly accurate and it is a fucking shameful and heart breaking thing to see. No child should be undernourished in the 21st century in the UK.

OP posts:
GrammarTeacher · 30/01/2022 09:46

@NoSquirrels

Have you read the book, GrammarTeacher?
Yes I have. It is disgusting.
AuxArmesCitoyens · 30/01/2022 09:50

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

ArabellaScott · 30/01/2022 10:31

'Last week, several people tagged me on social media, alerting me to a phrase that the writer and poet — and my former teacher — Kate Clanchy had used in her memoir Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me, which was published two years ago. In the book, she describes one of her pupils as having “almond-shaped eyes”.

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.'

Shukria Rezaei

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-do-have-almond-shaped-eyes-my-teacher-kate-clanchy-described-me-beautifully-vtwp50b06

OP posts:
AuxArmesCitoyens · 30/01/2022 10:43

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?

ArabellaScott · 30/01/2022 10:47

As Clanchy said in the introduction, pupils were anonymised and some characters were composite fabrications. I would imagine (although I can't know) that the ones where she is less than complimentary about the children are the semi-imagined creations. The intro is posted further upthread.

Shukria has had exemplary successes from the work she did while being taught by Clanchy; perhaps she is more readily identifiable - I've not got to that bit of the book yet.

OP posts:
PaleBlueMoonlight · 30/01/2022 10:49

SevenWaystoLeave

I am making a wider point about how good discussion happens. I know nothing about the arguments around Kate Clanchy's book and I am not commenting on those. I have not yet read the book so I have no comments to make on what I think about about what she said. I also did not say or hint that society only includes white middle class people. I was advocating productive communication that values honesty and starts with seeking to understand different perspectives, as a counter to the starting point being condemnation or voicing suspicion.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 30/01/2022 10:53

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, I am not saying this.

SevenWaystoLeave · 30/01/2022 11:21

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

I don't see any indication the purpose of her book was to educate about racism, there is little to no introspection or deconstruction of her own attitudes in there. I can't remember an occasion in the book where she acknowledges or attempts to amend a prejudice. But even if that was the purpose, how can you have a meaningful conversation about racism and what it looks like and how it impacts people if you don't include anyone who is actually impacted by racism? Then all you have is a bunch of white people standing around, who have never experienced this type of racism, deciding on behalf of others what is or isn't racist towards them. (Which honestly is what much of the discourse about this book has looked like since the controversy happened).

NoSquirrels · 30/01/2022 12:40

I don't see any indication the purpose of her book was to educate about racism, there is little to no introspection or deconstruction of her own attitudes in there. I can't remember an occasion in the book where she acknowledges or attempts to amend a prejudice.

Worth re-reading? I’d say it’s a theme through the book, so I’m confused anyone thinks otherwise.

SevenWaystoLeave · 30/01/2022 12:54

@NoSquirrels

I don't see any indication the purpose of her book was to educate about racism, there is little to no introspection or deconstruction of her own attitudes in there. I can't remember an occasion in the book where she acknowledges or attempts to amend a prejudice.

Worth re-reading? I’d say it’s a theme through the book, so I’m confused anyone thinks otherwise.

Can you give any specific examples where she makes an assumption based on race/class and is proven wrong, introspects and corrects herself? Because I honestly can't think of a single one.
Anactor · 30/01/2022 12:59

*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.*

Trouble is, what we've got in the censored second edition - and I will say 'censored', because self-censorship is still censorship - is, in my opinion, worse. And it would have been even worse if the publisher's had decided to pre-censor the book.

Because we've gone from a book where a typically British modern anti-Semitism (A's appearance is what I think of as Jewish and they have a name I think of as Jewish - so A must be Jewish, even if they say they're not) is, by inference, linked to the pogroms ...

... to a now-censored book where (to use David Baddiel's phrase) 'Jews don't count'. There's no longer any blatant anti-Semitism, but there's also no connection with the pogroms caused by anti-Semitism. Oh, yeah, they're mentioned - but safely. Pogroms are safely in the past. Daniel Deronda, Oliver Twist, people don't want to remember what they escaped from, or even that they may have a heritage that made them a target, that forced their grandparents and great-grandparents to move to this country. How sad.

