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

Firstly, I want to say that I didn't mean you, Peony - there was a stray 'all' in my post that was a typo. My sense is that actually my stance and yours are pretty close, except that our reaction to Clanchy specifically varies according to our perception of how successful she is in accomplishing her aims. I have never said that her being a poet makes her incapable of dodgy language or indeed racism - that is certainly a straw man. We agree that discussion is right and necessary - I haven't noticed a single poster who is supportive of Clanchy suggesting that her accusers should refrain from pointing out what they find problematic. Indeed, we are specifically asking for more detail on that, and our questions are being framed as apologist (not by you personally).

Kimiko, on the other hand, has been quite categorical in saying that e.g. it is offensive to invite people to talk about their heritage, and hasn't answered the questions about how Clanchy could have done it differently. I would really, really like someone who thinks Clanchy is beyond the pale to answer in reasonable detail the questions I posed upthread, which were basically a) why is it racist to notice ethnicity? And b) if you are writing about your own racism, how do you do that without invoking racist tropes? (Although they had more nuance the first time round, so if you can be bothered the first version is the one that best expresses what I meant.)

But I’m wearing out my typing finger because I think what’s actually being debated is an important discussion.

This. And I love being able to speak honestly about it, because without honesty we don't advance our ideas at all, and FWR is the only place some of us can do that.

Also, truth is a feminist issue.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

Ultimately, whether you think she is a racist or not - I don't - is she really the sort of person that it is worth going after (I'm not accusing you of doing this personally)? Aren't there people with bigger platforms much more obviously spreading division and harm than her? I find the lack of proportion astonishing.

Yes. I think people went after her with such vitriol partly because she is well-meaning. What that means is firstly that she's vulnerable - her publishers presumably thought her politics were an asset, not a potential site for conflict - and secondly that, having had the best intentions, having as she thought done the work of interrogating her prejudices (and not having been warned off before the book was published), the only way she could have avoided it is by not writing at all. (I imagine that someone like Lionel Shriver, who must surely be considered more inflammatory, is significantly safer, because the controversies are part of her USP.) It highlights to what extent this is a power play, not designed to make the victim do better but to silence others. The message is: we don't care if you're doing your best, the crime is daring to speak at all.

So agree. Clanchy didn't behave particularly wisely when confronted, but so much of this is about purity spirals, and other people proving their virtue and moral righteousness in attacking her. That's why an apology is never accepted. There can be no nuance, no benefit of the doubt, no understanding and no forgiveness.

and hasn't answered the questions about how Clanchy could have done it differently

I did actually. I suggested " tell me your story". I explained why- that is an open question allowing them to tell her what they want to or indeed know. They are not being put in a position of responding to and in some cases , denying her assumptions about them.

Peony has explained the racist elements. Did the frequent references to skull types not bother you?

"Ashkenazi nose" has been written off as nothing to worry about. What about "Cypriot bosom"? That's just poetic too?

Do you have any comments on her disparaging remarks about girls' appearance?

@KimikosNightmare Why do you think looking butch is a bad thing? You need to do some unpacking yourself, in making that assumption, because as a lesbian I find it pretty damn offensive.

Kimiko, please don't confuse my concerns about cancel culture and freedom of speech/expression and the pressures on literature/social discourse with a defense of Clanchy.

It's very easy to slide into a 'she's right/she's wrong' mindset, and while it can be interesting (has been interesting) to look more closely at some of the issues, context, how they've been framed, possible intentions, possible interpretations, success/failure of rhetorical/fictional/literary devices etc, my over-riding concern here is how the whole issue has played out in the context of a free, liberal society.

How social media affects these things is perhaps a huge part of it. Overall, is this 'cancelling' leading to an encouragement of debate and discussion and compassion and empathy and discourse? Or is literature/discourse narrowing and becoming harder?

And one more question, an easier one: can you give an example of a indisputably non-offensive synonym for "chocolate-coloured"?

I'm amazed Clanchy is getting as much negativity on here as she is, rather than more support, frankly. That's not to say I favour every wording she used, but - it seems that the onus is exclusively on women to avoid any and all offence. Men are not held to this standard. Being completely dropped by her publisher is totally disproportionate and punitive.

And the characterisations (upthread) of her social media behaviour around the issue are distorted and inaccurate. She was the victim of bullying, not the other way round. (I'm not denying that there were trolls who also targeted people criticising her, though - no doubt in my mind that that happened.)

a) why is it racist to notice ethnicity?

That has been explained but here's the short version.

It's racist if it's not relevant to the situation- for example what is a "Cypriot bosom"?

It's racist to mention it using terms like chocolate skin, comparing skull sizes and shapes

It's racist when in the case of the boy who wasn't Jewish to persist with your assumptions that he must be Jewish.

I did actually. I suggested " tell me your story".

No, I mean the questions I have just repeated in my post: why is it racist to notice ethnicity, [if it is not loaded with judgement or derogatory associations]? And b) if you are writing about your own racism, how do you do that without invoking racist tropes?

