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

To me, even the “bosom” comment is explicable from the point of view of honest observation: some people (including teenagers) have big chests. But “fresh mouth” strikes me as more of an opinion.

@achillestoes That's interesting, because to me it doesn't imply anything about the actual writer's feelings! I don't think 'fresh' has that connotation for me.

I’m not sure of any other connotation - what would it mean?

But I also think the “safeguarding” arguments are enormously disingenuous. The people described in the memoir are no longer children so any considerations under safeguarding don’t apply.

For me, the core meaning of fresh is 'freshness'. So fresh as in new, not dulled. I do think there is a freshness (of that sort) to all young people that naturally departs with the physical ageing of the body.

I'm not saying this is how KC meant it, as I have absolutely no idea. But it's just one example of how differently a single word can be read.

Same here. Particularly given Andrea Long Chu's horrible description of femaleness also using the word "mouth".

Nothing about my additions to this thread is 'disingenuous'.

‘So fresh as in new, not dulled. I do think there is a freshness (of that sort) to all young people that naturally departs with the physical ageing of the body.’

Hmm, not convinced. All young people (by that logic) are equally fresh. What would “fresh mouth” mean when applied to one child that wouldn’t apply to others?

Innocenta

Not you. The people who say Clanchy’s memoir ‘breaks the Equality Act’ or is a safeguarding risk.

@achillestoes Obviously you're welcome to disagree. I am just outlining how I read the word. My whole point is that there is not one fixed or official meaning: interpretation plays a part.

I'm sorry, but really? And she wasn't talking about the whole person- it was specifically the child's "fresh mouth"

It's downright creepy tbh.

Sorry, I wasn't replying to you! But to 'Lass', who did accuse me specifically.

Ah - crossed wires!

Not a problem, easily done when we are all using the same words!

I think you are falling over yourself to excuse questionable language. I actually do think there is a safeguarding risk. If that's how a female teacher , who should be supporting this child sees her, well , it must be fair enough to view her as fair game.

As I said, I think it's the start of the spectrum that led to Rotherham and Rochester victims not being treated as victims.

The writing about your own people point seems moot here given you could say the same about Clanchy. I wouldn’t say that either of them, in the instances given, were ‘writing about their own people though’ and I also think it doesn’t matter whether they were or not.

I'm on the fence about 'fresh mouth' - I think if I put my literature teacher hat on, I'd say, there are many connotations - yes, there is a sexual connotation, but also a connotation with youth, and a connotation of being cheeky or quick-witted. As an image it makes me think of really shiny lip gloss, so there's that as well. Sexuality is one of the connotations but I think it's reductive to say that's all it could possibly be, and just silly to call it a safeguarding issue.

Writers do not have to consider safeguarding concerns in their writing. If they did, there would be no more crime fiction, or 'true crime' for that matter. KC's memoir does not put anyone at risk of harm.

If that's how a female teacher , who should be supporting this child sees her, well , it must be fair enough to view her as fair game.

That doesn't make any sense. Who is reading literary memoirs as encouragement for their criminal behaviours? Not to mention the fact that there are zero children involved - the people she is writing about are a) only based on real people, not faithful representations of actual individuals; and b) fully grown up adults.

*KC's memoir does not put anyone at risk of harm"

KC's memoir in that particular passage is , as far as I'm concerned, indicative of just how deep rooted the mindset is of certain young girls being "up for it" and prematurely sexually available.

Given that there is flat out child porn available on Amazon right now, I'm finding it hard to get exercised all that much about a 'fresh mouth', tbh.

Oh fgs sake- no, I'm sure no one is reading literary memoirs as encouragement for their criminal behaviours. What a weird interpretation.

My point is that her words give validation to the idea of Lolitas, underage temptresses.

My point is that her words give validation to the idea of Lolitas, underage temptresses.

Validation to whom?

I think there’s too much weight put behind ideas of ‘validation’ and ‘legitimising’ this that and the other. Nobody who abuses children doesn’t know it’s wrong. Nobody is going to do it because they read Some Kids. It’s the same all over literature at the moment - you might as well blame white middle class women for the Kennedy assassination because Jackie O was offensive in her choice of hats. The guilty parties in the abuse of teenage girls are almost invariably men, and the men who are predatory would find whatever justification was needed. Leave literature alone.

KC's memoir in that particular passage is , as far as I'm concerned, indicative of just how deep rooted the mindset is of certain young girls being "up for it" and prematurely sexually available.

I really don't see this at all. But say you're right - then, so what? It's no worse than what hundreds of thousands of books have done before. What should be done about it? Banning and censoring books for descriptions that some readers dislike is still banning and censoring books. Would you ban Lolita? What about Twilight? They're both worse than KC writing 'fresh mouth'. I don't get the outrage.