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

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

As with so many things, depends at least half on the response of the audience.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it, regardless of whether you really understand why, many many people found her writing to be racist. She’s quite rude about others too - autistic students, white working class Scottish students etc so it’s not merely about race. But the idea that identifying racist attitudes is a ‘smear’ is problematic.

Nor is it really a question of whether she’s a good or bad writer: it’s about tone, nuance, it’s about attitude and judgment, it’s about respect, empathy, duty of care to her students, all her students not simply people of colour. Do failures in these areas reflect on her abilities and a writers, I think so, but at the same time all writers can make mistakes, have lapses in judgment and limitations of perspective.

Kipling is a case in point: he is both a good and a bad writer depending on his mood and audience.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it, regardless of whether you really understand why, many many people found her writing to be racist. She’s quite rude about others too - autistic students, white working class Scottish students etc so it’s not merely about race. But the idea that identifying racist attitudes is a ‘smear’ is problematic.

I do acknowledge and understand why some people find her writing to be racist and problematic in many ways. I also acknowledge (and am personally rather more convinced by) those who find her writing to be nuanced and honest. My argument on this thread, however, has been that none of these opinions should have any bearing on how books should be written and published. She can write what she wants and I don't support censorship or cancellation for someone's literary writing.

The 'smear' I mention was the comment about how Prince Philip is her muse.

Nor is it really a question of whether she’s a good or bad writer

I agree: that's my point. Censorship and cancellation are wrong and have a terrible effect on the arts and culture more generally, and a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

This thread reminds me of the adage that when you only have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Every time anyone tries to have a discussion about the implications and consequences of the KC situation, about four posters proceed to fill the thread by simply repeating their opinion about KC ad nauseum. They refuse to engage with the wider and more important implications of the debate ie what is currently happening in publishing and on social media.

They don't reflect on the implications for free speech , on access for marginalised groups and on how self-appointed middle-class gatekeepers are launching attacks across all genres often from a position of privilege that is motivated by their own political agenda and that has no connection to literary or representative worth. There is a concerted effort to put readers and authors in opposition to each other- whilst completely failing to acknowledge how the reader plays a role in the creative process, etc.

What is happening in publishing and social media atm is even more insidious than book burning - and there have been literal book burnings too when social media mobs decide to gatekeep rather than acknowledge plurality of opinions, experiences and language. There's attempt to limit publishing, literature and storytelling to certain proscribed ideas and voices. Every single time it comes from a place of ignorance (eg the most vocal critics are unaware of the editing process; are not part of the group they're 'taking offence' on behalf of; are so ignorant of culture and history that they critique based on thinking a book is about A when it's actually about Y, etc) it uses DARVO techniques to shape the 'debate' and the majority of the time it is directed at female authors or majority female panels or authors writing about female experiences. And, of course, that old favourite MRA technique of gaslighting will then be wheeled out to say none of this is happening at all, despite the ample written evidence in tweets and articles.

100%, GoldenSongbird.

‘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.’

This is more hyperbole. Prince Philip would be 100 years old. He grew up in a colonialist system. He was a member of that system’s ruling class. That he made racist comments (particularly in his youth) is no reflection on Clanchy, who didn’t say she found it difficult to distinguish her students from one another (although it isn’t ‘racist’ to struggle with identifying pupils - it’s common).

Thank you, GoldenSongbird. Great comment.

What is happening in publishing and social media atm is even more insidious than book burning

Agreed. I think we have to take a strong stand on the principle that freedom of expression is a vital right we cannot afford to lose.

Thanks @GoldenSongbird

There's attempt to limit publishing, literature and storytelling to certain proscribed ideas and voices.

And women are the main enforcers and victims.

I'm not sure if women are the main enforcers. Yy I see certain women choosing to leap into the position of public gatekeeper or being pushed to the front but from what I know, from behind the scenes, there are many white, middle-class males who are manipulating the debate, stoking the flames and amplifying certain voices even when they know those voices are mistaken.

But I do agree that women and their experiences, language, structures and forms are the main targets.

@GoldenSongbird I think I love you. Great analysis of the situation - and much of this thread.

I think women are more likely to be the enforcers. It's a very female-oriented type of bullying and competition, using claims of victimhood as a way to assert status and exclude others, and also to avoid accountability. You can see it on this thread, even! But apart from that, women are highly represented in publishing, publicity, marketing, HR and the other professional areas where these situations are playing out.

However, I don't say it's all women or that there aren't men who do the same things. But I don't think there's a group of males pulling the strings behind the screen.

