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

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.

Yes. 100% this.

This is a huge stretch. I doubt Clanchy has ever read that book. It's hardly the only place you will ever see the description of a mouth.

I think the description was meant to be somewhat sexualized, which is not the same as pornified. Do you not think teen girls can have curvy waists?

I'm not sure why it's news to anyone that teen and pre-teen girls are sexualized in our culture, you only need to go into a school to see that it's the case.

I find the way language is being exploited and twisted to support an ideology quite sinister.

KC deliberately and maliciously told lies in order to start a hate campaign against someone who's opinion she found offensive. Evoking #BeKind within the context of abuse and censorship feels rather disingenuous and to be creating a potentially dangerous precedent.

Telling someone not to lie is not telling them to #BeKind.

Similarly there is a huge difference between making sexualised comments about children, and "noticing that a child has a very sexualised appearance".

There's absolutely nothing in the specific comments people found worrying to suggest the children in question had a "very sexualised appearance" - unless you believe that possessing breasts or legs is inherently "very sexualised appearance." At one point KC makes sexualised comments about the body of a girl who wears a full hijab!

(Obviously there are other parts of the book where KC does comment on how her students dress, but those are different comments. The passages people have flagged as inappropriate are the passages where she randomly comments on a child's breasts, or talks about how long and shapely a child's legs are. There's absolutely nothing to indicate the children whose breasts and legs KC notices have "a sexualised appearance".)

It's pretty slut shaming and victim blaming to claim it's fine to sexualise a child because of the way they're dressed (the "they were asking for it" defence so commonly used by male predators) especially when there's no evidence they even had "a sexualised appearance" in the first place.

@TheLassWiADelicateAir says of me:
I think you are falling over yourself to excuse questionable language.

That's quite an accusation. All I'm doing is speaking up for writers' freedom.

How could their be evidence, these kids are composites? Are you seriously arguing that there are no girls who have a highly sexualized appearence at that age?

ANd for that matter, there are lots of girls who are prematurely sexualized and even "up for it".

I'd suggest that any good will have noticed it and part of that noticing is concern for what it means for these kids.

Describing something does not mean a person thinks it's ok, that is just such an incredibly reductive mindset.

All language is questionable. Language in literature doesn't need to be excused.

"Any good teacher".

Describing something does not mean a person thinks it's ok, that is just such an incredibly reductive mindset.

Yes. It's weird how we are not supposed to see anything, are supposed to ignore what we see, are supposed to not speak unless it is in the approved terminology handed down to us by our superiors. The emperor's new clothes is the story of our times.

Any one who already thinks that way.

I bought this ghastly book after all the fuss so have only read the edited version. I can't now recall if that particular passage was in the version I read or if I saw it in the GR review. Wherever it was I found it shocking and still do.

The more I find out about Clanchy the more I am coming to the conclusion she is a manipulative, self- serving hypocrite- e.g that latest whining interview about being left with nothing (apart from her new contract, to republish out of print books, oh and her place on the English faculty , oh and invitations to write op pieces in The Times)

It's all of a piece I think. It's the same mindset that struggles with things like irony or a lot of humour or fiction that doesn't spell out explicitly what you are supposed to condemn. Or believes children's stories should look a lot like the kind of things the Edwardians wrote lampooning Victorian morality tales for the young.

Even in pop culture you can have a Hannible type hero who is literally a cannibal but people worry that a Gene Hunt type is apologizing for Thatcherites. I find it quite weird.

She may be a self serving whining hypocrite, but if she is, I’d say she’s not the only one by far, given what I’ve seen on twitter regarding the situation. And for self serving - she’s managed to amplify the voices of the young poets she’s worked with very well, which is how I first heard of her.

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

this is remarkable. I think if you think that phrases like “fresh mouth” in a literary memoir “give validation to the idea of underage temptresses” then… well, I certainly wouldn’t invite you to babysit. Even more concerning is you drawing a connection between that and Rotherham.

It’s extreme misogyny of the “women are responsible for what men do” genre. There was even a passing admission that Clanchy’s crime of emboldening rape gangs through literature was exacerbated by her femaleness.

But let’s face it, misogynists bear a lot more responsibility for Rotherham than poetry teachers with a knack for vivid description do. Someone who’s stretching this extraordinarily far to heap blame upon a woman would have just blamed the girls, like the police and of course the rapists did.

I don’t like “fresh mouth” either, at all, it makes me squirm, along with the descriptions of boobs, legs, waists, facial hair, “curves” etc. it does feel like a sexual appraisal of teenagers’ bodies, but I don’t get the impression KC did that consciously.

It reminds me very much of my own mum, also an upper-middle class, private school educated, white, sheltered English teacher and (though in a much more amateur way than KC) poet. She’s obsessed with bodies and would (before I stood up to her on it) always comment on anything she could about my or anyone else’s body or appearance, often in a deeply inappropriate, prurient or shockingly rude and personal way but sees absolutely no harm in it. Also gets overexcited about black people and gay people and has to comment about that in a weird conspiratorial way like she’s a special person for knowing them.

