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

I wholly refute the accusations Jemima is making towards me

I wholly refute the accusations that Innocenta is making towards me.

Innocenta has been asked at least four times to cease making personal attacks on other posters yet refuses to do so.

Hi @Innocenta and @JemimaPuddlegoose

Please could you stop engaging with each other on this thread now? It really is derailing it. Thanks.

I was recently reading about the idea of 'safe spaces' as originally intended. I wish I could remember where it was ...

It wasn't a space where no bad thoughts or views could be expressed, but a space where people were free to make mistakes, to very clumsily summarise the theory (I'd welcome a better short description if anyone has it!).

To bring our own imperfect and flawed human selves to meet other imperfect, flawed selves, and attempt to converse without judgement or censure. The idea being mutual aid and reciprocal assumption of good faith.

It actually sounded like a great idea.

That's how I used to understand 'safe spaces' too Hagiography. I used to tell students my classroom was a safe space, meaning a space where they could make mistakes, say what they thought, be wrong, experiment with ideas, try out theories, and so on.

Now I have to tell them the classroom is not a safe space, precisely because I want them to do all those things!

It really is important to let people talk things out without turning disagreements into moral issues and outrages.

‘It wasn't a space where no bad thoughts or views could be expressed, but a space where people were free to make mistakes, to very clumsily summarise the theory (I'd welcome a better short description if anyone has it!).’

It’s a therapeutic term that I think means a space with clear boundaries where difficult things can be discussed with consent, What’s happened to it is similar to what’s happened to ‘sitting with discomfort’. The idea isn’t meant to be that someone causes you discomfort and you have to sit with it (being ‘held accountable’ as a form of ritual punishment). It’s meant to be that one way of dealing with problems is to learn not to bury/repress/medicate them away, and learn to co-exist with the discomfort they cause you.

But like ‘safe space’ that idea has been twisted, purposefully, to justify terrible behaviour towards other people.

Well , that works both ways doesn't it?

I came to post my opinion, that’s not an engagement to argue the toss with everyone who wants a fight. I’m certainly not going to get into long explanations of racism who haven’t taken the time to understand it for themselves.

I explained I thought the book had a colonial tone: it uses stereotyped, objectivising and othering language. Do I need to quote “Somali height”, “Cypriot bosoms”, “Mongolian ferocity” “Ashkenazi nose” etc to make that clear?

There’s a difference between like/dislike which is a subjective emotional response, and objective critical analysis of the text.

Presumably you read the article on which this thread is based? That sets out the problems with this book in admirable detail. I uphold the challenges to and criticism of the book made in the article, I thought the same myself when I tried to read it. Is that clear enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

Well you still haven't managed to answer my question, but no worries.

Just seconding this. The demands for "evidence" are very odd and ignore the failure to convincingly argue the other point of view.

There’s a difference between like/dislike which is a subjective emotional response, and objective critical analysis of the text.

There's no such thing as an 'objective critical analysis' of a memoir. Sorry. There could be a critical analysis, but you haven't provided one of those either. You've given your opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, but it is just your opinion.

I'm politically right of centre. I'm a Times/Spectator/Spiked reader. I didn't read this book when it came out. I came to it after the fuss blew up. I bought it expecting to be on KC's side and that the criticism was unfair.

I'm not. As well as the points you highlight I particularly liked the passage about being unable to tell the dreary, mouse like Scottish children apart compared to the wonderful, vibrant and diverse pupils in the London school. Racism, Orientalism and classism combined in one paragraph.

‘There’s a difference between like/dislike which is a subjective emotional response, and objective critical analysis of the text.’

What is it?

This is really interesting when it’s put like this! Most of the time these days I feel like I need to be very careful what I say and can’t tell people I would have previously been quite aligned with (as far as I know) what I really think in case I’m deemed a bad person. It’s quite lonely.

Technically you can perform ‘critical analysis’ on any text.

But just so we’re clear, I did not come analyse to this book. I came to give my view which was that the book was justly criticised, so the premise of the OP was not valid in this case. I am under no obligation to explain or provide evidence to support my opinion.

Yes, but the point beastly was making was that there's no such thing as an 'objective critical analysis' - as evidenced here quite simply by the fact that several people disagree with your opinion.

That people disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s not objective.

Right. Do you understand what 'objective' means, Iris?

It was tone deaf on all fronts with shades of Kipling. It’s interesting that no-one at the publishing house or adjudicating the Orwell prize picked up on this.

Apparently better than you. You seem to have confused objective with unilateral.

Nope. You are offering your view, as you said. Your view is subjective.

So... the opinions of the people who want the book cancelled are objective. And everyone else's views are subjective? Okaaaay

Most of the time these days I feel like I need to be very careful what I say and can’t tell people I would have previously been quite aligned with (as far as I know) what I really think in case I’m deemed a bad person. It’s quite lonely.

I know. I'm so grateful for the people I know I can trust to talk honestly about things, but they are few and far betweens. I've lost friends, been subject to a cancellation attempt, and I worry about how much worse things could be. I hate having to tiptoe around. It's not really in my nature to be like that. But especially in teaching, I have to be so careful.

shades of Kipling

lol. well, obviously. They are both wrongthinkers. And colonialists. That's some top class objective analysis we're getting the benefit of here.