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

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.

A writer creates a character whether they draw on life or on imagination, there is no 'pure' fiction nor 'pure' fact. Do you expect writers to only describe pleasant, non-controversial characters?

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.

This isn't an 'autobiography', it's a memoir. These are different things. And it's a memoir specifically looking at prejudice and difference. Including the author's own.

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.

These are fabricated or partially obscured characters, as explained by Clanchy. Writing descriptions of people in books is a fairly common occurrence - do you expect all descriptions to be complimentary? And as noted, the idea that these descriptions are 'pejorative' is highly contentious.

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

I'm not 'defending Clanchy' - I'm defending the right of writers to write about complicated, difficult, unpleasant, contentious, mean, and yes even offensive things. It's a fundamental human right and one that must be protected. Even if we disagree on occassion with what is being said.

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

Eh?

I've just explained how thinking it's inappropriate description does NOT mean you think it's inherently offensive. I've just spelt that out.

More generally, regarding the poetic style, memoir style etc, I can see how a writer could write those kinds of descriptions in a poetic way, and be in that mindset. In poetry, for example, you might well write about and evoke in detail someone's physical presence. Likewise in a novel. And I can see how a writer might think "well this is me and my poetic style, evoking the experience of being there for the reader, bosoms, moustaches and all."

However, there are tropes and phrases and words, and "ways of seeing", for want of a better term, that also evoke historical racism and/or patrician, condescending attitudes, and there are ways of describing people physically that feel uncomfortably intrusive and inappropriate in some circumstances. Fine if it's a fictional character in a novel or a poem about a lover, etc. Not so fine when the book is about being a teacher and engaging with kids from a variety of backgrounds – it's part of that remit that you need to be sensitive and maintain respect. And if KC didn't know that, that's where her editor / publisher should have had enough awareness to step in.

there are tropes and phrases and words, and "ways of seeing", for want of a better term, that also evoke historical racism and/or patrician, condescending attitudes

So, if a writer was writing a book about racism, prejudice and difference and how we encounter and navigate that, would you be surprised if those phrases were maybe included in the book?

Depends on how. If those phrases etc were being picked apart and analysed, then of course. If it was a novel about these issues and a particular character was using them as an illustration of their thoughts, then yes. But I find it odd to say that Clanchy was using them as some kind of demonstration of her poor attitude, when it really, really doesn't come across like that. Yes, she does describe situations like the one excerpted below, where kids challenge her, but she also uses these phrases directly, to us, the reader, without apparently considering them problematic.

Again, if you really, really think these usages are all part of her poetic approach and a self-aware writerly technique to deliberately raise issues, then it begs the questions= why she wouldn't simply say that when first challenged, and apologise if it was misunderstood.

If you think there's something wrong with describing someone using a gay or lesbian term, then you are assigning pejorative meaning to the term, @QueenPeony.

(And the fact you think you need to 'spell out' anything about lesbian and gay terminology to me is simply laughable.)

If you think there's something wrong with describing someone using a gay or lesbian term, then you are assigning pejorative meaning to the term, @QueenPeony.

OK last attempt.

I think there's something wrong (in particular contexts, including this one) with describing students from RL situations, even if anonymous, as having chocolate skin or an Ashkenazi nose or a Cypriot bosom, talking about how they're not pretty, etc.

Does that mean I think there is something wrong with any of these? Of course not. That is not the point. And you have not pulled up anyone for pointing out these other descriptors and accused them of thinking that, for example, because they pointed out Ashkenazi nose as an inappropriate description, that means they think having an Ashkenazi nose is bad so they are anti-Semitic. Have you? Why not?

It's making a false connection that is simply not there. If you can't grasp what I'm saying and follow a logical argument, well, you can't. But I am explaining because I take exception to being called homophobic, and to someone else being called that, on this basis.

I keep being drawn back to this thread but I need to leave it, I do see that.

To be fair, Peony, I don't think we're trying to shut down the criticism - we're putting the case for the defence and asking for more clarity.

Kimiko, you have refused to acknowledge that there might be any context in which those descriptions are defensible - it seems to me that you don't share Peony's view that Clanchy's attempt at dissecting racism etc would be a defence if she did it better and more explicitly. You're saying that there is no possible context for those descriptions not to be extremely pejorative and appalling. Well, you've already been told quite clearly that it is not universally accepted that those terms are inherently pejorative, and that the assumption that they are is equally offensive. And for what it's worth, I am similarly perplexed. If you genuinely think that "African" or "butch" or "fat" are appalling in themselves, uncoupled from any [other?] derogatory language, then it seems to me that you have as much need to examine your unconscious bias as Clanchy does.

