Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"

[miri1985]

www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/18/the-book-that-tore-publishing-apart-harm-has-been-done-and-now-everyones-afraid

Interesting article but Sarah Ditum said it on twitter better than I could "I think it's a major flaw that this article broadly assumes good faith on the part of cancel-culture agitators. A lot of them are perfectly self-interested and borderline sociopathic" twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1538144622643494912?cxt=HHwWgIC-3dCYy9gqAAAA

For Christ's sake.

You claim that it's nothing to do with the book, that it's the publishers dropping KC because they don't like her behaviour - but can't answer why they raised a problem with her book.

They raised a problem with the book because of the scandal her own behaviour created, and the many complaints that resulted from it. It was her behaviour and specifically her lies about her book's content that led to so many people scrutinising her book and realising the book contained the content in question. Her behaviour can't be separated from her writing since one influences the other.

Then you say it's a financial decision by the publisher - but don't explain why the publisher would choose to take a financial hit on a book that's selling fine.

Do you have any sources that the scandal didn't impact sales? It was selling well before Kate decided to attack, libel, threaten and try to censor her own readers. That doesn't mean it would continue to sell well afterwards.

You say that it's normal for books to be edited, but you can't answer why that would happen after the fact of its publication when the edition is still current.

I've actually answered that before - sometimes real world events necessitate an edit. Sometimes other factors do. This is not uncommon at all. I have personal experience of it. In this particular case there are two reasons: First because her own behaviour created a major press scandal. Second because her behaviour drew attention to things that a lot of people found racist, misogynistic, a breach of duty of care to her pupils, and to inappropriately sexualise children. If a publisher is made aware that there are serious concerns about a book they are duty bound to look into it. It's not like the publisher just woke up one morning and went "hey ho might force a writer to edit their book for kicks today!" They were literally responded to a scandal of Kate's own doing.

You say no one has the right to be published, but you don't explain why her existing contract with a publisher should be abandoned.

Oh come on. There's not a workplace in the world, save maybe Tory headquarters, where being caught telling lies and being abusive wouldn't damage your career. If someone behaves abusively and their abusive behaviour drags their company into disrepute, of course the company has to take action. It's perfectly fair to no longer want to work with someone once they become abusive, or if they're caught telling lies. Actors and other public figures get fired all the time because they've said or done something that caused a scandal, and the studio/network/publisher feared the scandal would damage sales.

you'll say anything to avoid acknowledging that there was a censorship attempt in this case?

Because I don't believe that there was. Why can you not accept that other people hold different opinions from you?

Some people believe they will be the Red Guards forever. That they will never in turn be suspect, policed, accused...

‘Presumably you could do the printers, typesetters, designers and editors while you're at it. The beautiful cultural revolution.’

They can all line up.

Ah, fair enough, @stuntbubbles ! Sorry I misread it.

Agents don’t make writers sign anything. To drag this all back on topic, though, I’m fairly confident my publisher would never request post-publication revisions because as a rule I don’t write racist memoirs like Clanchy’s.

Innocenta

Didn’t the Girondins think something similar?

‘To drag this all back on topic, though, I’m fairly confident my publisher would never request post-publication revisions because as a rule I don’t write racist memoirs like Clanchy’s.’

You’re safe then.

@Innocenta All good! I think there’s about a million moving parts to this thread at this point, we need a debate moderator!

‘we need a debate moderator!’

We need a ref.

Her behaviour can't be separated from her writing

@JemimaPuddlegoose says the above, but I contend that, uh, yes it can. It's not about Kate at all, but another debate entirely if we decide to make who is worthy of reading, buying, publishing determined by behaviour.

Racism? Anti Semitism? Misogyny? Classism? Abuse of a spouse? Ableism?

...You'll find barely a single admired author in the canon who is innocent of them all. And we can have that conversation (though it's not an original one). But it's not about Clanchy - and that is what makes this seem like personal vitriol, Jemima.

@achillestoes Truly, the other example in my own mind! And those who felled the Gironde, in their turn...

People should think before they volunteer to sharpen the guillotine.

They raised a problem with the book because of the scandal her own behaviour created, and the many complaints that resulted from it.

That doesn't make any sense and doesn't answer the questions.

Do you have any sources that the scandal didn't impact sales?

No I don't, but you say yourself it was selling well.

sometimes real world events necessitate an edit.

More common with a non-fiction book. With a narrative non-fiction like a memoir or novel this is practically unheard of. New editions and revisions do happen, but not mid-run.

There's not a workplace in the world, save maybe Tory headquarters, where being caught telling lies and being abusive wouldn't damage your career.

But the publisher was not KC's workplace.

Why can you not accept that other people hold different opinions from you?

