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

So far some interesting questions are being raised about assumptions made according to looks, various prejudices, etc

I'm reading it now. I see lots of assumptions and very little questioning.

I also agree with SevenWaystoLeave about the incident with the Teaching Assistant. "Mocking" is too strong a word but there was zero sympathy for the TA , who was expected just to ignore the incident.

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

Kimiko, I can see that aspect of it. But it could be that this is also amplified/exaggerated - the protag seems highly conscious of her motivations and inclinations, etc. I'm going to reserve judgement until I get further along, because if, as some have said, this book is examining her own prejudices and snobberies, then that may be something that changes later in the book as part of the arc/development. It's what I'd expect, really.

(FWIW I'm ambivalent about the book so far. Some of it's unexpectedly funny. Some of the phrasing is a bit clunky, and this might be partly the problem giving different interpretations. The protag is often concerned with appearances, how people seem and judgements made on that basis. I'm guessing that is also going to be part of the self exploration, but we'll see. Some parts are very moving/sad. I can see how parts are provocative or insensitive, yes, but I'm not getting the 'disgust' of some readers. These are tricky issues she's dealing with - class, race, sex, power. It'd be a bloody miracle if anyone wrote a book on these subjects without offending someone.)

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?

What age was this child? Year 8 = S1? So, around 12-13?

I don't know. The other teacher quoted didn't seem a hugely sympathetic character. Nor did the intern.

Is this situation a completely realistically rendered incident? I doubt it. Is this an instruction book for teaching, or is it more examining some of the difficulties of working with adolescents? Boys/young adolescent males of that age are pre-pubertal or in the very early stages of puberty/adolescence. Which can be, as we all probably know, a tricky and confusing time for boys.

I've had a student make a clumsy pass at me (albeit an 18yo) and I did exactly as Clanchy suggested - told him to go home and study for his exams. The idea of reporting him wouldn't have occurred to me for a second, as despite this student being technically an adult the balance of power was very much with me as an older adult and someone in a position of adult responsibility. It's worth considering a young TA may be very early 20s themselves.

The issues involved are power differentials and hierarchies, and perhaps sex differences, too. Teachers working with teens will deal with these issues, all the time.

@SevenWaystoLeave

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).

@SevenWaystoLeave Then you haven't read the book. Or read it with your eyes closed. You certainly haven't understood it.

It could not be more clear that exploring racism - and classism and poverty - are the main themes in the book.

It could not be more clear that exploring racism - and classism and poverty - are the main themes in the book.

But not Clanchy's own racism or classism. She's always right, and presented as the voice of reason.

I don't know. The other teacher quoted didn't seem a hugely sympathetic character.

But Clanchy is highly approving of her and heaps praise on her and her approach.

I can see how parts are provocative or insensitive, yes, but I'm not getting the 'disgust' of some readers. These are tricky issues she's dealing with - class, race, sex, power. It'd be a bloody miracle if anyone wrote a book on these subjects without offending someone.)

It's worth remembering Arabella some of the more overtly objectionable language and sequences were removed from the second edition, which I assume is what you're reading unless you've been able to get a second hand copy of the earlier version.

@SevenWaystoLeave

I can see how parts are provocative or insensitive, yes, but I'm not getting the 'disgust' of some readers. These are tricky issues she's dealing with - class, race, sex, power. It'd be a bloody miracle if anyone wrote a book on these subjects without offending someone.)

It's worth remembering Arabella some of the more overtly objectionable language and sequences were removed from the second edition, which I assume is what you're reading unless you've been able to get a second hand copy of the earlier version.

Interesting. I'm 50% through and my criticisms are as per my posts here but it didn't seem as bad as the furore suggested.

However the edition I'm reading is published by Swift 2022. A word search on it doesn't find "Ashkenazi nose". I wonder what else has been removed?

@SevenWaystoLeave

It could not be more clear that exploring racism - and classism and poverty - are the main themes in the book.

But not Clanchy's own racism or classism. She's always right, and presented as the voice of reason.

I don't know that that's correct at all. I've already noted several instances of wry self depreciation.