@beastlyslumber

My argument on this thread, however, has been that none of these opinions should have any bearing on how books should be written and published

And that’s fine you’re entitled to your view, but other people have a different one - people of colour who don’t want to be patronised and othered in print; and everyone who doesn’t want subtle sneering colonialism to be an accepted part of the cultural wallpaper and win major prizes. What about their freedoms?

What about their freedoms?

They're free to express their opinions, and to read and write whatever books they like. Same as everyone else. What I'm against is censorship and cancellation - and I'd defend any writer against that.

Also, it's kind of racist to lump people of colour together as if they all have the same opinion.

‘What about their freedoms?’

I think this is where a lot of the conflict arises. There’s no legitimate ‘freedom’ to prevent other people doing anything that bothers you. That’s called being part of an elite.

@everythingcrossed thank you! I'm blushing. (that female social conditioning kicking in). 😄

@beastlyslumber I didn't mean to imply men were pulling everyone's strings. As I pointed out there are female authors choosing to be very public gatekeepers but it's also more complicated than that. Although publishing is a primarily female industry, senior positions are disproportionately filled by males. Spokespersons are likely to be female but promoted decision-making posts are skewed to male.

I disagree that bullying and weaponising victimhood are female-oriented tactics. They are the modus operandi of TRAs.

Although publishing is a primarily female industry, senior positions are disproportionately filled by males.

A study in 2016 reported that 78% of publishing jobs were held by women, with 60% female representation at board and executive level. So, yes, males are disproportionately filling those positions compared to their representation across the industry as a whole, but they're still a minority. Those numbers may have changed in six years, of course.

I disagree that bullying and weaponising victimhood are female-oriented tactics. They are the modus operandi of TRAs.

You may be right that they aren't specifically female-oriented tactics - I don't know enough to say that definitively, tbh. However, I would note that many TRAs are female. Certainly many of the high-profile ones, the ones on twitter and in academia, publishing, corporations etc. Most of the balaclava-wearing thugs appear to be male - which would fit with a hypothesis that male forms of bullying are more physical, and female forms more psychological. Which would also make sense from a biological point of view. However! That is speculation on my part - I do not have any data on that.

@GoldenSongbird

Perhaps they feel they feel strongly and want to share their perspective.

They refuse to engage with the wider and more important implications of the debate ie what is currently happening in publishing and on social media.

What about the wider and more important implications of debate around racism? That’s been completely ignored by posters seeking to reframe criticism of racism as ‘personal taste’.

KC hasn’t been shut down and her books burnt, she’s just been criticised that’s all. Surely that’s part of freedom of expression and open debate? Why can’t the people she has patronised have a right to reply? You can defend the right to publish offensive stuff, but surely by the same token you must defend the right of the offended parties to say so?

Every single time it comes from a place of ignorance (eg the most vocal critics are unaware of the editing process; are not part of the group they're 'taking offence' on behalf of; are so ignorant of culture and history that they critique based on thinking a book is about A when it's actually about Y, etc

Does it? I don’t think any of the people I’ve read criticising KC have been ignorant, quite the opposite. The most nuanced criticism has very much come from the groups most affected. So this isn’t even accurate.

If anything this thread feels like a bunch of posters trying to shut down discussion of racism. I wonder what the agenda is here?

There’s no legitimate ‘freedom’ to prevent other people doing anything that bothers you. That’s called being part of an elite.

Exactly. But some people believe that they are entitled to belong to an elite that can decide and control what everyone else does. Some of them even claim it's in our best interests, since we are too ignorant or stupid to understand what is correct.

‘If anything this thread feels like a bunch of posters trying to shut down discussion of racism. I wonder what the agenda is here?’

Where are the efforts to shut down discussion?

‘But some people believe that they are entitled to belong to an elite that can decide and control what everyone else does.’

Indeed. Ask the question of who gets to decide who is in the cultural elite, and why some people should have more say in that than others, get tumbleweed.

But they’re not free to go about a society when they’re not routinely patronised and stereotyped in print (or on screen) apparently.

Censorship is a big subject - would you be arguing to the toss to this extent over holocaust denial, incitement to terrorism, extreme porn I wonder.

‘But they’re not free to go about a society when they’re not routinely patronised and stereotyped in print (or on screen) apparently.’

Nobody is. That would amount to being in charge of everyone else’s artistic expression. Surely you can see how that isn’t freedom, it’s power?

‘would you be arguing to the toss to this extent over holocaust denial, incitement to terrorism, extreme porn I wonder.’

No, but those examples are available to you precisely because they are extreme. They don’t justify censoring anything you feel you don’t like.