And this is it - this is why I couldn't resist coming back to the thread, in spite of my earlier protestations: here we have someone who has entered into a discussion about race and sex and injustice, who finds herself (I default to she and her on MN, not making any particular assumption about sex) suddenly accused of revealing her own prejudices in a way that she hotly denies. Some people see in her contributions a toxic mix of self-righteous arrogance, repugnant prejudice and catastrophic lack of self-awareness - I'm not commenting on that, beyond saying it is possible to make that argument. It's by no means a consensus that she has done anything wrong at all, but at least one strong voice from a marginalised group has "called her out", to be met with a categorical rebuttal of the charges. Now, the question is, given that there is no wholesale agreement about the offensiveness or otherwise of what she wrote, is this person beyond the pale? Should her contributions (and everything else she has ever written) be disowned, and she be publically punished for daring to speak?

I would say no. I would say that Kimiko's contributions within this thread have been profoundly useful in pushing the discussion on, and although I don't agree with them it would have been a much poorer and less diverse thread without them. I think that we all post in good faith, in a passion for equality, and the arguments need to be spoken aloud, honestly, before we can communally arrive at a better understanding of how we move forward. That's what I think. But if you substitute "Clanchy" for Kimiko in this question, I take it she herself disagrees.

@QueenPeony I already answered that question. I am not a member of the groups in question, so detailed, specific comment about the ins and outs and nuances would not be particularly appropriate. My contribution would be no more useful than KC's.

I have stated time after time (including in my previous answer to you) that I'm not in favour, generally speaking, of teachers commenting on pupil appearance. There are some obvious problems with it in teacher-authored literature. I acknowledge this.

The example I am commenting on is, for the fifteenth or so time, the one where I can speak with authority, experience and familiarity from within an affected community.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl I agree that KimikosNightmare shouldn't be in any material sense punished, cancelled, disallowed from discussion, etc. As I understand it, MN is not a readily-banning forum, but if it were, I am absolutely not coming to this as someone who would support a poster being banned or excluded (as much as I do take issue with what she has said).

As I mentioned upthread, I actually wouldn't normally bother to say a word at the casual assumption of butch being pejorative. This is a common assumption, and we (lesbians) would all be bloody knackered if we chased down every instance of homophobic/lesbophobic language. I also do believe that there just isn't that much value in policing (what some call) microaggressions. As this thread shows, it doesn't enlighten or lead to behavioural change.

The reason why I diverged from my usual 'ignore' in this case was precisely because I was curious about what KimikosNightmare's reaction would be, and whether she'd be able to acknowledge having done something quite similar to Clanchy.

Yes, Innocenta, that's how I read it. I suppose I was basically restating the points you were making. As I said - couldn't resist...

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl I felt you said it much better, actually!

Again, if you really, really think these usages are all part of her poetic approach and a self-aware writerly technique to deliberately raise issues, then it begs the questions= why she wouldn't simply say that when first challenged, and apologise if it was misunderstood.

Maybe because both her parents had just died of covid? Maybe because she was mid divorce? And she did apologise.

@QueenPeony

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

Eh?

I've just explained how thinking it's inappropriate description does NOT mean you think it's inherently offensive. I've just spelt that out.

You have spelt it out. You didn't say what that poster is inventing.

Why is this thread in "Sex and Gender"?

Clanchy wasn't held to account because she is female.

you have refused to acknowledge that there might be any context in which those descriptions are defensible

No, I said if it was relevant to do so, then do. Clanchy, from the excerpts, was scattering them all over the place. The only time she acknowledged her ignorance was the Somali incident.

The painful example being the "Ashenazi nose". Completely irrelevant- unless you're the sort of person who thinks it's really important to identify if some- one is Jewish.

If you can't grasp what I'm saying and follow a logical argument, well, you can't. Oh, come on.

And you have not pulled up anyone for pointing out these other descriptors and accused them of thinking that, for example, because they pointed out Ashkenazi nose as an inappropriate description, that means they think having an Ashkenazi nose is bad so they are anti-Semitic. Have you? Why not?

Innocenta has answered on her own behalf - but in fact I have raised that point, albeit less directly, and no one answered, except to say that it wasn't right to raise any physical characteristics at all where they weren't relevant. Now, that is a completely tenable position, but it does mean that to be consistent you should regard 'pretty' and 'freckled' and 'tall' as similar microaggressions. Do you? If you agree with Kimiko's analysis, do you accept that they are also appalling and extremely derogatory?

Or - do you in fact wince a little at the usage of 'butch' or 'brown' because you know, as we all do, that they have (often, perhaps overwhelmingly) been used in a context where they are indisputably slurs, and so you think that they have been associated with oppression for so long that it is in fact impossible to use them to mean only what they mean? That is, no one can ever use them neutrally (unless, perhaps, they explicitly say that they're neutral)? In which case yes, that is internalised prejudice at work - not making anyone a bad person, not making anyone less than well-meaning, but still prejudice - and the way we combat that is not never to say them, but absolutely to keep saying them in contexts where they are true and relevant, and to make sure no value judgement is attached. Prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia - are the establishment of a false relationship between x (true characteristic) and y (bad thing). Regarding x as the thing never to be mentioned locates the source of the harm in entirely the wrong place, and reinforces the equation.