I have the 2020 edition.

@NecessaryScene

I actually find the spectacle of some of the articulate, critically-minded women I admire here trying to excuse Clanchy’s worldview primarily because she is a woman suffering consequences of her actions quite abhorrent, truth be told.

I can assure you that I find the spectacle of people trying to impose their worldview on others under the pretext of fighting some noble cause abhorrent.

It's not about "intent" - it doesn't matter how noble you think your cause is, the path you are setting out on is very, very dangerous.

Everyone calling for Clanchy to be "held to account" should be examining their biases with a self-critical eye.

To undermine the principles of liberal democracy and freedom of expression for "social justice" would do far more damage to society and its vulnerable members. And, indeed, it already is.

@NecessaryScene Could not agree with you more.

Kimiko, I'm not sure to be honest, but I'd guess most if not all of the phrasing that was identified as offensive by readers has been removed or changed. Which as another commenter mentioned, presents an interesting problem, in that the book probably reads as less offensive now, but ultimately it's just been pasted over and the underlying problem hasn't really been addressed. So in that respect would it actually have been better to leave it in its original form so readers are better able to make an informed judgment about the content?

To go off on a bit of a tangent, thinking more about Clanchy's level of self-reflection in the books, I stand by my comment there's very little of it and she seldom engages in any introspection about her own attitudes, and generally her perspective is presented as the good and right one - or the "loving" one is a phrase she seems to use a lot, as though it excuses everything.

But there is one moment I remember that I guess comes close to some self-awareness, and it's another take on the whole "they all look the same to me" thing, but her respnse to her introspection on this just raises a whole pile of other problems in my opinion.

It's a story about a Somali boy whose family are seeking asylum in the UK. The family come from close to the Somali-Kenyan border, and another Somali boy in class has been teasing him by telling him he looks Kenyan. He is particularly upset by this because he worries if he is thought to be Kenyan, his family's asylum case will fail. Clanchy is baffled by what it means to look Kenyan as opposed to looking Somali - surely they both look the same? But then she looks again and realises the two boys do have different physiques and facial features (seems a little odd she'd never noticed this before since they've been in her class all year, but whatever). So she literally tells the boy that they all look the same to her but presents it as a form of comfort - that the same will likely be true of the immigration officials too.

I've got to say I find this a very clumsy and insensitive attempt at comfort which may well have left the boy feeling worse than before he spoke to her - imagine being told by your teacher that all you lot look the same to her, and that you'd better pin your family's hopes on the racism of the immigration officials, and that's supposed to make you feel better. And there's no further self-reflection from Clanchy at all, she closes the story there, apparently under the impression she has been successful in this interaction.

And that's genuinely the only moment that even comes close to self-reflection that I can think of.

All references to "chocolate" have been removed in my edition.

But not Clanchy's own racism or classism. She's always right, and presented as the voice of reason.

To some extent this is true. The title gives it away, in fact: she positions herself as having been taught, and so her voice, looking back, does have a wry I'm-so-much-wiser-now! tone. I'm not sure it's fair to fault her for that, since a memoir about what you've learnt which didn't assume it was worth learning would be pretty lame. Also there are two important qualifiers: the first one is that she absolutely does present her own past arrogance and prejudices. Here's the scene with Shakila where they're taking about terrorism, and she says:

I'm assuming the poem is a protest against suspicion of Muslims in Britain. I'm aware there is a group of Afghans in the neighbourhood now. [...] I got into a discussion with [one of them] about the poet Rumi. He looked just like Shakila, come to think of it, so maybe--

"No, Miss," says Shakila [...]. "In England? There are no terrorists in England."
"She's from Afghanistan," says Lily, "she means the Taliban." [...] I assume this is a white stereotype, and I am about to correct her when Shakila nods, more vehemently than ever."

This whole passage is about the knocking-down of several assumptions - the cringey shorthand of thinking the guy "looks like Shakila", the self-righteous arrogance of assuming it's a "white stereotype". Of course she sounds smug, but that is entirely the point - she is talking about growing in self-awareness through being confronted by someone else's story and honesty. There are other places where you get a similar dance of evolving stream-of-consciousness, but this is the one I remembered enough to look up.

