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

Now Rajesh is asking people to make sure Clanchy has counselling (for pointing out the similarities between their styles of writing). Apparently it’s very different because Rajesh was 28, not a nasty old lady like Clanchy. 🙄

I would be suspicious of KC's motives too, if I were Rajesh. But that's somewhat beside the point, in my opinion. It makes the point Clanchy wants it to make.

I think that article was a boss move by Clanchy tbh. Her detractors are hypocrites and bullies and she's exposed them as such. Good.

The ageism and misogyny woven through all of this is sickening.

It’s really not an excuse that she was 28, tbh. Either you write about people like that because you observe stuff like that and write honestly, or you don’t.

Also, 28 is old enough to be fully considered an adult and to take responsibility for your words and behaviours.

Yeah, it is. Also not an excuse that she wrote about ‘her own community’. Unpleasantness is unpleasantness. She also wrote about ‘dwarfs’ and other groups (including trans people) in ways I suspect she would criticise now in another writer. Because the ‘be kind’ ideology is quite new, lots of people who were (before their conversions) ordinarily unpleasant will find their older writings problematic in all sorts of ways. It’s just a shame they’re always the same people being nasty to the still imperfect on social media.

Personally I'm fine with what Rajesh wrote, but I don't mind nasty writing. Even by women!

I think it's such a shame that the whole Be Kind thing is being applied to writers now, actually.

I think I’m a bit kinder than either of them. But that doesn’t mean I don’t notice physical anomalies - unusual stuff. Anyone who pretends they don’t is lying.

I don't think #bekind is going to do anything good for writers. The whole point of writing is #behonest so we can share our inner worlds and perspectives. If we can't do that, then there's no point. It is already showing in the books that are getting published now. Lots of wokery and box-ticking, and it's just BORING.

Writing a memoir must be awfully hard and sanitised now? I’m not buying any newly published stuff unless I’ve got a really good reason to think it won’t be sensitivity-policed.

'So it’s been brought to light that Clanchy has decided to dissect my book Around India in 80 Trains. I wrote it 12 years ago, aged 28, and like all good writers, I’ve listened, changed many views, taken notes and write differently now. She would do well to do the same.'

'Unlike her, I didn’t write mine three years ago in my 50s, nor was I a racist: I wrote about my own community, my people. Could someone who is close to her please ensure she has therapy and counselling. Her obsession is a sickness.'

Is Rajesh a member of the dwarf community?

Unlike her, I didn’t write mine three years ago in my 50s

Really, really struggling to see how this is a defence.

Oh, oops, I see the thread has already discussed this. Sorry.

However in my defence, I didn't write it three years ago in my 50s.

Absolute lol at "my own community".

Yes, Rajesh, you are a transgender little person. Sure. Okay.

(I know those were separate bits but I am willing to be Nasty and pretend they weren't.)

This is what bothers me a lot about all of this.

The pretending that we don't notice these things.

I am totally on with not commenting in personal interactions on people's appearances. Though even there I think we have crossed the line into an unhealthy avoidance. But I am not going to comment on someone being really fat in a normal personal interaction.

That is a totally different thing than describing people unknown to the audience in writing. I can't get over this idea for example that by noticing a student had a very sexualized appearance, somehow it was Clanchy that was sexualizing her and therefore putting her in danger. As if all the other students, and adults including ones who are not looking out for the student's interest, weren't perfectly able to recognize that on their own. And also as if that kind of observation is of no interest to the reader - of course it can be, because it tells us a lot about that student's situation, what some of her struggles might be, what fangers face her.

I'm not sure why she is so confident she is not a racist, given that clearly thinking oneself to be non-racist doesn't preclude it in any way, according to this way of thinking. Clanchy doesn't think she's a racist either.

There is a lack of self-awareness that is interesting to see in a writer.

Plus, if you’re travelling round India, you’re not necessarily in your own ‘community’ even if you are Indian. It’s an incredibly complex society, and class and race are lenses through which any writer’s work might be found wanting.

I'm sure she is. I'm 99% sure that is what Clanchy was aiming for- that's why I said it wasn't a defence.

As for it being ok for Rajesh because it's "her community" - it isn't is it? The people she was describing are no more part of her community than the residents of
PA15 9TB are if I were describing them in such derogatory terms and claiming it was OK because we're white.

I can't get over this idea for example that by noticing a student had a very sexualized appearance, somehow it was Clanchy that was sexualizing her and therefore putting her in danger. As if all the other students, and adults including ones who are not looking out for the student's interest, weren't perfectly able to recognize that on their own

It was the language used which was pornified in itself which I find distasteful. I can't be bothered scrolling back - but it was Bambi lashes, curvy waist, something about her bosom (Clanchy has a thing about bosoms) and the "fresh mouth".

For a teacher to see and then describe a 13 or 14 year old that way is veering into "no better than she should be" territory. It's the same mindset as the police in Rotherham and Rochester- they were at the extreme end of the line of that way of thinking, but Clanchy's language is on that line.

‘can't be bothered scrolling back - but it was Bambi lashes, curvy waist, something about her bosom (Clanchy has a thing about bosoms) and the "fresh mouth".’

I agree it’s inappropriate language. The conflict (as I see it) is the conflict between the teacher and the poet. Poets say all sorts of weird stuff and everyone rolls their eyes and says “poets”. Teachers can’t do that. Clanchy (maybe) can’t be both?

I don't think it's inappropriate to use dramatically descriptive language. That's how you paint a picture - it's okay to make readers uncomfortable. It isn't KC saying it in (corporeal) real life, to or about one, specific, in the flesh child. It is in the at one remove context of a narrative memoir.

I'm not saying, of course, that the language or image is at all pleasant. But I don't think that's the point.

No, I don’t like “fresh mouth” in particular about a kid. I can’t think of any meaning that doesn’t imply the observer thinking about the young person sexually. I might be wrong but that’s my reading.