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

There's nothing in the book (which I have read ) which suggests she is taking her prejudices on board.

@TheLassWiADelicateAir says the above. But the excerpt Biscuit posted shows exactly this, it is overtly concerned with examining prejudice.

Some people are asking why KC didn't simply try to redeem her good character by explaining she was just being clever with words and using literary techniques. I would have thought that as a poet, she's not used to having to tell adults how to read a text. But she did write the below piece about her experience with sensitivity readers, where you can see the tension between the way she works, and the obtuse literal-mindedness of some critics: unherd.com/2022/02/how-sensitivity-readers-corrupted-literature/

TheLassWiADelicateAir · Today 16:01
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.

I do think that you're wrong about this.

I've opened the book at the end of a random section. It is explicitly talking about how she reflects on her inactions with pupils, and what she has learned from it, what she would do differently in future. That is the whole premise of the book, and she does this in every section.

Perhaps it is that you don't think she's sincere or convincing in doing this. But she absolutely does do it.

I didn’t say I. didn’t like it, I’m criticised the flaws in its tone and wording.

Like/dislike is separate issue.

@IrisVersicolor Your phrasing was "I saw it as" followed by your subjective negative impressions.

That means you didn't like it. There is no objective Colonialism Test.

Yes I hear what you’re saying, and agree!

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.

Well no. Whether something is "prurient" or not is purely a matter of opinion.

Either someone is of the opinion that sexualising young girls is prurient, or they are of the opinion that sexualising young girls is not prurient.

There is no such thing as "evidence" to support one's own personal and entirely subjective opinion as to what constitutes "prurient."

It's very, very worrying that anyone who criticises KC is being told they have to provide "evidence" to support having a subjective opinion!

It's also extremely hypocritical, seeing as how you haven't provided a jot of "evidence" to support your repeated opinion that it's not prurient. Clearly others are not convinced by your opinion and that you simply repeating your opinion is not convincing anyone!

I enjoyed that article, thanks broadbeans.

Writing, they imply, should represent the world as it ought to be, not as it is.

I think that's exactly what's being argued for on the pro-cancel side. It's a bad book because it represents the world as it is, or as KC is, and not how they would wish it to be. Their ongoing project is to remake the world through controlling and remaking language.

And this: But Some Kids isn’t a novel, nor written for children. Adults are able to put books down if they upset them, so their books may safely contain difficult ideas. I don’t, for example, agree with my Readers that the references to looks, attraction and sexuality in my book should be removed in case readers are hurt by a metaphor as a child might plausibly be.

I also think when there’s repeated bleating on twitter about how she hasn’t been cancelled because of etc etc, I can’t help but think ‘but not for lack of trying, eh?’

The very fact that KC's pupils are being described by some in this thread as "underage" girls is unsettling to me.

That's a sick thing to say.

Pointing out that girls are minors, within the context of them being sexualised, is not only normal but essential.

There have been numerous threads here about the sexualisation of minors and about grooming, and every single one has used "minors" or "underage." Because when someone (especially when it's someone female) is underage, they are vulnerable, and cannot give consent to being sexualised.

The reason I mention the fact that the girls are underage is because I am a survivor of child sexual abuse, grooming, and attempted child sex trafficking, and because for the past ten years I've volunteered for a charity that fights child grooming.

It's very very very alarming that you're calling child rape survivors "unsettling" and trying to insinuate God knows what unsavoury things about me for caring about vulnerable children.

Very very strange.

I didn’t say I. didn’t like it, I’m criticised the flaws in its tone and wording.

Okay. So why should your opinion of its flaws mean the book should be cancelled?

You don’t ask me why I didn’t like the book. You asked me why I thought it was right to be “cancelled”. (Although of course it wasn’t literally - it was challenged and criticised.)

I’d pretty lazy to have read the book, the article and the thread and still not get it. Why is that my problem? I’m working.

Meanwhile, the author who called her KKKlanchy is now blaming her hair loss on her ‘stunt’ and is receiving public commiserations by the Society of Authors Chair. She spells her name as Klanchy in the tweet also, so guess is continuing there. I suppose having what you wrote publicly called out is stressful on a personal level.

Jemima, of course nobody has to provide evidence if they don't want to. All I was saying was that a comment to the effect that "it is prurient", with no new argument, will do nothing and convince no one. I'm not sure how this can possibly be controversial! At this point we all know who thinks it was prurient and who doesn't.

If my comments consisted of "it wasn't / isn't prurient", then yes, the exact same query could be applied to them. I suggested to the Lass that if she had any interest in changing anyone's mind, she might try a new argument or some such. Really, this is a bit of a derail...

Like I say, it wasn’t literally cancelled. It was challenged and criticised. That was correct.

Imo it shouldn’t have been published in the form it was. Clanchy’s editor should have highlighted the problems and recommended a re-write.

@IrisVersicolor You joined the thread and expressed your strong, polarising opinion, without anything to back it up. So I asked you to explain it. If you're working, why jump into the discussion?

It feels like you just don't want to support your view.

But @IrisVersicolor you said you thought it should have been cancelled. And I've asked you (a few times now) why you think so. Why do you think it should have been cancelled?

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

I made my point. You don’t like the book. You are free to say that. Nothing else needs ‘solving’.

of course nobody has to provide evidence if they don't want to.

Good because so far no one has provided a single jot of evidence to support their opinion that sexualising young girls is not prurient.

Really, this is a bit of a derail...

You just wrote a massive paragraph implying that a child rape survivor is paedophile for using the word "underage" to refer to young girls...

I wholly refute the accusations Jemima is making towards me, but am choosing not to engage with her in the thread over these issues as I feel it would be emotionally unsafe for us both.

I do think all involved would probably do well to step away from social media for a while.

You joined the thread and expressed your strong, polarising opinion, without anything to back it up.

You haven't backed up your very strong, polaring opinions either - merely made goady personal attacks on people who's opinions you dislike.

It feels like you just don't want to support your view.

Same to you!

Yes. I thought about commenting, but agree it's best to just not engage with this.