And secondly, she is entirely explicit about not being perfect now. As none of us are. (I refer you to the bit I posted before about prejudice and poetry, can't be bothered to type it out again.)

And finally - no matter how much we personally warm or not to her style, and how inclined we are to forgive her residual prejudices, I think she is doing her best to talk about the problems facing us, which is more than most people do. And for trying to do her best, she has been disproportionately punished, very publically. What message does that send?

I've got to say I find this a very clumsy and insensitive attempt at comfort which may well have left the boy feeling worse than before he spoke to her - imagine being told by your teacher that all you lot look the same to her, and that you'd better pin your family's hopes on the racism of the immigration officials, and that's supposed to make you feel better. And there's no further self-reflection from Clanchy at all, she closes the story there, apparently under the impression she has been successful in this interaction.

Ha, this shows the limits of "objective" textual analysis. I read this as archly referencing the ubiquitous "black people look the same" trope, on the assumption that her readers would be culturally literate enough to know that it's a joke at her own expense - she is tacitly acknowledging her own powerlessness to help, and the racism which faces him. Of course it's not comforting in any practical sense, it's the meagre comfort of her trying to acknowledge some of what faces him. And she let's it hang because she doesn't think she needs to spell it out.

That's how I read it, anyway - and since I see that it can be argued your way too, I am inclined to think that some of her problems come from assuming that people would read her gaps and implications. She's a poet, isn't she? I wonder if it's because she's using a kind of open-ended, draw-your-own-conclusions form that people think she genuinely hasn't engaged with the implications of what she's said. She's being honest, and nuanced, and open about the imperfections of her own responses - without saying at every turn And This Is Bad, because she trusts the context and form to make that abundantly clear. And so if you take it out of context, or you're so alienated by her that you can't see what she's trying to do, it does read as much worse than it is. Given what she does explicitly say about what she's trying to do and write about, I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

["lets", obviously. Autocarrot apostrophe there.]

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.

I have a paperback of the first edition text.

I think in removing the phrases like ‘Ashkenazi nose’, ‘Somali skull’ and so on, it’s perhaps made her intent even less clear.

I didn’t realise the text had already been altered, actually. When they announced a rewrite I thought it would be extremely hard to do. As far as I knew that hadn’t yet happened. It seems like this ‘don’t give offence edition’ is the worst of worlds.

I think it's more pertinent how the comment would have felt to the boy than how it comes across to the reader, assuming it is true or at least true in broad strokes (and if it's not true I'm not sure why you'd make it up). Archness may work for a middle class readership but would not have been an appropriate response to that child in that moment.

The comparison to Prince Phillip is in my edition also.

I am inclined to think that some of her problems come from assuming that people would read her gaps and implications. She's a poet, isn't she? I wonder if it's because she's using a kind of open-ended, draw-your-own-conclusions form that people think she genuinely hasn't engaged with the implications of what she's said. She's being honest, and nuanced, and open about the imperfections of her own responses - without saying at every turn And This Is Bad, because she trusts the context and form to make that abundantly clear. And so if you take it out of context, or you're so alienated by her that you can't see what she's trying to do, it does read as much worse than it is. Given what she does explicitly say about what she's trying to do and write about, I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I think this sounds accurate. It is easy to argue she is 'showing not telling' by using well worn tropes and cliches to poke fun at her own stance. And that can very easily be interpreted as non-ironically using them.

Could it be she's guilty of being too subtle in her use of irony?

And yes, arch is for her readership, Seven - her readership is not seven year olds. I expect she may well have phrased it a little differently in real life. This could easily be another example of writerly embellishment for comic/ironic effect for an adult audience.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

I've got to say I find this a very clumsy and insensitive attempt at comfort which may well have left the boy feeling worse than before he spoke to her - imagine being told by your teacher that all you lot look the same to her, and that you'd better pin your family's hopes on the racism of the immigration officials, and that's supposed to make you feel better. And there's no further self-reflection from Clanchy at all, she closes the story there, apparently under the impression she has been successful in this interaction.

