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

There are posters at best ignoring and at worst, defending comments about girls being fat, not pretty, having a moustache, having a "Cypriot bosom", wearing a "flirty hijab", analysis of skull types, a boy described as "African Jonathan"

What on earth was that last one meant to mean?

It meant, in shorthand, Jonathan, who we met very briefly and much earlier in the book, when we were discussing his acceptance speech on winning an award, when his ‘slow, resonant African accent’ was given in part of his description.

Yes, it’s clumsy to have used only ‘African’ as his description in the latter mention - but equally if she’d just said ‘Jonathon’ it’s a stretch we’d remember exactly which boy he was, given this book is intentionally steeped in race and how that interacts with the wider political landscape these kids sit within.

The piece about the fat girls is shocking, not gonna lie. But it’s honest, in context, about her own ‘middle-class waist’ her middle-class attitudes and class privilege to not eat poorly, to think she’s ‘worth it’. She’s - rather shockingly, exposingly - saying we judge fat people and we judge fat women and girls disproportionately and here’s why there’s emotional trauma and generational trauma of poverty behind their “choices” which aren’t choices at all. That we shouldn’t judge.

It’s why I’m baffled people aren’t seeing the clear intent in the context of the writing.

Fine, “Ashkenazi nose” is misjudged, “African Jonathon” is a poor call-back to reference the character etc. ‘Flirty hijab’ sounds awful by itself - but it’s in a discussion of how the girls who wear hijab feel more free from the male gaze and you need to read the whole thing to see the balanced argument she’s making on its significance.

I hear the resounding yell of ‘intent doesn’t matter’.

But I really fundamentally and truly think that it does. Intent does matter. How can it not?

Who can speak if we cannot have a conversation that isn’t just ‘you can’t say that’.

That’s all I’ve got from this - certain people are so outraged by anything even being discussed in writing by this middle-aged, middle-class white woman that she should say nothing - because to describe what you see from your own point of view is abhorrent.

I don’t disagree with points made by many posters in this thread that mentions of race or physical appearance etc must be relevant to the discussion to not be racist.

I just cannot fathom how people are reading the same book as me and thinking it’s not relevant.

So I’m as deeply baffled and perturbed and worried by this as the posters saying they cannot believe anyone is defending KC.

I’m not defending her - I think there’s a butt-load of issues I’m uncomfortable with so I can’t defend her as a person who made rubbish public profile decisions. The renewed publicity feels a bit ick, if I’m honest. I don’t think she’s being well advised on how to navigate this.

But her book? And her right to discuss her own viewpoint in writing and the fundamental principle of reading a whole work and considering context? Yes, I’ll defend that.

I think I’m done for this thread now though.

Butch can just mean masculine, it can mean a type of masculine gay man too.

Eh?

I have never heard this.

(I did say I was done with this thread, but that has just made me a bit bristly. Because gay blokes have their own language and, given the tensions between lesbians and gay men I very much doubt that if ‘butch’ is used it is as a neutral description for ‘that hot macho dude’. But I’ll step off as this isn’t my wheelhouse.)

excuse the ignorant approaches to the Somali / Kenyan ethicity

I did ask you explicitly earlier, Kimiko, how should she have told that story?

(Argh. Going away now, somebody make me!)

@NoSquirrels - for what it's worth, I really appreciate your thoughts.

meant, in shorthand, Jonathan, who we met very briefly and much earlier in the book, when we were discussing his acceptance speech on winning an award, when his ‘slow, resonant African accent’ was given in part of his description

Yes, it’s clumsy to have used only ‘African’ as his description in the latter mention - but equally if she’d just said ‘Jonathon’ it’s a stretch we’d remember exactly which boy he was, given this book is intentionally steeped in race and how that interacts with the wider political landscape these kids sit within

That's some impressive straw clutching. It's a slim book- are you seriously suggesting readers wouldn't be able to recall the boy's name?

