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

,if that’s the case it isn’t spelt out at all, so would fly over many people’s heads

Yes, she made the fatal error of assuming her readers weren’t morons. Which would once upon a time have been a safe bet for someone writing a memoir about poetry.

It was targeted when, as JemimaPuddlegoose has repeatedly pointed out, Clanchy drew attention to her book and to herself by going after someone for leaving a poor review. This reviewer - also a woman I believe? - was the orginal victim as far as I'm concerned.

If you break these rules you have to have your privilege removed. If you manage to stick to them you get to keep it.

If you get targeted by the mob all bets are off no matter how religiously you’ve followed the rules, tbh. Anything you write can and will be used against you.

Yes, she made the fatal error of assuming her readers weren’t morons. Which would once upon a time have been a safe bet for someone writing a memoir about poetry.

So if you do genuinely think it was this super-sophisticated, self-aware approach, why did she respond to the review like that?

god knows, there are many, many, many books that are infinitely more offensive according to the criteria that have been used to damn KC

Indeed. Most people who want to read a memoir by a poetry teacher are probably quite literary-minded so can probably cope with the descriptive flourishes without having a funny turn. But literature now is up for judgement by literal-minded ideologues who are only interested in whether the author expresses wrongthink or can be accused of having thought wrong things.

I don’t see how people can defend the book

It's a memoir - a work of narrative non-fiction by a poet. She uses words and descriptions in a poetic and symbolic way, as poets do. Searching the book for evidence of wrongthink and then condemning it based on your (generic your) interpretation of her words is what I find indefensible. Yes, you can have an opinion that you dislike the book and the words in it. Fine. But the book itself is not inherently bad just because you don't like it.

‘If you get targeted by the mob all bets are off no matter how religiously you’ve followed the rules, tbh. Anything you write can and will be used against you.’

Notice, the rules don’t make sense.

Notice, the rules don’t make sense.

Also notice, the rules change according to the whims of the people enforcing the rules.

Also I'm not a moron, at least when it comes to poetry, books and writing. Not that I'd normally raise it but I have multiple English lit degrees, including first from Oxford, and have 3 decades experience working in the book industry.

I think I should be able to detect this sophistication that excuses KC for using grossly personal and inappropriate descriptions of kids. If I can't see it, then as an editor, I think an editor should have raised it with her.

‘Also notice, the rules change according to the whims of the people enforcing the rules.’

Also notice, the rules will not apply to the enforcers of the rules, so if you can get in with the right people you will develop a cloak of rules invisibility.

‘I think I should be able to detect this sophistication that excuses KC for using grossly personal and inappropriate descriptions of kids.’

I think you might be missing the point. This isn’t about excusing her. It’s about pointing out that she doesn’t need you to excuse her. She has a right to write things even when those things are (or might be to some people) offensive. She isn’t accountable to you.

The whole thing only blew up because KC responded to a review - if she hadn't then it would have remained just a book some people didn't like - and as you say, that's fine.

So I'll ask again:
If you do genuinely think it was this super-sophisticated, self-aware approach, why did she respond to the review like that?

‘it would have remained just a book some people didn't like - and as you say, that's fine.’

That’s exactly what it still is.

Give some actual thought to your own question. If she had seen her sincere beliefs reflected in the out of context quotes in the review,
why would she have denied writing them? It’s not exactly hard to check. I’d assume she didn’t recognise her own words because without their context they mean something different.

I think she objected to the review saying she'd used a phrase that she hadn't? And she was bereaved.

I'm not saying she's accountable to me.

I'm saying it's fair enough for people to criticise her on the basis of her book containing prurient, offensive and inappropriate descriptions. It's also fair enough to debate about it and defend her, but I find these defences odd and illogical in the light of how she reacted to the review.

I do not support "cancellation", vicious bullying, name-calling etc of the kind that has gone on over this.

But I'm also seeing this weird straw-manning behaviour where her defenders are putting it all down to cancel culture and purity spiralling and no one being allowed to write anything descriptive blah blah. That's bollocks. Her descriptions were ill-judged at absolute best and I completely understand how they upset people. It's OK to address what happened and to criticise her and her publishers.

And I am not on the woke, SJW, purity spiralling side at all. That's why I'm finding all this so discombobulating. I'm amazed people defend this as sophisticated, poetic etc and feel they have to explain to "morons" how writing and poetry and freedom of expression work. Yes, I know and I defend them. It's still possible for a writer to get it badly wrong and be pulled up on it.

On the one hand, of course "someone might be offended" should not be a reason to shut down all cultural expression. I hate that shit.

On the other, it's still possible for someone to be unnecessarily, shockingly offensive and it's OK for people to say why. Or are you saying that there are no words, phrases, racist descriptions etc, used first-person about real people, that you wouldn't approve because it's sophisticated and written by a poet?

To be fair, I'm going round in the same circles I did last time we debated this on here, first time round. I find myself on the opposite side to the side I'm normally on and that feels weird, but I remain unconvinced by all the things her defenders say. I continue to think it over and try to get it. Need to leave it now and do some work.

‘I'm saying it's fair enough for people to criticise her on the basis of her book containing prurient, offensive and inappropriate descriptions. It's also fair enough to debate about it and defend her, but I find these defences odd and illogical in the light of how she reacted to the review.’

That’s fine, I didn’t like the descriptions either. What I object to is the ‘accountability’ narrative (which is basically harass writers until they withdraw or change their work). I don’t find it helpful to literature of society, and I think the people who do it most are often the most guilty of unpleasant and narcissistic behaviour.

Literature OR society that ought to read.

shockingly offensive

Do you really work in the book industry? Textbooks, or dishwasher manuals or something? What are some nice non-offensive books, in your view?

This. I truly cannot fathom finding KC's book shockingly offensive. (And I belong to some of the groups nominally supposed to be offended by these descriptions, for what it's worth.)

By the way, I'm not saying nobody is allowed to feel differently! It's just very odd to me that book industry professionals (as opposed to, say, a Cardinal) should feel this way. But it takes all sorts to make a world.

@RoseLunarPink What do you find odd or illogical about what I have said? I don't identify as anti woke at all and am not particularly interested in 'cancel culture'. I am interested in literary culture.

I think to some extent trying to label people who lean towards Team KC as just being all about purity spirals, cancel culture, etc, is a bit of a failure to engage with what we are saying.

Same here, except I didn't follow the debate last time around. But I've been thinking about it for several days now and I can't get past how this probably only happened because Clanchy tried to shut someone down for writing something she didn't like, and by doing so, engineered her own shutdown.

I'm also noticing - and not for the first time - how some (not all) of Clanchy's defenders cannot seem to resist making personal remarks. Not cool.

And now I must go and do some work too.

Today I am thinking of 'near enemies'.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/07/change-your-life-near-enemies-buddhism

Obviously not talking about people here; I'm talking about ideas.