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

Ok , and your excuse for Clanchy's pointless and cruel comment about her pupil's moustache is ?

‘Ok , and your excuse for Clanchy's pointless and cruel comment about her pupil's moustache is ?’

I make no particular excuse for it. It’s not nice but memoir is observation, it’s not meant to be nice. The pupil is unidentifiable and grown up by now.

That's a good point achilles, and really haven't most of us been patronised by teachers at some point in our school careers? I can remember aged 9, a teacher being very patronising to me about my hand me down clothes and I remember being aware that she thought i was from a poor family.

But as a reader I won't be reading these over censored, anodyne books that have passed the test of sensitivity readers or the views of those who shout loudest on social media.

@achillestoes

I understand exactly what she means, I’m baffled to why you find it so hard.

Does she really need spell out how racism manifests - the othering and being made to feel like an outsider because of difference? Does that really need explaining?

The eyebrows and tache are references to KC’s comments on her students not on Monisha’s personal concerns.

Are teachers not meant to be nice, do they not have a duty of care to their students? Should they not have humanity and empathy and not refer to students or ex students in dehumanised language?

The descriptions may be identifiable to the individuals themselves.

It goes like this:

-It's important for writers to be able to talk about their thoughts/ideas, even if we don't like them.
-She said things I think a teacher shouldn't say.
-What's the effect on social discourse if we are creating a publishing industry where authors know that if they take risks, they will not get published or may be publicly accused of bigotry.
-She said a girl had a mustache and that is mean!
-So many important books were considered offensive by some. How are we going to keep books like that from being sidelined in this kind of environment?
-You are a racist.

People can keep saying it but it's bloody boring and it stops a more interesting discussion from taking place.

None of those writers are criticized mainly for their characters. What you think about what she wrote is beside the point.

Why would those authors be criticised for their characters? ( to be honest, I don't know you if you are referring to fictional characters created by them or their actual character , as in personality)

As I have already stated, the comparison with those writers is irrelevant. They are writing fiction. Their personal attributes are irrelevant and their fictional characters can be as unpleasant as they want them to be.

Clanchy was not writing fiction. She was writing a memoir of her interactions with real pupils. She was not inventing characters - can you really not see the difference? Well clearly you can't. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. Do you not understand the difference between fact and fiction?

Her book is memoir based on the faux modest principles of her being this wonderful teacher who had learned so much from them- she clearly hadn't.

Are teachers not meant to be nice, do they not have a duty of care to their students? Should they not have humanity and empathy and not refer to students or ex students in dehumanised language?

Supposing that’s true, do you think it’s the job of the publishing industry to enforce standards of conduct on teachers?

or do you also think writers are meant to be nice?

or… what’s your argument supposed to be? You don’t like it, that much is very clear. That’s lovely. No one says you have to like it. Perhaps you could consider your point made? It could be a full time job responding to threads on forums complaining that people aren’t nice and they really should be nice. You don’t have to stick to this one.

Her book is memoir based on the faux modest principles of her being this wonderful teacher who had learned so much from them- she clearly hadn't

Speaking of not learning from situations. Did you really think that was worth repeating again?

Do you not understand the difference between fact and fiction

You obviously don’t. Memoirs have elements of both.

And composite characters are NOT real people, so what are you even blethering about?

It’s so annoying. There have been some interesting comments on this thread and I’d have loved to see more of them but instead people are writing “shades of Kipling” and complaining about books not being “nice.” I don’t feel unambiguously positive about Clanchy’s rather brutal use of language myself, but her teaching methods obviously work, which is fascinating.

I regret all the insights we never got that could have been in this thread, about writing and teaching and poetry and adolescent psychology, because instead the thread got filled up with all this utterly relentless stupidity, with only a few gems shining through.

*You obviously don’t. Memoirs have elements of both"

And composite characters are NOT real people, so what are you even blethering about?

Oh come off it. Talk about having your cake and eating it. On the one hand Clanchy is supposed to be this wonderful inspirational teacher and on the other the characters aren't real. What nonsense.

Well clearly the initial point sailed over the poster's head, given the " but, other authors don't get criticised..."

The "composite characters aren't real excuse" is feeble. Clanchy's writing about real pupils was racist and classist.

In your opinion.

That is the point, in the end.

This idea that there is one objective view and that needs to be enforced in all writing is seriously problematic in any liberal democracy. No one has to be nice for you. Your world would be missing a lot of books other people value.

‘Does she really need spell out how racism manifests - the othering and being made to feel like an outsider because of difference? Does that really need explaining?’

Nobody needs to explain things if they don’t want to. But if they want me to accept their interpretation of something - that this form of what they call racism is in fact racism - then yes. Otherwise what we end up with is a situation where everyone is vulnerable to nebulous accusations, and with the demand that we all accept these nebulous accusations as fact without evidence.

‘Are teachers not meant to be nice, do they not have a duty of care to their students? Should they not have humanity and empathy and not refer to students or ex students in dehumanised language?’

I think kindness is important. I don’t think she was particularly kind in her descriptions. However because the students are (as people have pointed out countless times) composite figures, not identifiable figures, and as she is no longer teaching them, and as freedom of expression is also important, I don’t see that as a reason to censor her memoir.

As I have said many times the job of the publishing industry is to give their authors good guidance. To identify lazy racial stereotyping and language that is bordering on eugenics and phrenology etc. To advise the author that if they insist on publishing such language they will walk into a shitstorm.

Writers don’t have to be nice, teachers of children should be respectful though.
To extend understanding, compassion and empathy. To see and describe their students as people rather than an assembly of derogatory racial stereotypes and skull-shapes.

They don’t have to of course, they can do what KC does etc but they have to be prepared to take the flak that comes with that.

Like/dislike is irrelevant. My argument has consistently been that the book is racist and ableist and it was unwise to publish it in its current form.

I don’t get the impression many posters understood the reference to Kipling other than @TheLassWiADelicateAir

It’s interesting that you characterise discussion of the problematic racism of this book as “relentless stupidity” and basically want to ignore it.

‘My argument has consistently been that the book is racist and ableist and it was unwise to publish it in its current form.’

That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion. It’s also not the question at issue. The question is whether they should have been allowed to publish something you believe is racist and ableist, but other people don’t.

I don’t think anyone cares whether you accept their interpretations of racism do they? I’d say poc have better things to do than explain racism to people who should know better.

‘I don’t think anyone cares whether you accept their interpretations of racism do they? I’d say poc have better things to do than explain racism to people who should know better.’

If you don’t care, why are you debating it with me? I’m content to disagree.

It’s not really about “allowed” is it. It was allowed, that didn’t work out well. The question is whether it was wise.

As the people who don’t think it was racist are generally white (and a bit clueless about racism from the evidence of this thread) that’s not really the point either.

‘It’s not really about “allowed” is it. It was allowed, that didn’t work out well. The question is whether it was wise.’

No it’s not. I already said I thought it was unwise. This thread has been (mostly) about whether thinking publishing something is unwise gives you the right to stop someone publishing it.

‘As the people who don’t think it was racist are generally white (and a bit clueless about racism from the evidence of this thread) that’s not really the point either.’

Again, no. It is the point. If your argument is ‘X shouldn’t be published because it’s racist’ or ‘X is terrible because it’s racist’, other people’s views on that come into play whether you appreciate that or not. If what you want is the unilateral power to say everything is racist and not be contradicted, you’ll have to suppress free speech first.

I’ve been debating other points with you, not that particular one which I have made clear I’m not interested in.