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

I just had a look for the book - I misremembered, I've actually got a different one of hers, on general poetry writing.

Is this book specifically about the children/YP she teaches, I am presuming? And she teaches mostly disadvantaged children, I am also presuming? And she is therefore presumably writing or at least touching on the reasons for their disadvantages - which may include class, poverty, ethnicity, nationality, etc?

So - she is being criticised for discussing the inequalities and issues that impact on the children she teaches?

I don't deny some of these quotes repeated here sound harsh and inappropriate. But I do think I'd like to read them in context to understand what her reasoning was.

And if it's a case of someone who's spent years helping, mentoring and educating disadvantaged children who has written about why they are disadvantaged and then been attacked for clumsy phrasing or tripping over some of the sensitive linguistic traps that have been declared verboten, then that seems not only unfair but dangerous.

How can we talk about inequality and disadvantage and privilege if we aren't allowed to mention it? If a writer risks her career by even engaging with disadvantaged groups or daring to 'consider her privilege' or - shockhorror - try to address that by helping out (awful 'white saviour' that she is), then where does that leave us?

Again, I still haven't read the book so this is surmisal.

Here's an excerpt, if anyone is interested:

www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/31/kate-clanchy-some-kids-i-taught-and-what-they-taught-me

The episode of Radio 4's series The Hackers called 'End User' is an interesting one in relation to the way this and similar issues have gone so toxic so quickly on social media.

Well that was moving. Thanks, Corgi. Am ordering the book.

@ArabellaScott

she can get a publishing deal elsewhere

Have you ever tried to 'get a publishing deal', NoSquirrels? It's pretty much a lifetime endeavour. It's not like going shopping. People spend years building a CV to work their way up to one.

A writer might go and seek another publisher for new books, but in general her old publisher will continue to stock/distribute old books. To have them cancelled like this & rights reverted is really unusual and suggests quite a serious falling out.

Precisely, Arabella. It is a ‘serious falling out’. That doesn’t make it the wrong decision on the part of the publisher to revert all rights. If I was her I might well ask for that to happen. They don’t support her, she shouldn’t be published by them.

It was sort-of dealt with (new, revised edition, draw a line under it etc) but articles kept appearing citing Clancy that stoked the embers over and over. Her editor defended her in print in The Telegraph, there was a Prospect magazine article too. He then backtracked his defence; Picador withdrew their support for their remarks- they distanced themselves as a company from both author and editor. Here you go, a summary: www.thebookseller.com/news/picador-distances-itself-publisher-and-author-clanchy-piece-sparks-fresh-criticism-1294594

The working relationship is trashed. The best thing for everyone is a fresh start.

I’m sure KC is absolutely devastated; but that’s been the case for months already, since it started. I think you’re naive if you think she won’t get published again. Publishers will make money if they see an opportunity. I suspect that anthology will be out with another publisher quite sharpish. Her agent won’t have just let this stuff slide.

I understand very well about publishing deals!

I’d be interested to know how many people on this thread have actually read the book rather than the excerpts widely quoted.

How can we talk about inequality and disadvantage and privilege if we aren't allowed to mention it? If a writer risks her career by even engaging with disadvantaged groups or daring to 'consider her privilege' or - shockhorror - try to address that by helping out (awful 'white saviour' that she is), then where does that leave us?

This is the problem for me. It's quite clear that she's changed a lot of these children's lives for the better by bringing out the best in them - spending time with them, encouraging them to tell their stories, allowing them to flourish. I doubt if those children would have had that in other schools. So if that is makes her a "white saviour", what would have been better? If she'd just ignored them? Not spent time with them helping them write poetry, entering their poems into competitions, giving them the space and opportunity to share their harrowing experiences? I really fail to see how that would have been a better outcome for anyone.

I have read this book, I specifically read it for all the gossip on Oxford secondary schools (juicy!), but I read all of it.

I was appalled by the fatphobia, some of which is quoted above. I was especially appalled by the combination of the fatphobia with descriptions so precise that any former student would know it was them being written about. (And it's all... "she used to be pretty/graceful, etc, but then she got fat and is unsightly/dumpy, etc." (And her parents are also fat and dumb.))

The Ashkenazi nose quote is even more horrible, something like "he denied any Jewish heritage, but I could tell he had it because of his Ashkenazi nose."