Ha, this shows the limits of "objective" textual analysis. I read this as archly referencing the ubiquitous "black people look the same" trope, on the assumption that her readers would be culturally literate enough to know that it's a joke at her own expense - she is tacitly acknowledging her own powerlessness to help, and the racism which faces him. Of course it's not comforting in any practical sense, it's the meagre comfort of her trying to acknowledge some of what faces him. And she let's it hang because she doesn't think she needs to spell it out.

That's how I read it, anyway - and since I see that it can be argued your way too, I am inclined to think that some of her problems come from assuming that people would read her gaps and implications. She's a poet, isn't she? I wonder if it's because she's using a kind of open-ended, draw-your-own-conclusions form that people think she genuinely hasn't engaged with the implications of what she's said. She's being honest, and nuanced, and open about the imperfections of her own responses - without saying at every turn And This Is Bad, because she trusts the context and form to make that abundantly clear. And so if you take it out of context, or you're so alienated by her that you can't see what she's trying to do, it does read as much worse than it is. Given what she does explicitly say about what she's trying to do and write about, I'm prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

This is how I read that story too.

When I read the book I thought how honest it was - brutally honest sometimes, and often about herself. She doesn’t sanitise when she’s saying things that make you go ‘oof’ - she doesn’t pretend she liked every kid, every parent, every other teacher. I found that brave not awful. Because it seemed honest. People who work closely with other people - often challenging people - are not just endlessly kind, sympathetic and living. They get frustrated, challenged, irritated. And her work with these kids was honest too - she went to bat for them.

Like I say, I find the whole affair surrounding it difficult.

@SevenWaystoLeave

I think it's more pertinent how the comment would have felt to the boy than how it comes across to the reader, assuming it is true or at least true in broad strokes (and if it's not true I'm not sure why you'd make it up). Archness may work for a middle class readership but would not have been an appropriate response to that child in that moment.

I don’t think it’s at all possible to say how it would have felt to the child themselves in the moment. I think assuming offence is dangerous. It read to me as a part of a conversation where the child and adult understood they were on the same wavelength.

Perhaps they weren’t. But we can’t assume anything on the boy’s part.

I’ll be rereading at some point with very wide open eyes to challenge myself to see the alternative viewpoints.

@ArabellaScott

Could it be she's guilty of being too subtle in her use of irony?

And yes, arch is for her readership, Seven - her readership is not seven year olds. I expect she may well have phrased it a little differently in real life. This could easily be another example of writerly embellishment for comic/ironic effect for an adult audience.

But even if the scenario is entirely made up, she must have felt that was an acceptable response to that scenario in order to present it in the way that she did. If the book was entirely a work of fiction, I'd still critique that passage if it was presented as a positive action by the heroine. But the book isn't a work of fiction - it's a memoir and the scenarios are presented as real, so as far as I'm concerned she's open to criticism for her actions in them. There's no indication from her that we as readers are meant to be saying, "But wait a minute Kate, telling a black student that they all look the same to you, insisting a boy must be Jewish because of his big nose, and speculating on the size of a student's erection and whether it was big enough to justify a sexual assault survivor's fear just isn't on!" If we as readers were supposed to be critiquing her words and actions, then why has she never, at any point, through all her various defences of her work, pointed that out?

African Jonathan and Cypriot bosoms have gone too.

I don't know that that's correct at all. I've already noted several instances of wry self depreciation

There are but they remind me of the comedy routines by Marcus Brigstock or Jack Whitehall on being ashamed of being middle class (not really)

telling a black student that they all look the same to you

Look, given that the furore centres on very specific words/phrases, I think it's probably pretty important that we are accurate in quoting the author's words.

She didn't say 'you all look the same', she implied she said something like Kenyans and Somalians look the same. Those are pretty different phrases/things to say.

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 think if one is determined to read the book through the absolute worst lens possible, critics may have a point. But I think the writing is more subtle and nuanced than these misattributions suggest.