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

I know I said I was done with this thread but I'm just popping back to say that, when I first heard about this story, I assumed it was an open-and-shut-case of cancel culture in publishing. JemimaPuddlegoose's posts - especially her first one on this thread - made me think about it in a new way. I've found her arguments coherent and compelling - as are others of course, but I'm singling out hers for what, I hope are obvious reasons. They're partly why I've revised my opinion.

And potniatheron I read your post and can't remember seeing anything worthy of deletion - I'm really surprised.

It’s not a simple situation for sure. I certainly think that Clanchy initially brought justified criticism upon herself. But then I think there’s also been subsequent questionable behaviour on the part of her detractors. It’s a tough one as it becomes about more than one person, it’s now reflecting the world of publishing in general.

I think we do need to allow people that have made mistakes a way back though. I don’t mean ‘well they are being published etc so not cancelled.’ I mean a way back from being cancelled from being a ‘good person.’ I think that’s where the toxic shame comes from, the idea that you’re beyond redemption. I think it’s particularly bad for women as that’s something we’re judged and valued by.

That was gracious of Chimene Suleyman. Sunny Singh has also posted conciliatory tweets today.

I'm surprised to read that Singh has posted conciliatory tweets. I haven't seen any?

I can't find them now- but yes , they were. Things seem to have moved on. KC has been in a Twitter spat with someone called Polly Pallister-Wilkins today.

Suleyman’s tweets are very classy. Well done her.

I think Suleyman may have realised it was a very bad look for her. I think it might have made her stop and reassess. Good for her.

KC just now posted an article in defence of one of her critics. It's pretty good. unherd.com/thepost/in-defence-of-my-critic-monisha-rajesh/

Sunny Singh is still going strong with the abuse and hasn't tweeted anything conciliatory - if she did, she deleted it. Meanwhile, a brief glance at KC's timeline shows no such 'spat'. Again, possibly all deleted?

No they weren't. She just did a 'I'm sorry but' and then doubled down.
She is bullying KC relentlessly. It's indefensible

Clanchy is right that unflattering or biased physical descriptions can be illuminating. I actually think it’s the function of writing to be interesting, not pure or kind. That said, I think on the question of which should have been paramount, her responsibility to honest writing or her responsibility to her students, I would have come down on the other side to her, and wouldn’t have employed such descriptions to portray kids.

Rajesh’s language isn’t very nice either, is it? Interesting that all the scrutiny has been on Clanchy and none on what her critics actually write themselves.

I actually think it’s the function of writing to be interesting, not pure or kind. That said, I think on the question of which should have been paramount, her responsibility to honest writing or her responsibility to her students, I would have come down on the other side to her, and wouldn’t have employed such descriptions to portray kids

I think another important function of writing is to be honest. Which may not be kind, but without honesty, we cannot share inner worlds, which is kind of the point of writing. I'm not sure which side I would have come down on - but I think it's fine for KC to make the decisions she did. I don't think the children she worked with were hurt - most of them are fully grown adults now, anyway. They have publicly supported her throughout.

Rajesh’s language isn’t very nice either, is it? Interesting that all the scrutiny has been on Clanchy and none on what her critics actually write themselves.

It's so predictable. It's just "do it to Julia" except they haven't even got the rats as an excuse.

‘I'm not sure which side I would have come down on - but I think it's fine for KC to make the decisions she did. I don't think the children she worked with were hurt - most of them are fully grown adults now, anyway. They have publicly supported her throughout.’

This is true.

‘It's so predictable. It's just "do it to Julia" except they haven't even got the rats as an excuse.’

This is also true. Often I think the most aggressive purity spiral behaviour comes from the knowledge of the aggressor’s own ‘crimes’ against the purity machine. They know they have transgressed, but if they can find someone else whose transgressions are worse...

I actually think it’s the function of writing to be interesting, not pure or kind. That said, I think on the question of which should have been paramount, her responsibility to honest writing or her responsibility to her students, I would have come down on the other side to her, and wouldn’t have employed such descriptions to portray kids

I think another important function of writing is to be honest. Which may not be kind, but without honesty, we cannot share inner worlds, which is kind of the point of writing.

It may be worth considering whether female writers have greater expectations to be kind than male writers.

Oh that's very clever but I don't know if it's a defence.

It's certainly confirmed that personally I won't be missing out if I never read another word by either Clanchy or Rajesh.

‘It may be worth considering whether female writers have greater expectations to be kind than male writers.’

Of course they do.

My first thought with thith question was yes.

But reflecting, I'm not so sure that I would say that. Some women writers seem to get a pass to be not nice, and others don't. Margaret Atwood often isn't nice, Alice Walker, comes to mind as well. Yes, sometimes people note they aren't nice, but that also happens with male writers.

I think maybe it's the women writers who seem like they might be vulnerable to that sort of accusation.

'there is a strongly bodied, loudly middle-class and explicitly privileged ‘Kate’ in every scene of ‘Some Kids’: she is there to acknowledge her limits, and to learn from conversations rather than take over narratives, to be a character, rather than an omniscient narrator. I, as white middle-class adult, held the cultural power over the disadvantaged and often migrant children I was writing about. I couldn’t tell their stories as they happened to them, but rather, as they happened to me: as I heard them, as they changed me.'

Clanchy. Good article.

‘Some women writers seem to get a pass to be not nice, and others don't. Margaret Atwood often isn't nice, Alice Walker, comes to mind as well. Yes, sometimes people note they aren't nice, but that also happens with male writers.’

Yes, but they pre-date the ‘be kind’ era by such a long way that people give them a pass.

@TheLassWiADelicateAir How is it not a defence?

Maybe that's it. My thought was that while they aren't always nice, they come down on the correct side to avoid those kinds of critics.

Oh that's very clever but I don't know if it's a defence.

What do you mean?

It's an opportunity for Clanchy to show (try to show) Rajesh can be as snobbish and judgemental as Clanchy by quoting exactly what Rajesh said.

That's how Rajesh is taking it on Twitter- that Clanchy has taken sections of Rajesh's first book, which , apparently, had been criticised at the time to show her up. Rajesh's take is she accepted the criticism and wouldn't write like that again.

Isn’t ‘accepting the criticism’ rather like the old ‘going to confession’? She still did it. She still exercised poor judgment and said things people found hurtful. By her own judgment she ‘did harm’ (I don’t think she did). Why are people so hypocritical?

I expect Rajesh is annoyed that her hypocrisy has been exposed.