But this now has nothing to do with Clanchy's nice middle class readership, because that readership now never has to confront the notion that when Clanchy said 'Ashkenazi nose' - they knew exactly what she meant. They never have the chance to pick up the inference that this kind of casual racism connects directly to the pogroms. The inference that it's still there. That if you look visibly Jewish, you will still get racism directed at you. Often by very 'nice' middle-class people.

And the people who are impacted by this racism no longer have the chance to discuss it with the people doing the impacting. Move along, people, nothing to see here, anti-Semitism doesn't exist in modern Britain. We've removed the nasty words, and now the actual racism against Jews that creates the nasty words is ... invisible. Nobody has to be offended now. Nobody has to cope with the language, and nobody has to recognise themselves (in Clanchy's book) as someone who would say (or think, more likely) a racist trope against Jews.

Congratulations. We've taken someone's real, raw racism that they're struggling with - and made it nice. Not just 'nice' - invisible.

But that's censorship. We don't censor the 'nice', or the stuff we agree with. We censor the offensive, we censor the stuff we disagree with. We censor the stuff that makes us uncomfortable.

There has never been a more appropriate book to be given the Orwell Prize.

EishetChayil · 30/01/2022 13:08

@Anactor

*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.*

Trouble is, what we've got in the censored second edition - and I will say 'censored', because self-censorship is still censorship - is, in my opinion, worse. And it would have been even worse if the publisher's had decided to pre-censor the book.

Because we've gone from a book where a typically British modern anti-Semitism (A's appearance is what I think of as Jewish and they have a name I think of as Jewish - so A must be Jewish, even if they say they're not) is, by inference, linked to the pogroms ...

... to a now-censored book where (to use David Baddiel's phrase) 'Jews don't count'. There's no longer any blatant anti-Semitism, but there's also no connection with the pogroms caused by anti-Semitism. Oh, yeah, they're mentioned - but safely. Pogroms are safely in the past. Daniel Deronda, Oliver Twist, people don't want to remember what they escaped from, or even that they may have a heritage that made them a target, that forced their grandparents and great-grandparents to move to this country. How sad.

But this now has nothing to do with Clanchy's nice middle class readership, because that readership now never has to confront the notion that when Clanchy said 'Ashkenazi nose' - they knew exactly what she meant. They never have the chance to pick up the inference that this kind of casual racism connects directly to the pogroms. The inference that it's still there. That if you look visibly Jewish, you will still get racism directed at you. Often by very 'nice' middle-class people.

And the people who are impacted by this racism no longer have the chance to discuss it with the people doing the impacting. Move along, people, nothing to see here, anti-Semitism doesn't exist in modern Britain. We've removed the nasty words, and now the actual racism against Jews that creates the nasty words is ... invisible. Nobody has to be offended now. Nobody has to cope with the language, and nobody has to recognise themselves (in Clanchy's book) as someone who would say (or think, more likely) a racist trope against Jews.

Congratulations. We've taken someone's real, raw racism that they're struggling with - and made it nice. Not just 'nice' - invisible.

But that's censorship. We don't censor the 'nice', or the stuff we agree with. We censor the offensive, we censor the stuff we disagree with. We censor the stuff that makes us uncomfortable.

There has never been a more appropriate book to be given the Orwell Prize.

What on earth are you talking about? Pogroms? Are you saying we have to put up with a bit of anti-semitism, otherwise people will forget about Jew hatred? I'm struggling to understand what you mean.

SevenWaystoLeave · 30/01/2022 13:14

There's another sequence in the book I've just been reminded about, which demonstrates the problems with this book go far deeper than race/ethnicity and some questionable word choices in her descriptions.

There's a story, related to Clanchy by another teacher friend of hers. It concerns a teaching assistant who is approached after class by a teenager with a visible erection who tells her he loves her. The TA is a sexual assault survivor and is traumatised by the incident, which she reports.

Clanchy and her friend's response to this incident was that TA was wrong to report it and should have just ignored it, they believe that everyone in the chain of command who had to deal with the issue was annoyed with the TA for reporting it, and they mock her supposed fragility as a sexual assault survivor, as well as making jokes about the imagined small size of the boy's penis. The justification for this is some absolute incomprehensible guff about the different Greek forms of love. I just genuinely genuinely can't see any justification for this, and I think it demonstrates the problems with this book go far deeper than the language choices.

