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

@Sashimimimi

Every time there’s been any media attention on Kate Clanchy within the last few months, Twitter has been full of censure about the abuse and harm inflicted on the 3 WOC who were at the centre of the original storm last summer.

And apparently the horrific abuse they’ve received redoubles and intensifies every time Clanchy’s situation is mentioned in the press.

This abuse re-traumatises and endangers them. And Clanchy knowingly puts them in harm’s way every time she speaks publicly about her situation because these WOC are then abused again.

I’m NOT saying this isn’t true. When this many people are saying it as though it’s incontestable fact, it certainly seems like it must be the truth. But I haven’t actually seen anything like that happening. Has it all been removed from Twitter? Or was it all done via private messaging?

The 3 women all complained Clanchy had re-victimised them through the media reporting on her parting with Pan MacMillan yet they all proceeded to tweet about her daily, repeatedly, over the last week (don’t know about today as two of them have now locked their accounts).

So, the messege there is, don't talk about your perspective/experience/POV because it traumatizes us?

WTF is that? That's the logic abusers use on their victims, and while I wouldn't give this that kind of weight it is essentially a kind of power play no matter who says it.

If people are harassing them, that is not good, but the fault lies with those doing the harassing.

Agreed, SantaClaws.

I'm of course sorry for anyone getting abuse, it's not on. But the answer is not 'Kate Clanchy shut up'.

I don’t see this as a woman cancelled. I see this as a woman held to account for using appalling and inappropriate language. 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.

Racism is not purely about ‘intent’. Its not just burning crosses on the lawn and huffing about not being able to use the N word. It’s a thousand micro aggressions which leave people of colour and ethnic minorities feeling othered and second-class. We can see micro aggressions clearly when it’s everyday misogyny driving them; why do too many people dismiss them when they’re aimed at other races?

I do agree that there’s far more than just Clanchy who should be held to account here - everyone who read this book through its journey to publication should be examining their biases with a self-critical eye.

Nobody should be losing their career or having their reputation trashed because some people perceive another's non-racist perspective, experience and speech as microaggressions and some feel othered. Intent does matter. By their nature the concept of microaggression and what someone decides is a microaggression is entirely subjective as is a feeling of being othered. The idea that these concepts (not people being racist) are being used to shut down speech is troubling. The idea that problematic language in some circumstances and cultures has to be removed from all cultures and circumstances (no matter the context or intent) and to try and make that happen by imposing your own perspective on others is authoritarian. We need to encourage people to speak freely without fear and therefore we need to keep the amount of language that we agree as a society cannot be used irrespective of intent to the very smallest number of words possible.

Anyway, I have bought the book.

Speaking as a writer, I find this terrifying. I’ve not read the book in question and I refuse to judge the passages quoted out of context, but this whole thing suggests that we are heading down a road of silencing.

Should writers be allowed to write racist, sexist, homophobic characters in books? Yes. Should we erase any line that has potential for offends? No.

Writing, books, publishing, should be a place where there is freedom of speech. As a society we should be able to listen to someone and collectively respond with ‘that’s not appropriate’ instead of erasing people.

The thing is, when you start to erase and silence, you drive ideas underground. They do not go away, they change and warp, often with resentment.

What are we achieving as a society by removing things we find unfavourable instead of shaping the way we evolve by letting them stand openly, with open backlash/reviews/disagreement if we don’t like them?

There’s a distinct lack of critical thought, ability to exist uncomfortably, and a weird sort of self-prioritising that is only going to result in a world where there is a distinct lack of opposition. Free speech should be protected (which is very different from protecting the content of said speech, and if you’re unable to tell the difference I would suggest your thinking isn’t particularly refined).

Supporting this sort of silencing is going to lead to bad places. We will have sanitised writing with authors too scared to write anything that reflects diversity/contentiousness/bigotry in the world (that exists and should be written about) and authors too scared to approach anything that might readdress some of the issues discussed (E.g. white writer including black characters) for fear of being vilified if they accidentally get it wrong.

Evidence so far suggests Clanchy is the opposite of racist. Other posters have read the book and going by their comments it seems to be a nuanced examination of racism, prejudice and privilege, in fact.

But I will update once read book. Have you read the book, Only?

And I’m also going to try and buy the book.

Lovea Yes, thus 'To Kill A Mockingbird' got removed from shelves.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/school-ditches-harper-lee-classic-to-kill-a-mockingbird-9crp9ckgx

'Difficult book' 'thorny subjects'- can't have that.

The only good thing is that it directs me to the essential books.

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.

@LoveaStatementNap

And I’m also going to try and buy the book.

Quite hard to track down new. Not on Hive, sold out in Waterstones and had the last copy from Amazon in my basket but by the time I came to checkout it was gone. Ended up getting it from Daunt. There are second hand copies about.