IMO it can arise out of a deep immaturity or narcissism so that despite how nice and inclusive and helpful she thinks she’s being (and may genuinely be in some cases) she does not see other people as being as human and deserving of basic respect as she is. I think this why KC is so confused and dismayed because she just can’t grasp this. She thinks she’s a good, nice person and meant well.

Anyone who already thinks that way already thinks that way. They'll find validation in anything, like we all find validation for our ideas wherever we look. It's not KC's responsibility to influence how people think, and it's not her fault either.

I'm another person here who only previously knew of KC as the teacher who shared all her students' poetry and was getting such wonderful writing opportunities for the young people she worked with. So I feel you're being a bit harsh in your description there.

But ... wasn't Clanchy making a point about the sexualisation of young women/girls? I thought she was describing pressures on young women and how they manifest? I have to admit I can't remember the passage in question.

@RoseLunarPink I don't think there's any reason to believe she isn't good or nice, or didn't mean well. All of that can be true alongside her having behaved badly in some respects and written some things that some people dislike.

This is probably going to be impossible to answer at this point! Everything is so wildly out of its original context, and has been placed in the context of this drama. But the idea that KC is sexually objectifying young girls herself is not very supportable.

I think lots of the criticisms seem to be based on perceived privileges.

I am sure one could criticise Clanchy, as one could probably criticise many people working in say the third sector, for having a bit of a saviour-tendency. One could maybe say it's patronising to want to help people because it implies that one thinks one is better off.

That's a big argument. I expect many social workers, teachers, NHS staff and others could also have the same criticisms levelled at them.

What is the suggestion? That we should only help people who are more fortunate than ourselves? Who decides who is suitable and permitted to work in a field that tries to help or educate others? Or is it just that someone who is privileged should only ever think good and pure thoughts? Or should never voice their thoughts?

innocenta yes totally, I agree. I’m not defending her just musing on how she could possibly write that stuff. As I’ve said earlier, I also blame editors who didn’t address this before it got as far as publication - but it was right that she was pulled up on it. I don’t condone the abuse and bullying on either side but that isn’t to say I don’t take a side - I don’t see how people can defend the book. That’s different from defending her against some of the vicious attacks but they go both ways and are a separate issue.

Hagiography I think that’s disingenuous. Of course a lot of people do good in the world by helping others less fortunate, in all kinds of ways. Putting prurient descriptions of young vulnerable people you helped in a book goes way beyond having a bit of a saviour complex. And I would argue that while of course it’s good to help others, whether it’s your job, volunteering or just in daily life, we should as a baseline be able to show respect and be wary of a saviour-like attitude.

Funnily enough the tweets I have read as a result of this thread have made me more firmly Team KC than I was at the outset. I know that no one is free of bias, and certainly having some acquaintance with Kate, I can't claim to be (though not her friend or anything close to that). But the nature and extent of the bullying she's been suffering on social media wasn't really clear to me until I looked at it myself over the past couple of days. Those like Sunny Singh who are eager to cry DARVO seem to be masters of the art, themselves...

But ... wasn't Clanchy making a point about the sexualisation of young women/girls?

I haven’t read the book yet so maybe I shouldn’t comment but it certainly reads that way. Teenage girls are usually painfully aware of their own appearance, it’s not irrelevant to their character. And Clancy’s whole thing seems to be evoking then questioning prejudiced and superficial impressions. I actually love most of the descriptions, it’s like she has managed to bring into conscious language some of the crude free-association mental shorthand of the subconscious. We do think in stereotypes and approximations, we do pay undue attention to the superficial. That’s how our minds work. She seems to be examining that, introducing kids with quick shallow impressions and then going beyond appearances.

It’s so bizarre to me that this book was targeted, when there are so many books that explore much more negative aspects of human nature. I’ve heard there are even books about murder out there!

It’s so bizarre to me that this book was targeted

Yes! I wonder if it was precisely because of (a) its success and (b) its female and not-young authorship. Because god knows, there are many, many, many books that are infinitely more offensive according to the criteria that have been used to damn KC. The obsessive focus on KC being in her fifties seems significant among the Twitter crowd.

I absolutely don’t buy the idea that it’s all done knowingly and deliberately as part of some sophisticated reflexive commentary on her own prejudices or on how girls are seen etc. She does it to boys too. But also, if that’s the case it isn’t spelt out at all, so would fly over many people’s heads and an editor should have worked with her on making it clear.

But most obviously, if that was what she was doing, then if she felt a need to defend herself against a bad review, she would have explained what she meant to do and apologised that it wasn’t clear. In fact, she agreed phrases she had used were racist but denied using them and attacked the reviewer. That’s not the action of someone whose sophisticated approach has been missed.

‘Or is it just that someone who is privileged should only ever think good and pure thoughts? Or should never voice their thoughts?’

Never voice any thoughts that might imply you are not constantly aware of your privilege and prepared to humble yourself (if you do this you don’t actually have to humble yourself, but if you don’t you do). Don’t be too aware of your privilege because that’s condescending. If you break these rules you have to have your privilege removed. If you manage to stick to them you get to keep it.