ArabellaScott · 30/01/2022 13:40

they mock her supposed fragility as a sexual assault survivor

There is no mocking of the student intern as a sexual assault survivor. I've just reread that whole passage to check.

OP posts:
SevenWaystoLeave · 30/01/2022 13:43

@ArabellaScott

they mock her supposed fragility as a sexual assault survivor

There is no mocking of the student intern as a sexual assault survivor. I've just reread that whole passage to check.

And the rest of it?
KimikosNightmare · 30/01/2022 13:45

@NoSquirrels

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'm reading it now. She does not compare herself to Prince Philip. It's on Kindle and I've done a word search to make sure.

The exact quote is

"These winter - coloured, mouse- haired children, so pale and freckly, with their muttering, sibilant names- Fraser, Struan, Susan, Fiona, Catriona- confounded me. I was having difficulty telling them apart

This is immediately after saying

"My second years, though still looked like children to me, even though they were entering their teens: all of them so short; so hunched in their anoraks. My eye was tuned in to the multi- cultural London pupils I'd taught the year before and who seemed, in my memory to be stylish, metropolitan, and brightly different from each other"

It is not a joke or a play on the trope that "all [insert ethnicity] look the same to me"

It's a terrible piece of writing- so bad I googled "sibilant" because clearly either Clanchy or I don't know what it means.

NoSquirrels · 30/01/2022 13:45

Can you give any specific examples where she makes an assumption based on race/class and is proven wrong, introspects and corrects herself? Because I honestly can't think of a single one.

I’d have to re-read it. That’s why I was saying ‘worth re-reading?’ Because your recollection of it is so far at odds from mine it’s possible we’re both right/both wrong.

I really can’t agree it’s “disgusting” though. I do struggle with anyone who has read the book through with good faith thinking it’s “disgusting”.

RoyalCorgi · 30/01/2022 13:50

There's a good interview with her in today's Sunday Times. (I don't have a share token.)

NoSquirrels · 30/01/2022 13:50

Someone earlier quoted the #DiReadsClancy Twitter thread which I think is an example of someone reading it in bad faith, btw - they’re reading it from the point of view of exposing it’s awful, inherent racism, classism and terrible no-good attitudes of the author. They’re reading it with an agenda.

I am perfectly prepared to accept some readers were triggered by some descriptions, found some attitudes unacceptable, saw bias and prejudice I missed when I read it due to my middle-class white privilege. I’m more than happy to accept that.

But it’s different going looking for offence to take someone down.

The whole affair has made me deeply uncomfortable on many levels - personal, professional, political, cultural.

SevenWaystoLeave · 30/01/2022 13:52

@ArabellaScott

they mock her supposed fragility as a sexual assault survivor

There is no mocking of the student intern as a sexual assault survivor. I've just reread that whole passage to check.

I've just re-read the passage myself - maybe mocking was too strong a word, but they certainly questioned if her reaction was genuine, and Clanchy describes her as being "triggered" in inverted comments which implies skepticism.

What do you think about Clanchy's assertion that the TA should have just ignored and not reported the incident? And their comments on the size of the boy's penis?

KimikosNightmare · 30/01/2022 13:53

I don't see any indication the purpose of her book was to educate about racism, there is little to no introspection or deconstruction of her own attitudes in there. I can't remember an occasion in the book where she acknowledges or attempts to amend a prejudice.

I'm reading it now. I'm about 1/3 through. My impression is the same as SevenWaystoLeave's.

I'm seeing some one who is very much the heroine of her own story. It's very self- congratulatory.

KimikosNightmare · 30/01/2022 13:58

@NoSquirrels

Can you give any specific examples where she makes an assumption based on race/class and is proven wrong, introspects and corrects herself? Because I honestly can't think of a single one.

I’d have to re-read it. That’s why I was saying ‘worth re-reading?’ Because your recollection of it is so far at odds from mine it’s possible we’re both right/both wrong.

I really can’t agree it’s “disgusting” though. I do struggle with anyone who has read the book through with good faith thinking it’s “disgusting”.

I'm reading it now and possibly I can't divorce recent events from my interpretation, but she comes across as smug and self- congratulatory. There's also a whiff of Victorian anthropologist in her descriptions of other cultures- including the Scottish children. I agree with SevenWaystoLeave

I'm also not sure I believe all of it.