@RoyalCorgi

How can we talk about inequality and disadvantage and privilege if we aren't allowed to mention it? If a writer risks her career by even engaging with disadvantaged groups or daring to 'consider her privilege' or - shockhorror - try to address that by helping out (awful 'white saviour' that she is), then where does that leave us?

This is the problem for me. It's quite clear that she's changed a lot of these children's lives for the better by bringing out the best in them - spending time with them, encouraging them to tell their stories, allowing them to flourish. I doubt if those children would have had that in other schools. So if that is makes her a "white saviour", what would have been better? If she'd just ignored them? Not spent time with them helping them write poetry, entering their poems into competitions, giving them the space and opportunity to share their harrowing experiences? I really fail to see how that would have been a better outcome for anyone.

But she can talk about inequality and disadvantage and privilege She does not risk her career by even engaging with disadvantaged groups or daring to 'consider her privilege' or - shockhorror - try to address that by helping out

But she doesn't need to use such derogatory, snobbish and judgemental descriptions of her pupils.

Some of these pupils will recognise themselves specifically or at least will know they were part of a group she engaged with.

It's as if she had been talking about them behind their backs and laughing and sneering at them. Are they going to wonder if that's what she always thought of them? Were they just being used for her own career advancement?

I also really disliked how Clanchy is so dismissive of the trainee teacher who complains about the boy student with an erection making inappropriate comments. That but also seemed quite tone deaf in the current climate.

BUT… I still think it’s a really important book, and beautifully written despite some really cringey bits. As a PP says, can we really dismiss Clanchy as a “white saviour” when she’s so passionately committed to doing a difficult job that many of her critics couldn’t handle, and which clearly makes a huge difference to the lives of her students? I felt the same about the Lucy Kellaway book, Re-educated, where the author’s position of privilege is an uncomfortable contrast to that of the kids she teaches, but she is at least putting her money where her mouth is and actually doing something to try and close that gap.

How can we talk about inequality and disadvantage and privilege if we aren't allowed to mention it?

Maybe by not using racist, classist, anti-Semitic and fat phobic language to describe underprivileged pupils?

@EishetChayil

How can we talk about inequality and disadvantage and privilege if we aren't allowed to mention it?

Maybe by not using racist, classist, anti-Semitic and fat phobic language to describe underprivileged pupils?

Yes, I agree with EishetChayil on this.

I think the quotes sound pretty appalling. Not the almond shaped eyes one (aren't all eyes almond shaped?) But most of the rest. Why it got published without severe edits and re-writes pre-publication is baffling. Publishing is a very white middle class industry full of waifish young things so maybe the descriptions of the fat working class kids seemed perfectly reasonable to them?!?!?

[quote whiteworldgettingwhiter]Check this out on why it's not good to describe people as if they were food - writingwithcolor.tumblr.com/post/95955707903/skin-writing-with-color-has-received-several[/quote]
This is just some person's opinion, though, it's basically made up.

The main instances I've seen of people doing this has been describing themselves or their kids, and a few years ago it was quite common in certain types of afrocentric lit.

But I didn't notice them when I read the book and, presumably, neither did the many people at her publisher notice them nor the people who gave the book glowing reviews and awarded her a prestigious prize. Obviously one explanation for that is that we are all privileged white people who are just not attuned to racism (this is possibly true). Another explanation is that they read differently in context. What I took from the book is that this is a woman who is devoted to her students and does everything she can to support them and nurture their talents. Very difficult to square this with the idea that this is someone who is casually racist.

I don't think it's that unusual to have a situation like this. The fact is that for someone to have both a desire to help students, and affection for them, that's actually compatible with a realistic assessment that some of them will be lucky to get on in life because of the type of upbringing they've had, or to see that they are for example obese and their habits contribute to that.

But she's said out loud what people aren't supposed to say but which they often notice, which can be powerful kind in writing. But also prone to getting people's backs up.

My main concern would be the kids reading the book, because I do think certain of those descriptions might be hard for kids to read. Though maybe it's not that kind of book. In other settings though I think that kind of very honest writing receives plaudits.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

I have been meaning to read the book so I can see the passages in their full context.

I followed the social media furore relatively closely, and I think I learnt a lot about what not to do, if the event I have a book published.