(I do not want to get into another piece of literary criticism, but I would point out that the butch girl with the moustache is presented, in context, as part of a discussion about uniform and forced gender conformity. She is held up as an image of unselfconscious, joyous freedom, contrasted with her older sisters: to accuse Clanchy of judging her for not being "sufficiently feminine" is spectacularly missing the point. But since we are talking about the terms themselves, and not the context, this is a digression.)

Why is this thread in "Sex and Gender"?

Clanchy wasn't held to account because she is female.

Addressed upthread.

No, I said if it was relevant to do so, then do. Clanchy, from the excerpts, was scattering them all over the place. The only time she acknowledged her ignorance was the Somali incident.

The painful example being the "Ashenazi nose". Completely irrelevant- unless you're the sort of person who thinks it's really important to identify if some- one is Jewish.

Or in the context of a discussion about why different communities react differently to varied ethnic heritage, as was extensively discussed upthread. Your conclusion, as I remember it, was that it was unforgiveable whether or not said discussion was happening. If I have misremembered, and in fact you are all up for the depiction of relevant detail as long as it is within explicit discussion of the problems of race, class, power, prejudice etc, then great, we are basically arguing the same thing.

Anyway, what about it, Kimiko? Should you be cancelled?

I've got Jewish friends. The first time I met them I didn't feel the need to query them at lenghth about their Jewish heritage or publish anything in the public domain about their "Ashkenazi noses"

Why did Clanchy?

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

If you can't grasp what I'm saying and follow a logical argument, well, you can't. Oh, come on.

And you have not pulled up anyone for pointing out these other descriptors and accused them of thinking that, for example, because they pointed out Ashkenazi nose as an inappropriate description, that means they think having an Ashkenazi nose is bad so they are anti-Semitic. Have you? Why not?

Innocenta has answered on her own behalf - but in fact I have raised that point, albeit less directly, and no one answered, except to say that it wasn't right to raise any physical characteristics at all where they weren't relevant. Now, that is a completely tenable position, but it does mean that to be consistent you should regard 'pretty' and 'freckled' and 'tall' as similar microaggressions. Do you? If you agree with Kimiko's analysis, do you accept that they are also appalling and extremely derogatory?

Or - do you in fact wince a little at the usage of 'butch' or 'brown' because you know, as we all do, that they have (often, perhaps overwhelmingly) been used in a context where they are indisputably slurs, and so you think that they have been associated with oppression for so long that it is in fact impossible to use them to mean only what they mean? That is, no one can ever use them neutrally (unless, perhaps, they explicitly say that they're neutral)? In which case yes, that is internalised prejudice at work - not making anyone a bad person, not making anyone less than well-meaning, but still prejudice - and the way we combat that is not never to say them, but absolutely to keep saying them in contexts where they are true and relevant, and to make sure no value judgement is attached. Prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia - are the establishment of a false relationship between x (true characteristic) and y (bad thing). Regarding x as the thing never to be mentioned locates the source of the harm in entirely the wrong place, and reinforces the equation.

(I do not want to get into another piece of literary criticism, but I would point out that the butch girl with the moustache is presented, in context, as part of a discussion about uniform and forced gender conformity. She is held up as an image of unselfconscious, joyous freedom, contrasted with her older sisters: to accuse Clanchy of judging her for not being "sufficiently feminine" is spectacularly missing the point. But since we are talking about the terms themselves, and not the context, this is a digression.)

I'm not sure who you are replying to, so will comment only on the now bizarre suggestion that publicly stating a teenage girl has a moustache was really done with the best intentions of being a morale booster.

The section is one of the many which have been pulled from the book.

I've got Jewish friends. The first time I met them I didn't feel the need to query them at lenghth about their Jewish heritage or publish anything in the public domain about their "Ashkenazi noses"

Why did Clanchy?

Again, addressed upthread.

Do you think you should be cancelled?

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

Why is this thread in "Sex and Gender"?

Clanchy wasn't held to account because she is female.

Addressed upthread.

Has it? Clanchy was not held to account because she was a woman. Many of her critics are woman. The person who wrote the Good Reads review was a woman.

will comment only on the now bizarre suggestion that publicly stating a teenage girl has a moustache was really done with the best intentions of being a morale booster.

The section is one of the many which have been pulled from the book.

I don't know if that means that you can't comment on the context, having only got the new edition, or whether you're making a different point. But I would say that your sarcasm - "obviously it cannot possibly be a positive thing" - highlights very clearly your own prejudices against butchness and non-feminine features (plenty of women have facial hair, some because of e.g. PCOS, but apparently it must automatically be shaming). You have internalised the value judgements of the male gaze to the extent that you literally cannot imagine stating the fact without it being meant as anything but negative and judgemental. And your dismissal of the context as plainly "bizarre" only highlights your inability to imagine a different way of thinking. I think that is your problem, not Clanchy's.

But let's put that to one side for a moment. Do you think you should be cancelled?