Or if she thinks her readers really do have such a short attention span, she could have referenced the event where we first met him.

What's an "African" accent anyway? Oh I know that "American accents" are referred to but even then it's often broken down to "Southern" "Texas", "New Jersey" , "New Orleans"

Incidentally, why is this in Sex and Gender?

@NoSquirrels

excuse the ignorant approaches to the Somali / Kenyan ethicity

I did ask you explicitly earlier, Kimiko, how should she have told that story?

(Argh. Going away now, somebody make me!)

Actually that's about the only example where she does own her ignorance.

I'm reading the bowdlerised version. It has made the cut.

The Cypriot bosom, the Ashkenazi nose, the girl who wasn't pretty, the Muslim girl with a moustache, African Jonathan have all been purged.

That's some impressive straw clutching. It's a slim book- are you seriously suggesting readers wouldn't be able to recall the boy's name?

Yup! Apparently you didn’t, with your close attention to the text…

And you still - despite repeatedly quoting the Somali/Kenyan thing as an issue - haven’t said how it could be addressed in writing if one is to tell the story.

Have skim read most of this thread and associated articles. I haven’t read the book but from what I’m reading the book in question is autobiographical? Would these descriptions be ok if she’d have written them in a work of fiction? Sorry if I’m being dim here

I agree with Squirrels, entirely. I think it's possible that, in the context of this discussion, I have ignored things that I would be less inclined to defend, because the attacks on other things seem palpably unjust and I am trying to get to the bottom of what is happening there. But the fact remains that I think Clanchy was telling unflinching truths in the service of exploring her own admitted prejudices, and that is not only worth doing - necessary, indeed, to combat them - but cannot be done at all without the honesty as a first step.

But in the course of this thread, I have been shocked by the argument that seeing ethnicity or skin-colour or any other physical reality is problematic in itself. Sure, if you mention it ("Oh hi, female Pterodactyl!") when it's not relevant it's problematic (although I note we tend not to apply this so much to fiction, where apparently we do need to know about the hero's hazel eyes and floppy hair). But Kimiko said that noticing race was racist if it wasn't relevant - and that seems to me not only misguided but dangerously misguided. Of course we notice race, how else has it become an axis of oppression? We couldn't just decide not to notice it even if we wanted to - and I refuse to believe that any social justice cause is best served by telling people to be less observant. Stereotypes come from broad-brush generalisations: the more sophisticated our attention becomes, the less likely we are to see patterns that do not exist - and the more likely we are to see patterns which do, including the patterns of racism and how that manifests. How do we even decide whether a pattern is emerging without acknowledging that there are differences between oppressor and oppressed? (By differences, I don't mean significant ones, obviously, just enough to work as an identifier. Like Kimiko's dark- and lighter-skinned Cubans.) And who benefits if we claim not to see race? The people who enjoy the status quo, that's who, the people who can smugly say they have no prejudice, no, honestly, nobody even notices race any more, it's just that you weren't quite the right fit for the job. (I mean, Kimiko, was it racist of Clanchy to notice that no BAME kids had won the Foyle Young Poets, and to ask why? Should she have shrugged and said, "Well, maybe they are black, it's not for me to draw conclusions about where they're from"?) We know this about sex. We know that it is better than nothing when a man acknowledges that he didn't realise quite how tricky it was for women doing his job, but he kind of gets it now. We would rather have an honest move forward than dishonest virtue-signalling.

And my final point (like Squirrels I'm going to try to step away ) is that the exchange about "butch" was indeed very enlightening. It showed how hard it is, when we are sure of our good intentions, to hear anyone who disagrees; and it showed how impossible it is to locate offence precisely, categorically, so as to convince everyone that something was not only subjectively but objectively offensive. And I think it also hinted at the way that for some people any mention of a particular reality when not explicitly followed by "and of course that is an entirely neutral thing to be, in itself" sounds pejorative - while for others, the idea that you might need to add it is the offence. (Why has no one pointed out, on FWR, that a girl's facial hair is also not shameful in itself? Because there's an assumption that Clanchy is adding that detail in order to show that she's "not sufficiently feminine". And we think that, because she mentioned the moustache in the first place. Isn't that begging the question?)