Oops, cross-posted.

[quote Innocenta]@KimikosNightmare Why do you think looking butch is a bad thing? You need to do some unpacking yourself, in making that assumption, because as a lesbian I find it pretty damn offensive.[/quote]
And mentioning the girl's moustache? What point does that serve?

You are defending a teacher talking about a female pupil's moustache. This isn't the situation of an adult woman choosing a butch style.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

I did actually. I suggested " tell me your story".

No, I mean the questions I have just repeated in my post: why is it racist to notice ethnicity, [if it is not loaded with judgement or derogatory associations]? And b) if you are writing about your own racism, how do you do that without invoking racist tropes?

That question has been answered several times by several posters over this thread.

Perhaps you could answer why it's acceptable for a teacher to write so disparagingly about female pupils' appearance?

@KimikosNightmare You are saying that 'butch' is a fundamentally pejorative adjective; that is unequivocally a homophobic position.

[quote Innocenta]@KimikosNightmare You are saying that 'butch' is a fundamentally pejorative adjective; that is unequivocally a homophobic position. [/quote]
No. I'm not saying that. That's a complete straw man.

I'm saying it is completely unacceptable for a teacher to comment about a female pupil having a moustache. Or that a female pupil isn't pretty.

@KimikosNightmare Nope, it's not a straw man. You just don't like to be called on it when you say something offensive.

@Innocenta

I'm amazed Clanchy is getting as much negativity on here as she is, rather than more support, frankly. That's not to say I favour every wording she used, but - it seems that the onus is exclusively on women to avoid any and all offence. Men are not held to this standard. Being completely dropped by her publisher is totally disproportionate and punitive.

And the characterisations (upthread) of her social media behaviour around the issue are distorted and inaccurate. She was the victim of bullying, not the other way round. (I'm not denying that there were trolls who also targeted people criticising her, though - no doubt in my mind that that happened.)

Whether she's a woman or not is immaterial.

It boils down to the fact that she used racist, classist, fatphobic, anti-Semitic language to describe minors, and denied it when called out. The fact that her publisher did not see her language as a problem until it was pointed out speaks to a wider issue in the industry.

[quote Innocenta]@KimikosNightmare Nope, it's not a straw man. You just don't like to be called on it when you say something offensive. [/quote]
Nonsense. But I see you are happy for a teacher to comment on a female pupil having a moustache.

@EishetChayil It absolutely is not immaterial. Men are lauded for offensive literature all the time.

@KimikosNightmare I'm not particularly in favour of teachers commenting on the appearance of their pupils (pupils of either sex), but I also give credence and attention to the lived experience of her actual pupils.

Why are you deflecting from being called out on your homophobic comment? Why are you okay with calling out other people, but unable to acknowledge it and apologise when you've said something offensive yourself?

Things to reflect on.

[quote Innocenta]@KimikosNightmare I'm not particularly in favour of teachers commenting on the appearance of their pupils (pupils of either sex), but I also give credence and attention to the lived experience of her actual pupils.

Why are you deflecting from being called out on your homophobic comment? Why are you okay with calling out other people, but unable to acknowledge it and apologise when you've said something offensive yourself?

Things to reflect on. [/quote]
Well there's plenty of deflection going on here.

"Butch" was part of the whole comment made by Clanchy. You have chosen to defend her and attack me.

I quoted what she said. You have decided it was homophobic, whilst ignoring the whole phrase and context. In the context I took it to mean "looks masculine" - not acceptably feminine given the reference to moustache.

I also give credence and attention to the lived experience of her actual pupils

The lived experience here being this girl's teacher saying in print that the girl in question didn't look acceptably feminine.

@KimikosNightmare I see you're still failing to take accountability for making a homophobic comment.

[quote Innocenta]@KimikosNightmare I see you're still failing to take accountability for making a homophobic comment. [/quote]
Because I didn't. I read "butch" as being masculine looking - not suitably feminine.

I'm not apologising for your spin- especially when you can't bring yourself to make any criticism of what an awful comment it was for Clanchy to make about a female pupil.

@KimikosNightmare I've explicitly said I'm not in favour of teachers commenting on the appearance of their pupils.

But no, I don't agree that 'butch' is uniquely dreadful - the fact that you think it is, is your homophobia speaking. Something you're desperate to disclaim.

The only person spinning anything is you.

See, I think that this argument (sorry, both!) is interesting because it seems to me a microcosm of the whole brouhaha.

It has revolved around Clanchy's use of various terms, words and phrases. Not everybody perceives these words in the same way. Some people find them offensive, some find them racist, some find them neutral, some find them positive.

The context matters enormously, but words are also taken apart from context and examined shorn of any irony or 'archness' or qualification.

So who gets to decide which is the correct interpretation? Or whether it's acceptable to quote someone making a comment in poor taste? If every character quoted in a book has to be carefully tested to ensure they're not being offensive where do we end up?

Is art/literature allowed to be offensive, to present views we find distasteful? Is it always a completely accurate reflection of the author, can we always be sure of the author's motives?