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

Clanchy is not a prolific writer, it's not a long book and she wrote it recently. She could have run a word check on Kindle or possibly even her own Word document.

But thank you, Iris, for saying out loud what other commenters here insist they're not saying: that you think the book should be cancelled.

@TheLassWiADelicateAir She could indeed have run a search. That would have been far more sensible. My point was that she probably was not at her most level headed and exercising her best judgment, at that time.

In no way did she act correctly. Her decisions were wrong. Acknowledging factors that probably contributed doesn't change that.

(Also, she actually is quite a prolific writer for someone in her area.)

I have explained at length why I think it was prurient.

This is a good point. I don’t think the book was originally targeted either, it was her response to the review. I agree that while I don’t like what she wrote, it’s her choice to write it. Then her response was bad.

But since then she’s been pretty viciously mauled. I do have sympathy for that. There’s often no way back for people when they’re so publicly shamed. I don’t mean her career is finished (although I don’t believe it’s unimpacted, time will tell.) I mean her personal reputation. Nobody is all good or bad and she’s discussed as though she’s evil rather than a woman who made a couple of bad decisions after also making a lot of good ones. One of the reasons I do sympathise with her is that she was apparently (by her words) dropped by previous professional acquaintances. I think people know how entire these takedowns can be and back off to avoid being tainted themselves. That must hurt.

@TheLassWiADelicateAir You obviously haven't explained or evidenced it successfully or convincingly, so why do you think it will work better to repeat "it is prurient" at us? Evidently we think (several though not all of us) that you are wrong. Either you accept that, or you modify what you say to try to convince us otherwise.

I have said several times I don't think the book should be "cancelled'- and it hasn't been "cancelled"

I said one option was not to write it at all (that's not the same as saying it should be cancelled) or write it in a different format. Or simply better.

I think it fails miserably to live up to its title.

Nobody can un-write a book, @TheLassWiADelicateAir. Suggesting that as an option is fantastical.

‘I said one option was not to write it at all (that's not the same as saying it should be cancelled) or write it in a different format. Or simply better.’

And another option is for her to write what she likes, and you say you don’t like it if you don’t. That’s easier, isn’t it?

I have explained at length that I think the language she chose was the thin end of the wedge of language and mindset which sexualises and objectifies young girls and where that leads. You do not agree. Fair enough but there is no point in demanding I repeat myself.

I mentioned Rod Liddell earlier in relation to a joke he made about and against himself why he couldn't be a teacher. Imagine the outrage if someone like him had used her language to describe 13 year old girls.

This is veering off-topic a bit, but the parts in the book that I found problematic on first reading were the parts about class.

Thinking about it now, the common thread is that Clanchy as a writer is prepared to be searingly honest about her own shortcomings and uncomfortable attitudes (in the memoir, anyway) in a way that is quite brave and exposing.

For example, she was very anxious about sending her middle-class classical music loving sensitive son to the pretty deprived comprehensive she teaches in. She did send him there in the end, and she concludes that he flourished and that his presence and his violin enriched the school. I found myself quite exasperated first by her snobbishness, and then by her Lady Bountiful style self-congratulation.

But I also acknowledge that none of what she was describing was unusual or uniquely unpleasant - these are the concerns and vanities of many middle class parents, and she was articulating them, and - because she's far from stupid - did so knowing that it would reflect badly on her.

I am quite impressed by this, to be honest. If I wrote a teaching memoir I know I wouldn't be able to resist painting myself as Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds because I'm a bit vain and egotistical, and I care how people perceive me. I would be very reluctant to lay bare the small, mean parts of myself.

Anyway - apologies for the derail. As you were!

But since then she’s been pretty viciously mauled. I do have sympathy for that. There’s often no way back for people when they’re so publicly shamed. I don’t mean her career is finished (although I don’t believe it’s unimpacted, time will tell.) I mean her personal reputation. Nobody is all good or bad and she’s discussed as though she’s evil rather than a woman who made a couple of bad decisions after also making a lot of good ones. One of the reasons I do sympathise with her is that she was apparently (by her words) dropped by previous professional acquaintances. I think people know how entire these takedowns can be and back off to avoid being tainted themselves. That must hurt.

God yes, as I've said several times, I don't support the bullying and nastiness, though I saw it on both sides not just one.