I can, and do accept it. I was very confused for quite a while as you kept contradicting yourself. But now I understand your position. You think she's broken the law or at least caused terrible harm, and you want her to be punished. It's not actually about censorship or freedom of speech or even about writing and publishing for you. It's literally that you want her cancelled. Or am I wrong?

Her behaviour can't be separated from her writing

But it can. And it must be. Or all writers and artists are totally fucked. We're going to have to cancel them all. Even my beloved Shakespeare was a bit of a dick at times.

‘But it can. And it must be. Or all writers and artists are totally fucked. We're going to have to cancel them all. Even my beloved Shakespeare was a bit of a dick at times.’

And it is. Legally there’s no way your publisher can discontinue your contract for publishing something with them, thereby bringing them into disrepute. Your behaviour in public might be enough to have them sever the relationship and return your rights, but they can’t hold them for sale. Clearly she wasn’t in breach of contract.

Yes, that is such a wild claim that it really makes it very difficult to continue meaningful discussion about Clanchy.

Okay, I get it now. You think her book broke the law, and you feel that in that case, there can't be a free speech defence.

Absolutely not. I do not believe for a second that her book broke the law, and nowhere have I claimed that her book broke the law. I very strongly refute your claim which is completely incorrect and the exact opposite of what I believe and what I have said.

What I actually said - and please stop putting words in my mouth - is that if achillestoes purely hypothetical speculation that the publisher "coerced and forced" her was true, and that if the again purely hypothetical and speculative lawsuit that achillestoes keeps insisting that KC could bring against her publisher, that is one likely tactic that a lawyer could take against any "The Human Rights Act means publishers can't edit or withdraw books" defence that achillestoes appears to believe exists and could be used in court.

I think it would be terrifying to live in a society where an author can be taken to court for something they write in a memoir, novel, or work of poetry. I don't know why anyone would want that. Why would you want that? Are you really so sure that you're never going to offend anyone with your words?

But in hypothetical court scenario that achillestoes invented and keeps talking about, the writer is the plaintiff and not the defendant. No one has suggested that writers be sued. achillestoes is the one who brought up court in the first place, and who keeps keeps talking about writers suing their publishers for breaching their right to freedom of speech. Literally no one has suggested or mentioned writers being sued themselves. All the comments about court have been in the context of writers suing their publishers!

Erm @JemimaPuddlegoose What do you think we've all been talking about for the last however long? lol

A decent lawyer could certainly make the argument that the racist, ableism and misogynistic language in the book breached the parts of UK law that outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress [...] language that is deemed to incite racial and religious hatred [and] hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and argue that the publisher had a duty to act when informed of the numerous complaints made over that language.

‘What I actually said - and please stop putting words in my mouth - is that if achillestoes purely hypothetical speculation that the publisher "coerced and forced" her was true, and that if the again purely hypothetical and speculative lawsuit that achillestoes keeps insisting that KC could bring against her publisher, that is one likely tactic that a lawyer could take against any "The Human Rights Act means publishers can't edit or withdraw books" defence that achillestoes appears to believe exists and could be used in court.’

So, separately from any argument about the credibility of such an argument, you really think the publisher’s lawyer would stand up and say, ‘This book my client published is hate speech’?

I very strongly refute your claim which is completely incorrect and the exact opposite of what I believe and what I have said.

I'm not sure it's the opposite of what you said but great. So you agree there is a free speech defence for KC here. I'm glad. I genuinely thought that's what you were arguing against.

I don’t think the bolded statement was a “you can’t separate the art from the artist” thing, whatever one’s views on that. I believe Jemima is specifically citing KC’s behaviour around her book: going into Goodreads and reposting reviews from it on Twitter is fairly egregious. I mean, it’s not the worst author-Goodreads behaviour I’ve seen (that would be the YA author who STALKED the Goodreads reviewer who slated her book, then wrote an essay about it), but it’s generally seen as a no-no, and her behaviour got worse from there. And it’s that behaviour that stoked the scandal as much as the book itself, which damaged Picador.

@stuntbubbles That stalking case was truly nuts!

‘And it’s that behaviour that stoked the scandal as much as the book itself, which damaged Picador.’

That’s probably true. They had the option to say she was in breach of contract but they didn’t - probably because her behaviour didn’t rise to that. Instead they tried to get her to make extensive revisions to her book, which actually has little to do with her behaviour.

It's not actually about censorship or freedom of speech or even about writing and publishing for you. It's literally that you want her cancelled. Or am I wrong?

What about this claim @JemimaPuddlegoose - should I take your refutation to also cover this?

@Innocenta I was glued to Twitter, popcorn in hand. Honestly Author 101 should just be “don’t ever ever go on Goodreads. Disable your internet or something. Break your laptop. Just don’t do it.”