These are thoughts about Clanchy and her book, and the specific issues which arise from that. But more than that, more than anything: because publishing a book and then withdrawing support from not only that book but that writer's entire oeuvre is utterly craven and shit, and deeply unhealthy for the whole industry, I do not think Clanchy should have been cancelled.

we tend not to apply this so much to fiction, where apparently wedoneed to know about the hero's hazel eyes and floppy hair - any descriptive writing commonly will use some words to sketch the physical description of a person.

Re fiction/memoir - all fiction has truth in it and all memoir has fabrication in it, to clumsily paraphrase an idea I heard years ago. Neither is ever a pure form, all writing is a mix.

Butch is a lesbian identity; you denying that doesn't change reality.

Slippery much!

You previously said it was a uniquely lesbian identity and that the word belongs to lesbians. I disagreed. Now you're painting me as saying it's not a lesbian identity! I didn't say that; of course it is, and either you know I didn't say that (as you can read) or you're straw-manning.

The point is it's not just just used in that way, it can be used of any woman who's perceived as masculine-looking, as here (and yes of men too, no one's stopping you googling it); KC used it in that way, Kimiko mentioned that and was bizarrely accused of homophobia.

All this smacks of wanting to bring down people who disagree with you by twisting what they said and making baseless accusations. Why not just argue your case re KC with facts?

The levels of hypocrisy in that post
are awesome. Do you serioulsy think that there won't be girls wondering if they were meant? All the posturing on here usually about women having to meet standards of beauty/ the "male gaze"/ how unacceptable it is to comment on appearances.

I'm sorry, I think you are way beyond what most people would agree is a reasonable position on this. This idea that we cannot describe people's appearances in books. Even when it isn't actually naming them. Which is your right, to have an unusual opinion, but you are speaking here as if this is something everyone knows and agrees with.

Describing a woman as butch is saying they have a more masculine appearance. "Insufficiently feminine" is your own gloss. Some women are less feminine in their features. That's just the way it is.

FWIW - I think maybe that it was "butch lesbian" that was the unique identity, not that butch could never be used appropriately outside of that.

But this:

I hear the resounding yell of ‘intent doesn’t matter’.

But I really fundamentally and truly think that it does. Intent does matter. How can it not?

Yes. But also, not just that. It's not just intent, but also what the rest of the text says. You cannot just take words out of a text, and have them contain the same meaning as words found within a text. The meaning of the words actually changes in relation to the words around them.

In many books in order to understand the author's intent, what you need to do is reflect all the parts of the book against each other. To take out certain phrases and say, these must mean what they mean without the other words around them just doesn't work.

@QueenPeony @SantaClawsServiette You're both completely wrong, sorry. 'Butch' is a uniquely, fundamentally lesbian identity. That doesn't mean the word isn't used metaphorically (as KC is using it!) outside that context. The closest parallel is something like 'twink'. The unique meaning of the word is a certain subtype of gay man. But it is used metaphorically outside that; I have heard/seen straight men described as twinks in an adjectival, metaphorical sense.

Nonetheless. It's actually both hilarious and disgusting that you both think you get to tell me (or know better than I do) what 'butch' means. @SantaClawsServiette, I remember your shitty homophobic posts elsewhere, so goodness knows why you think any lesbian is going to care about your opinion on this. @QueenPeony, you're just wrong, read some lesbian history (I know you won't!).