@PaleBlueMoonlight Daunt is where I grabbed it from too.

Why are you so keen to read a book that refers to Afghan features, small skulls, Ashkenazi noses, fat bellies, and "annoying" autistic behaviour? Just why?

@OnlyTheTitosaurusOfTheIceberg

I don’t see this as a woman cancelled. I see this as a woman held to account for using appalling and inappropriate language. 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.

Racism is not purely about ‘intent’. Its not just burning crosses on the lawn and huffing about not being able to use the N word. It’s a thousand micro aggressions which leave people of colour and ethnic minorities feeling othered and second-class. We can see micro aggressions clearly when it’s everyday misogyny driving them; why do too many people dismiss them when they’re aimed at other races?

I do agree that there’s far more than just Clanchy who should be held to account here - everyone who read this book through its journey to publication should be examining their biases with a self-critical eye.

I completely agree. I'm astounded at some of the views expressed by supposedly intelligent women on this thread.

@EishetChayil

Why are you so keen to read a book that refers to Afghan features, small skulls, Ashkenazi noses, fat bellies, and "annoying" autistic behaviour? Just why?

To read the quotes in context.

Because it is supposed to be a very good book.

Because describing physical reality and feelings is not inherently a problem. Any value imposed on these descriptions by the author comes from the context (and to an extent from what we otherwise know about the author). You are not interested in the context, I am.

I don't think there is any place for demonising someone because you have decided that certain descriptions should not be used in any circumstance (or should they just not be used by certain people?). You seem to think that the appropriate penalty for writing these descriptions that you don't like (without knowing the context or intent and without any desire to find out) is for that person's life work to be removed from sale. I think that is an extremely dangerous attitude and will do nothing to combat racism or ableism.

I actually agree that exploring unconscious bias is an important tool in tackling systemic racism I disagree that presence of unconscious bias (which there will always be) should be a reason to police speech. Unconscious bias is a human condition. It has a purpose in helping humans make quick decisions based on experience. Sometimes our unconscious bias is founded on skewed experiences and untruths and that can lead to negative consequences. That is best countered (I'm my view) by free speech, discussion and open cultural exchange.

I don't think there is any place for demonising someone because you have decided that certain descriptions should not be used in any circumstance (or should they just not be used by certain people?).

That's the irony here, and I don't see why so many people miss it.

All this stuff about microaggressions is because of a recognition that these things are on a scale that eventually leads to a bad place.

The biggest societal danger in humans is our tribal instinct - our urge to create in-groups and out-groups and set up inter-group conflict. And combine this with authoritarianism - one group able to exert power over an outgroup, and that's the basic recipe for all human-caused disasters.

So the stuff Clanchy is accused of is maybe like 6 steps away from some tribal nightmare.

But the behaviour of those who find that "abhorrent" is a maybe mere 3 steps from a tribal nightmare. They're actively whipping up in-group/out-group hatred and trying to force the out-group into line via authoritarian measures.

So there's no contest here, for me. Maybe everyone here is "in the wrong", but I'm far less scared of the poet than I am of those denouncing a poet.

And how did the "left" end up in this place? All through the earlier part of my life freedom of expression, particularly in art, was a cornerstone of the left's beliefs. How did they pivot around to become like the moralisers, the religious fundamentalists? When artists are policed, I can assure you it's not the common people who benefit.

The book in many ways is a wonderful book, there's a reason it won the Orwell Prize. It's a compelling account of how students were encouraged to write poetry and a passionate argument for why middle class parents shouldn't be afraid to send their kids to state schools.

But it's also a book that does a lot of othering of the pupils it describes. Clanchy is honest about her own privileged, middle class perspective, but the book does expose some of the limitations or blind spots that go with that perspective. Some of the othering language I noticed when I was reading, and found it unpleasant for example, an overly simplistic view of weight and diet and how those things are connected to class. The race stuff I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me. I felt ashamed for not having noticed it that was my own blind spot, and I'm glad to have been made more aware.

So it's an imperfect book but it's still a bloody good book. I'm glad I read it and I would recommend it. If we only read and wrote books that spoke from an utterly flawless, utterly blameless ethical position, we wouldn't have much any? literature left.

I think Clanchy's very ill-judged response to the negative Goodreads review (attack and denial) was worse than the imperfections of the book itself. But when she recanted and apologised, it was too late from the point of view of the people she had angered on twitter. Twitter isn't nuancedbor forgiving or kind.

Last night I noticed that Monisha Rajesh, one of Clanchy's critics, had blocked me on twitter, presumably because I've tweeted in Clanchy's defence (my following is very small though, I'm a no one on Twitter!). I looked up Rajesh's work because I was curious about her. Interestingly her own recent travel memoir Around the world in 80 Trains has very mixed reviews on Goodreads. Several reviewers criticised the book's judgey attitude and her quickness to dismiss people she met in her travels who were not like her.

