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

Make sure you get a second hand printed copy of the first edition. The bowdlerised version is bad enough but you need the first edition to see just exactly how tone deaf her writing is.

This is just so childish and tiresome.

Colonialism and racism are entertaining are they?

No, but your analysis and argument construction skills occasionally raised a smile, before the joke wore thin.

For example, I think this question you asked here might have given me a chuckle ten pages ago. But I will stop responding to Lass/Iris now, there’s no value in it.

Are you going to explain the Kipling allusion? Or stick to personal attacks?

Not in good faith and another unwise move on her part.

As to Rajesh, I don’t think it impacts the criticism of KC as she was only one of many. Rajesh’s own bad writing doesn’t neutralise her points about KC’s.

It begs the question again what the publishing industry is up to. Inevitably people will be described as large, small, thin or fat but I can’t imagine ever using “dwarf” in print.

Well it will be interesting to see if its as bad as this! Sorry - having a great time here reading 80 Trains with my 'be nasty' hat on. Monisha Rajesh is so so mean. I mean practically every second page is something about money, and how someone really poor is trying to rip her off. Or feel her up. It seems the whole world fancies her. And wow look what I just found about the Hijra! She's so nasty. They are just really poor people. And isn't she supposed to be protrans these days?

Well I was talking about this with my sixth form class and there's a problem with banning just one word isn't there? I mean the kids were saying if you get rid of one word another one come in? And also there's context. I don't know about KCs text but that dwarf joke is sort of in the context of her learning about India and teaching her friend.
All the same. The suitcase. It's dehumanising, isnt it?

Why doesn't it neutralise her message though? Is it because she's brown? (So I am I btw) Do you mean that some people are allowed to say certain things and other people aren't ? I can see that argument but the thing is in that book Monisha is like a white person looking down on brown people, so why does it matter that she is brown IRL
I don't like reading Monisha's book but I don't think it should be censored, just speaking personally. Because I just don't see how you can ban particular words and ideas. I don't see how it can work. Do you see what I mean ?
I should be doing my marking! What a rabbit hole.

I agree, like I say I wouldn’t use dwarf in print.

But there’s also the angle that derogatory language about students who are minors, whose wellbeing you were in charge of, who trusted you in a position of power, is not quite the same.

If a passerby wrote an unflattering portrait of me I would care much less than if it came from a trusted teacher. The latter might feel like a bit of a betrayal.

There’s many a scabrous political memoir - but they’re all adults and there’s no duty of care there, and there is also the corollary flack - Sasha Swire for example.

Because the message is valid nonetheless and bigger than her own bad writing. She might reflect more on her own writing now that she has seen the problems in KC’s.

If I report a crime and it turns out I have broken the law too, it doesn’t invalidate the original accusation does it?

I don’t see this as about censorship but about better writing.

Isn't it about publishing though? I mean this thread. Sorry if I've misunderstood but I thought you were saying publishers shouldn't publish bad stuff. Well the dwarf joke is pretty bad, so should they publish it? This is literally a debate club thing for me, so I don't know but I think if you do stop publishing like particular words then you do get into censorship and that's not great.🙁
With the KC thing I HAVE NOT READ IT . But I am a teacher (Sociology) and I don't think you can say a teacher can't say negative things about the kids in front of her, I mean like they are poor or look unwell, because you know I see a lot of kids who are poor and they are unwell because of it especially now with cost of living. What I mean is I wouldn't like not to be able to say that in a book if I was writing it, because otherwise I couldn't say how bad it is, do you get me?
BUT obviously if she writing about one particular kid and the kid knows then that's mean. But I don't think that's happened has it? Does anyone know? I thought the kids in the book stuck up for her? Am I wrong? 😀

I don't like reading Monisha's book but I don't think it should be censored, just speaking personally. Because I just don't see how you can ban particular words and ideas. I don't see how it can work. Do you see what I mean ?

Neither Iris nor I have said Clanchy's book should be banned. If Clanchy wants to use racist, sexist, classist (is that actually a word?) patronising and tone deaf language in her memoir- then up to her, but she should expect she will be criticised.

So far as Rajesh, goodness only knows how the dwarf comment got past an editor. It's horrible and Rajesh deserves criticism for it and other passages.

The Hijra comment is not unsympathetic of their plight. I think it also demonstrates what might be the societal view of them.

Rajesh claims that her book was criticised at the time and she has taken that on board (well, to paraphrase, she would, wouldn't she) I haven't read any of her books so can't comment. Travel writing isn't a genre I'm interested in (feels too much like being asked to pay for someone else's holiday)

The difference between the 2 is Rajesh has no personal obligations or relationship with the persons described and had no duty of care. She wasn't setting out her stall of being a good teacher and a good person the way Clanchy was.

