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've realised what I find disturbing about the "fresh mouth" (aside from the incredible and implausible explanations on here)

It reminded me of the poem Black Marigolds that is quoted at the end of Steinbeck's Cannery Row.

Now that poem has some lovely lines and images (although probably also suffers from Orientalism- I've no idea if the translation is accurate) but it's patently a poem about a lover with lots of sexual connotations and imagery.

Even now
I love long black eyes that caress like silk,
Ever and ever sad and laughing eyes,
Whose lids make such sweet shadow when they close
It seems another beautiful look of hers.
I love a fresh mouth, ah, a scented mouth,
And curving hair, subtle as a smoke,
And light fingers, and laughter of green gems.

There are actually other parts of Clanchy's book which remind me of it.

(rendered into English by
E. Powys Mathers
(from the book Love Songs of Asia, Knopf, 1946)

You seem to have misunderstood the context in which the subjective/objective issue was raised. It was not about personal opinion but the difference between a personal like or dislike vs textual analysis.

I dislike Gerard Manley Hopkins, I can still perform objective critical analysis of his work, and appreciate he is a good poet nonetheless.

"Shades of Kipling" doesn't imply that. It's no different from describing a book as Kafkaesque or Dickensian.

"Shades of Kipling" doesn't imply that.

I would be most interested to hear your explication of what you did mean then. How does the book resemble the works of Kipling, in your mind?

(Or should that be “objectively” instead of “in your mind”? I do beg your pardon!)

You are not making sense.

What do you mean "evidence they were sexualized". They are descriptions in a book, the evidence is in the description.

What, do you want her to include a photo?

Bosomy isn't what I'd call a pornographic word either. Your impressions of words are very strange.

And if that counts as "prurient" I think the pile of books that should be removed from the libraru is going to be quite high.

KC acknowledged her classism. The most vocal of her critics didn't acknowledge their's. Instead they appointed themselves as paternalistic gatekeepers- ignoring the wishes of the pupils and families who said the critics did not represent them.

That pernicious patronising classism is a real risk to literature and publishing. It denies agency to other classes; ignores varied experiences of diaspora and tries to channel all experiences into one view that they deem acceptable.

This entire saga is a perfect storm of everything that is wrong with publishing and social media. It would take everyone involved to take responsibility for their roles in what happened for any growth, learning or diversity to occur. But it's been months and they're still digging down into their trenches. As long as they do, literature and publishing is becoming ever poorer and more and more people are being told their views, experiences, words and stories are no longer acceptable. But their stories still exist. They're just being denied a place at the table. And now that exclusion is pretending to be inclusion.

White middle class people have had 300 years of having their stories at the forefront. It's time to make space for other voices

I can't believe so many people are still tying themselves in knots to defend Clanchy.

‘White middle class people have had 300 years of having their stories at the forefront. It's time to make space for other voices.’

So the vitriol against KC is because of her race and class? That’s not kind, is it?

I would be most interested to hear your explication of what you did mean then. How does the book resemble the works of Kipling, in your mind?

I would also like to know this.
ThelassWiADelicateair any thoughts?

Wasn't my description- suggest you ask the poster who used it

Oh, I see. You’re a different person and apparently you have no idea what they meant, but you still felt the need to explain to me that I had misinterpreted their comment.

Well, that makes perfect sense. 🙄

I thought shades of Kipling had something to do with almond paste.

But maybe that's Proustian.

I suggested you address your comment to the person who used it originally. "Wrong - thinker" , which I think you used is such a hackneyed phrase.

I took "shades of Kipling" to mean describing people in language which now seems dated and patronising. Language which , whilst not intended to be unkind, indeed often the opposite, still has the effect of making a clear distinction between the person doing the describing and the persons being described- to the advantage of the person doing the describing. The "those ,funny little chaps, splendid in their way, but not one of us" syndrome.

Clanchy uses Orientalism and exoticism- e.g the contrast between the exotic multi cultural pupils she had in London and the dreary, indistinguishable, mousey pupils in Scotland. There's a double helping the of "not one of us" syndrome.

Perhaps you could try reading Kipling?

I have- he's not by any means a bad writer, but to deny there is a definite tone or style to Kipling's work seems, oh, I don't know - disingenuous? Or perhaps you are genuinely unfamiliar with his work.

‘Clanchy uses Orientalism and exoticism- e.g the contrast between the exotic multi cultural pupils she had in London and the dreary, indistinguishable, mousey pupils in Scotland.’

This is hyperbolic. People have differences, and those differences influence our interactions.

I was taking the piss, Lass. Joke about cake.

Never mind.

Mr Kipling - battenberg - almondy cakes - madeleines - Proust.

Yes, it was a bit laboured. Maybe it will improve with coffee.

In your opinion. I didn't get any sense of the comparison being used as hyperbole. I don't think she's a good enough writer to use that device effectively.

Perhaps her muse Prince Philip was just using hyperbole when he said he found it difficult to distinguish one Chinese person from another.

Oh dear - don't jokes have to be funny ? Can a not funny comment identify as a joke?

I was the one who said it.

Specifically - Kipling takes up the “white man’s burden” to manage:

“Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.”

Which feels rather what KC thinks she’s doing - educating, civilising, and championing her exotic, moustachioed, big breasted, fresh-mouthed, Ashkenazi-nosed flock.

They both indulge centuries-old notions about racial and cultural differences.

Exactly.

I got it, Bragg :)

I think Achilles was saying you were being hyperbolic.

KC is a good enough writer to have made a career of it, won prestigious prizes etc. Accusing her of being a bad writer makes you sound petty and jealous.

And trying to smear KC as racist via association with Prince Philip makes you sound desperate.