So yeah, no one is perfect. And there's a kind of irony in the fact that Clanchy is now being judged so harshly because she judged others too harshly.

When it comes to ethics , most of us fall into a vast category somewhere in between sinners and saints. I'm idealistic in that I think by reading, writing and talking about books, we can change for the better.

@PaleBlueMoonlight Brilliantly put. You can’t challenge something that you have erased. Bad ideas should stand and other people will decide whether or not they are bad.

Silencing is rapidly increasing the inability to critically think. We need things to object to in order to work out what we also think is acceptable.

I can’t work out what it is people who wish to silence are trying to achieve. A microcosm where their own bullshit is parroted back to them, presumably. Up until the tables are turned and they are suddenly the ones being said they are in the wrong. They tend to change their tune rapidly then!

The trend to silence and erase isn't an imperative of the 'left'. It isn't rooted in any kind of class consciousness. It's exactly the opposite. It's top down, hierarchical and paternalistic.

The biggest con of recent years has been to pretend it's a left-leaning impulse to burn books and shut down ideas. Those actions are right-wing. They always have been and they still are.

A big part of the problem is that some of the most prominent voices who claim to be on the left, obviously aren't. They are wedded to a strongly capitalist, individualist, anti-intellectual view which is bereft of social, political and historic context. They are trying to establish different strands to close down ideas, criticism and free speech. The inroads they are making in publishing and academic institutions are frightening. All of these 'incidents' need to be viewed together.

Some of these expressed concerns about free speech being curtailed need to place these concerns alongside the fact that all the descriptions that have caused controversy are of real children and young people. Moreover highly vulnerable children and young people. Even if their identities are obscured in the text they presumably will know who they are themselves and will have to read how an authority figure thought it fit to describe them to their readership.

Then perhaps you should respect those young people and their families. My view on Clanchy is based on the young people speaking out in support of her writing and her descriptions. It is not for a random stranger on the Internet to decide those young people's wishes should be ignored because a group of readers/writers/publishers/crusaders decided to take offence on their behalf. That's the patronising and paternalistic attitude that characterised and caused the debate.

So on a forum where age and consent come up time and time again as a cause of concern this is fine? But other times, not fine?

I read this book when it first came out, and
there was one part in particular that left an uncomfortable taste in my mouth, which was the boy with the "fine Ashkenazi nose".

I just want to mention this because some posters have suggested Clanchy uses the language she does to highlight and deconstruct her own white middle class perceptions of the Other - but I think this example illustrates there is no such deconstruction going on. She describes this boy as having an "Ashkenazi nose". She assumes he is Jewish based purely on his physical appearance - based, in fact, on an extremely pervasive and offensive stereotype of what Jewish people are supposed to look like, ie having a big hooked nose. The boy tells her he is not Jewish. Right here would be the perfect moment for some introspection, to recognise her own stereotypes and prejudices that lead her to this assumption. But she does no such thing, instead she continues to insist she must be right, that this boy is Jewish and he is either lying to her or his family have hidden his heritage from him out of some imagined shame. So self-examination whatsoever, just doubling down on big nose = Jewish.

Honestly, as a Jewish person, I found this gross, it upset me on a visceral level, that she held this anti-Semitic stereotype and then leant into it, clung to it, and even dared to justify it by inventing a narrative about a family so ashamed of their Jewishness they hid it from their own son (what exactly does she think is the source of this shame? Why does she think being Jewish is a shameful thing to a Jew?). There is no deconstruction here. It's just racism.

I was also made uncomfortable by her descriptions of working class children and of kids with ASD. I admit I wasn't so sensitive to some of the descriptions of race, but I am not a WoC and if you're not part of a minority group you don't necessarily know or recognise those particular pain points. Given my visceral reaction as a Jewish person to some of her writing, I am perfectly prepared to believe WoC describing having the same reaction to other parts of her book.

I have no doubt Clanchy is well-meaning as a person and that she has genuine affection for the pupils she's worked with but that does nothing to mitigate the harmful and offensive stereotypes she propegates. That her publishers ended her contract is not "silencing" her and honestly it sounds ridiculous to me to insist that. No one is entitled to a book contract, and most of us will never have one. Picador haven't published my memoirs, am I being silenced by this? Clanchy is still absolutely free to seek another contract, write more books, and to speak on any platform she chooses, as she has done so. If she struggles to find a new contract, or if people disagree with her or don't want to listen to her, this isn't "silencing", it's the consequences of her actions. The right to free speech doesn't guarantee you a receptive audience and it certainly doesn't guarantee you a book contract.

I agree crosshatching that great care should be taken when an adult writes a memoir about children, especially when those children are in her care.