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

Great. We can move on from that then.

We will have to disagree on your first point.

And as to your second point, that’s what some posters have tried to make the thread about. However, discussion of different aspects of the case have run concurrently.

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

well, I don’t want to get into the relentless stupidity myself and many people have already said your posts are repetitive and lack insight. Not because they’re about race.

I just think it’s a damn shame. The thread had the potential to be interesting.

and EVERYONE understood the Kipling allusion, ffs. It’s the kind of free-associative mental rhyming that substitutes for analysis among some posters round here.

While I’m at it, I’m going to list other common characteristics of these posters: in a minority of two, dominate the threads they take up residence in, petulant, repetitive, extremely stubborn, appear not to understand the arguments on the thread and project that on to the people they’re arguing. It’s a type, or something.

‘And as to your second point, that’s what some posters have tried to make the thread about. However, discussion of different aspects of the case have run concurrently.’

Then as to your actual point, we agree. It was unwise.

That’s not my argument if you read my posts. I don’t think it should have been published in the form it was - but I haven’t said it shouldn’t be published full stop.

How did you get from “x..is racist” to wanting “unilateral power to say everything is racist”?

‘How did you get from “x..is racist” to wanting “unilateral power to say everything is racist”?’

Because it’s the same thing. Unilateral power means nobody can argue with you, which appears to be your position. That means you can say (and enforce) whatever you want.

If that isn’t your position, the only other position is that I can express an opinion (although obviously you don’t have to like it).

I just think it’s a damn shame. The thread had the potential to be interesting.

I think there have been some interesting posts on the thread, and times when we've been able to discuss things enough to open up some interesting elements.

However, every time it started to get interesting, the same few people would turn up to make the same points over and over again and start throwing around the same accusations and insults.

But they've done me a favour. I kept engaging, thinking there was a legitimate disagreement or misunderstanding, and that we could talk it out. But their comments were so weird, obtuse and dishonest that I eventually realised that wasn't the point. They're just trying to start a purity spiral or force a cancellation.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens when this type realises that the accusations and manipulations that always worked before are no longer working and that most people do not accept the new racism and new authoritarianism these people are pushing. I'm sure we'll see a lot more of the kind of outbursts and meltdowns we've seen on this thread, but presumably new tactics will soon emerge.

@TastefulRainbowUnicorn

I’m not the one who lacks insight. Many posters on this thread simply cannot get their head around the issues that this case throws up. I’ve had to explain the same things repeatedly because some posters basically don’t get it.

I understand the arguments from the other side perfectly, they’re just rather weak.

and EVERYONE understood the Kipling allusion, ffs. It’s the kind of free-associative mental rhyming that substitutes for analysis among some posters round here.

Ok, explain it.

and EVERYONE understood the Kipling allusion, ffs. It’s the kind of free-associative mental rhyming that substitutes for analysis among some posters round here

Well at least one poster demanded an explanation.

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

As Iris says, the publisher should have spotted this; the Orwell prize judges should have spotted this.

I've lost track of what redeeming significance the fact it was a "memoir" is supposed to have. A memoir, unlike a novel, is of the course the author speaking their own thoughts in their own voice. It all comes back to Clanchy demonstrating that whatever she supposedly learnt from these pupils she thought there was nothing wrong about using such language.

How do you feel about Kate Clanchy's article on Tuesday? She wrote about Monisha Rajesh's language in her book, round India in 80 Trains. She pointed out that Monisha actually makes dwarf jokes and really nasty remarks about Hijra. I've got a copy of 80 Trains and I got it down to check - it's true, she really does . So maybe her criticism of Kate Clanchy is a bit OTT. ?
🤔unherd.com/thepost/in-defence-of-my-critic-monisha-rajesh/

Well at least one poster demanded an explanation.

that was me, and I was asking purely for entertainment value.

So defining one thing as racist is the same as unilateral power to define everything as racist. Ok.

Can you point to my posts where I have said ‘nobody can argue with [me]’ or that you can’t express an opinion?

That’s very similar to what KC did, actually. It’s an honest presentation of the way some people respond to difference. It’s not kind, just truthful.

‘So defining one thing as racist is the same as unilateral power to define everything as racist. Ok.

Can you point to my posts where I have said ‘nobody can argue with [me]’ or that you can’t express an opinion?’

No, I can’t be bothered. Let’s do this: are you content that I am entitled to my opinion on what constitutes racism?

I don't think Clanchy's article is in good faith btw. She's having a bitch, isn't she? But honestly, this is just above the dwarf joke in Monisha' s book and all the things she goes on about Clanchy for are right there. The dark-skinned women who are terrifying and the fat women who are like puddings and animals?
I'm actually mixed race and on the larger side and this is not a fun read.

MissMurray

Because it’s memoir, and it’s honest. I’m also on the large side. I’m not offended (although it’s not nice), and yes, it’s exactly what she has - almost obsessively - condemned KC for doing. No difference at all.

Sure, but you may get feedback that it’s not a very informed opinion.

The dark-skinned women who are terrifying and the fat women who are like puddings and animals?

Wow. That actually strikes me as rather nastier than any of the descriptions in Clanchy’s book. Though I’m not sure why. Maybe because it’s not ameliorated by pure talent to the same extent?

Maybe because it’s unlikely that “Purple Pudding” is subsequently made three-dimensional by an insight into her poetry which shows up the initial judgment as shallow.

Anyway, it’s mean, and I understand why it got to you!

This was discussed earlier in the thread. Yes, Rajesh is a massive hypocrite.

As far as I'm concerned, however, both writers have the right to describe people/characters however they like, and neither should be bullied, cancelled, or censored for it. Readers are, of course, free to criticise both or either book.

And do you know what is weirdest? (sorry guys just reeling back through the book now) The Monisha watching the buffalo and the terrifying dark skinned person thinks she's white.
I wonder what happened to Monisha Rajesh? She isn't the same person now.
Oh and teeth - And I literally just opened the book and its all here.
Are we saying we should censor this too?

Colonialism and racism are entertaining are they?

IKR! That's what struck me.

Purple Pudding just disappears. She's scenery. I haven't read Kate Clanchy's book, just the extracts everyone posts. But you know I might have a go now.

2 posts if I recall, demanding an explanation. One, if I recall berating me for not replying in detail.

You must be very short of entertainment. Still, nice to know you aren't posting in good faith. Please don't demand any further responses. I'm not hear to entertain you.

Yeah, I've ordered KC's book, too. I get the feeling it's rather better than Rajesh's, if only because of her self-reflection and honesty.