Also, @QueenPeony, pointing out when someone has engaged in a homophobic behaviour is perfectly congruent with fact. Your facile attempts to undermine my comments don't make any difference to that, and perhaps you need to reflect on why seeing homophobia called out bothers you so much.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cancelled-author-kate-clanchy-snapped-up-by-publisher-swift-press-s7z7w7k50 she has another publisher. Sorry I can't make share token work on my 'non binary' laptop

@Notwithittoday

Have skim read most of this thread and associated articles. I haven’t read the book but from what I’m reading the book in question is autobiographical? Would these descriptions be ok if she’d have written them in a work of fiction? Sorry if I’m being dim here

In a work of fiction, yes because an author is deliberately creating an unpleasnt character. I can well imagine most of the objectionable phrases which have been removed appearing in say a Kingsley Amis novel.

In an autobiography- well if the writer wants to portray themselves as unpleasant up to them but don't then be surprised if there's consequences.

I see some one is now saying this is a memoir- so it's partly fictional- so that's all right then.

I see someone else is saying this idea that we cannot describe people's appearances in books is nonsense so that makes it perfectly fine to use the extremely pejorative descriptions of the real girls Clanchy taught. Descriptions which generally would have posters on this board falling down on a writer like a ton of bricks.

The jumping through hoops to defend the appalling descriptions used by Clanchy really is impressive.

That's not what 'jumping through hoops' means.

Besides, ever consider that actually, people just... disagree with you? No one has to reach to have a different opinion. They think you are wrong. @KimikosNightmare

@Innocenta

That's not what 'jumping through hoops' means.

Besides, ever consider that actually, people just... disagree with you? No one has to reach to have a different opinion. They think you are wrong. @KimikosNightmare

There are posters on this thread who disagree with you and plenty who thought Clanchy's book deserved all the criticism it got- ever consider that actually people just disagree with you?

When I first heard about this debacle my initial reaction was to be on Clanchy's side. Then I read the excerpts and, oh dearie me. I ended up agreeing with commentators like Professor Sunny Singh who generally I would not agree with.

Innocenta

The closest parallel is something like 'twink'.

Right, I agree thats a good parallel. So are you saying that if KC (or any writer/teacher) publicly said a male student looked like a "twink" and related that to something about his physical appearance, that would be OK? Because I think it would be really inappropriate. And do you think if I said I thought it wasn't OK, that would mean that I thought being a twink was bad? That's a huge leap to make. It's just inappropriate, as is banging on unnecessarily about skin colour, noses and bosoms.

Also you don't know my sexuality or what lesbian history I might or might not have read.

I apologise for losing my rag a bit and getting frustrated, because I generally make an effort not to do that.

*Kimiko"

When I first heard about this debacle my initial reaction was to be on Clanchy's side. Then I read the excerpts and, oh dearie me. I ended up agreeing with commentators like Professor Sunny Singh who generally I would not agree with.

Yes EXACTLY! I naturally defend freedom of speech, poetic expression etc etc but when I saw what had gone on (including Clanchy's behaviour towards the reviewer who raised it) I had to agree with her critics - NOT that should be cancelled, abused or attacked, which I don't support, but that their criticisms held water and were totally reasonable.

It's been disconcerting and sobering to see people (on twitter / in the media rather than on here) I considered rational and previously sided with on GC issues, trying to shut down that criticism and make strange, bending-over-backwards excuses for KC. I still don't really understand why.

But I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me about KC, in either direction. Nothing I've said indicates that I'm averse go there being a variety of opinions about KC, so that's just... a really weird point to make, @KimikosNightmare.

The fact that you think gay and lesbian terminology is inherently offensive is literally the thing I have a problem with, @QueenPeony

That's the issue I took up with KimikosNightmare in the first place! The assumption that 'butch' isn't neutral but must be insulting.

Also, I don't 'know your sexuality' but I can make some informed guesses given your willingness to tell me (a lesbian) that you think I'm wrong about butch being a uniquely lesbian identity. That's an offensive position to adopt, it's a position that hurts lesbians and dilutes our culture. I discussed this thread with my butch partner last night and she felt much the same way. So no, I may not 'know', but I also know you aren't meaningfully embedded in lesbian culture, or you wouldn't be saying these things.