My point is that the argument that the descriptions I and others find prurient/shocking/etc, are all part of some sophisticated self-own and are only there to expose her own prejudices etc etc, doesn't make sense. Because if it did, that is what she would have said in reaction to the review - if anything.

Something like "I didn't mean it like that at all, I used these descriptions to highlight my own prejudices but I can see some readers don't see it that way" or similar. If she'd done it deliberately as an artistic or political statement, she would have known that's what she was doing. There would have been no need to deny particular phrases etc because she would have acknowledged she did use them deliberately as a device.

Again, I'm not saying all this to tear her apart or call her a bad person or say she should be "cancelled". I'm just debating with people who are using that as an explanation for her descriptions, because I can't see how it makes sense.

I said one option was not to write it at all (that's not the same as saying it should be cancelled) or write it in a different format. Or simply better.

But this isn't saying anything. It's just bizarre. She's written the book - she can't not have written it or written something else.

It's a badly written, cliché ridden, self- serving, ego- flattering piece of twaddle.

‘It's a badly written, cliché ridden, self- serving, ego- flattering piece of twaddle.’

So?

Sigh, I would have assumed it was obvious those are theoretical / rhetorical suggestions. .

Not sure what your point is. You said
"And another option is for her to write what she likes, and you say you don’t like it if you don’t. That’s easier, isn’t it?"

I've said I don't like and why.

‘I've said I don't like and why.’

Ah I see. Right, then that’s the solution. Sorted.

Yes ! That's it exactly. That is exactly why the title is such a collosal fail. There's nothing in the book (which I have read ) which suggests she is taking her prejudices on board.

Either you accept that, or you modify what you say to try to convince us otherwise.

If you genuinely believe using sexualised language to describe underage girls' breasts, legs, and their bodies in general is totally fine and not prurient, then that is your right to an opinion.

But you do have to accept that the people who think it is prurient also have a right to that opinion, and that we don't have any obligation to "convince you" that our opinion is the correct one, nor is it acceptable to accuse us (as another poster did) of "seeing something that isn't there."

Accusing someone of "seeing something that isn't there" simply because they have a different opinion is pretty damn gaslighting.

I really don't understand why KC's defenders have such a big problem with people having different opinions from them.

It's a badly written, cliché ridden, self- serving, ego- flattering piece of twaddle.

There must have been some things you weren't keen on apart from that though? 😁

Again- what is your point? I responded to your specific post.

Well. It's complicated.

I teach on occassion. It's not my profession. My inclination would be never, ever to discuss my students in any way. My 'teacher' persona is unfailingly kind and supportive to and about students. I try to keep a bit of distance.

I don't think I offer, or take, that much of myself or my students. I keep it as a compartmentalised part of my life.

I have the sense that Clanchy has put far, far more time, effort and care into her teaching - for her it seems to be deeply important and meaningful. She has cared enough to write a whole book examining the dynamics of student/teacher relationships, power dynamics, subconscious subtle interplays of class, sex, culture etc. She examines her own motivations and observes those of her colleagues, students and communities.

I think she's transgressed boundaries perhaps exactly because she cares. I would say dispassionately she shouldn't be so involved. But without people who get overinvolved, maybe you get what I offer - mild, uncommitted, pleasant diversion. I doubt my classes change anyone's life. Clanchy's seem to engage and also deeply address people on a more intimate level.

I think Clanchy is too involved on a personal and a professional level. Maybe that is the lesson: Maintain strong boundaries. There may be less of a leg up, fewer teachers willing to risk their time, health, reputation to help others. Less cross pollination between different classes, races, nationalities. We will all learn to stick to our own lane, say less, keep our thoughts private, hold counsel.

Maybe we will learn that social media has reach and impact beyond what we had ever imagined; maybe we need to learn to redraw our boundaries taking that into account. Talk less, help less, fail less, offend less, interact less, apologise less, criticise less. Be kind.

So be it.

If an opinion is simply repeated, when clearly others in the thread are not convinced, it is not unreasonable to suggest that more evidence might be introduced or another tack, perhaps, tried.

I'm not sure how anyone misread this as me suggesting that another iteration of the same was invited. It was quite the opposite! But exemplifies how easy misreading is...