But what I really learnt was that all the discussions of how to foster diversity in publishing are clearly so much flim-flam, and no-one actually comprehends othering or racial stereotyping, for all they talk about wishing to avoid it. That book was not a self-published blog post on Clanchy's website; it went through the editing and decision-making process of a publishing house, and educated people were paid to read that manuscript and spot issues like this. They didn't spot them at all.

It’s astonishing, isn’t it. Given all the so-called sensitivity readers in some areas of publishing, and the stress on new authors not to include anything “diverse” unless it wholly reflects their personal experience, it amazes me that this got past everyone without comment.

One thing I have occasionally noticed is that best-selling, highly regarded authors sometimes seem to get away with publishing later books that are less polished and which seem to have been more carelessly edited (prose style, not spelling) than even their own earlier output. Might she fit into that category? Is it possible everyone was afraid to challenge someone considered so much a genius that they couldn’t possibly be wrong?

Regardless of what happened here, I hate what’s happening in publishing. There seems to be mass paranoia in so many areas.

Despite the push for diversity, publishing is still a predominantly white middle class industry in the UK. I have been part of it for the best part of 20 decades, and have yet to meet an agent or senior editor who wasn't white, oxbridge/RG educated, thin, able-bodied, and middle class.

The issues run deep, as proven by work such as Clanchy's being published with nary a consideration for how offensive some of her descriptions are.

20 years! Not decades. I'm not Methuselah 😂

racist, classist, anti-Semitic and fat phobic

Well, that's quite a serious charge sheet.

It really doesn't seem to accord with what I read in the Guardian essay posted above. And I think that's unfair.

From what I can see the worst she has done has been insensitive/rude.

For someone who has spent her working life addressing the issues that maintain the lack of diversity in publishing, actively helping people get into the field, I cannot see how a few insensitive words or phrases add up to a reason to write her off as racist/classist/phobic of bloody anything. I think the opposite. This looks to me like people taking things with the absolute worst possible interpretation and using it to build a case to condemn a writer who has done an awful lot of good and actually spent the best part of her life trying to address racism, classism, etc. for doing so, she's been condemned as having a 'white saviour' complex.

Who would even want to try and get involved in social change, try and make connections or address problems if this is what happens?

I expect one effect this brouhaha is likely to have is to adversely impact programmes set up to try and increase diversity and discourage others from reaching out to work with disparate groups or disadvantaged people.

• I was quite impressed by your long record there, Eishet.

This Observer piece this morning is one of the best on the Kate Clanchy saga I've come across.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/23/the-hounding-of-kate-clanchy-has-been-a-witch-hunt-without-mercy

That's an excellent article, cassandre, thanks.

I disagree that it's a good article.

How to make sense of her ostracism? Some people are desperate to see the world cast in black and white. Clanchy’s worst crime is not to fit this mould.

As a fat, working class Jewish woman I am not desperate to see the world cast in black and white. What I want is not to see books that speak disrespectfully about people like me, people from other groups, people who genuinely don't fit the mould. Kate is a white middle class intellectual, married to an academic. That's about as "mould" as you can get.

Sonia Sodha (author of the Observer article) is always very good - and she's written some excellent Terfy pieces in the last couple of years. In this piece, she absolute nails the fact that the treatment of Clanchy is part of the widespread demonisation of older white women as the repository of all that is evil.

Two other things stood out for me in that article:

1. "It is notoriously posh and white; when someone unfamiliar comes along saying that something is so offensive it should be expunged from the record, publishers assume they speak for all people of colour, as if we constitute a blob of uniform thought."

Absolutely right - and isn't there an inbuilt racism in the idea that one black person with an opinion speaks for all other black people, as if they all have identical views?

1. "Pan Macmillan’s overreaction has caused huge collateral damage – it will no longer publish a new anthology of poems by Clanchy’s students."

So all those young school students, many of them from deprived and refugee backgrounds, enormously excited at the prospect of seeing their work in print, are now to be told it isn't going to happen. Because Clanchy is a bad person.

What an achievement that is by the woke warriors who hounded Clanchy. Pissing on the dreams and aspirations of refugee children. They must be so fucking proud.

Is there any chance another publisher might take up the anthology of children's poems? I suppose the name Kate Clanchy is probably too toxic for any publishers to do so.

Not sure, Purgatory. It's a fucking shame is what it is.

I'm not sure if it would even be a good idea for the children involved right now; it'd be launching them/their work headlong into a highly corrosive and destructive battle.