The way to amplify excluded voices in publishing is to buy their books and support small presses. It's almost as though the posters telling us not to talk about small presses established by woc - aren't really that interested in diversity in literature or publishing at all.

Members of excluded groups do not share the same views, experiences and access. They are not homogeneous. It's rather absurd to imply that someone who shouts loudly automatically becomes the expert, the spokesperson and the gatekeeper. It suits people who pay lip service to diversity to be able to point to one loud voice as the sign they've engaged with issues and completed the tick box exercise of inclusion. Real inclusion takes more work than that. It involves going beyond social media. It means sometimes ignoring the loudest voices to find the experienced, quiet voice. It means reaching out to bring people to the table, not shutting the doors because one person is already at the table and they can just speak for everyone - even if they're a different race; a different class; settled in a different country.

Shouting loudly on social media does not qualify you for anything - other than shouting loudly on social media. Bullying and organising a mob on social media isn't a signifier of experience, skill or intelligence. The current trend to take outrage from social media as publishing policy has led to ludicrous situations where white men and women are telling indigenous women they can't write about their experiences or telling BAME authors that they need to write differently or do more. Ironically the KC situation was given more publicity because she was white. The woc who lost publishing contracts ; the indigenous women told by white men that they couldn't write about their history because it offended some other white men ... all of them were dropped and silenced without fanfare. I'm always going to think that is the important story in publishing atm. The many, many female voices being silenced and dropped because of Twitter outrage - without a whimper or any notice from the posters pretending they care about diversity. If you only care about diversity when it's shutting someone down rather than when there is the opportunity to raise someone up; to help an excluded voice maintain their platform - well, I don't think you really care about diversity in publishing at all.

And really not going on at you but you aren't a teacher are you? The thing is, I think things in the classroom about kids. I'm at a REALLY mixed school and I notice all sorts of things about what you're talking about here, with KC's book, like abused young girls do dress really sexually and its scary. And I think people do need to know about that stuff and you shouldn't be saying it shouldn't be in a book. I feel a bit you are telling me not to think things. Teachers aren't nice all the time. We try!!😄

But I am a teacher (Sociology) and I don't think you can say a teacher can't say negative things about the kids in front of her, I mean like they are poor or look unwell, because you know I see a lot of kids who are poor and they are unwell because of it especially now with cost of living. What I mean is I wouldn't like not to be able to say that in a book if I was writing it, because otherwise I couldn't say how bad it is, do you get me?

For goodness sake of course you can but you need to distinguish whether you are referring to extrinsic matters which impact negatively on the child or just commenting negatively on the child; particularly if you're painting (or trying to paint) yourself in a good light at the same time.

The way to amplify excluded voices in publishing is to buy their books and support small presses. It's almost as though the posters telling us not to talk about small presses established by woc - aren't really that interested in diversity in literature or publishing at all

Then start your own thread rather than derailing this one. This thread is now many pages long. It's about Kate Clanchy. If "small presses established by woc" are important to you start a specific thread rather than bury comments on here.

Okay you are bugging me now! Duty of Care and being a good person all the time! Do you think that teachers just have to be imbeciles who don't see anything at all and look at their students like little angels!! No we aren't and no we don't!! The whole world is in my school!!! I'd love to write a book about it and believe you me it would have negative remarks in it if I did! As well as positive ones because otherwise what is the point.
I do have to read this book. But if it shows up classrooms all full of folk from round the world and poor kids then good on her! Providing she didn't upset any real kid of course? I'd like to be sure of that!!🤔

I haven't read the book and it's bugging me. Could you put up a page where she does all that?

No one has said what you are saying. The issue is Clanchy's patronising and tone deaf way of saying it, whilst at the same elevating her own status.

Read the book.

No , I'm not here to educate you and to be honest, I'm not convinced you're in good faith either.

This thread is full of examples and links to examples, including the original Good Reads review which started this.

The book itself is a short read.

I’d like to hear more about small indie presses -do you have a list of recs? Where can I find out more? Despite all the books in the world I’m having real trouble finding fiction books that I want to read, especially genre stuff. No need for a new thread of course as the state of the publishing industry is on-topic!

No I'm not here to educate you and to be honest, I'm not convinced you're in good faith either.
This thread is full of examples and links to examples, including the original Good Reads review which started this.
The book itself is a short read.

Wow you are really patronising. I'm not a mumsnet person. I came on here because we're doing a unit about censorship with Year 12. We are literally doing a debate, and I literally asked you for an example, like I ask my students. I'm going to share this with them, and I'm going to read the book too. But FWIW I always tell the kids, make a point, back it up.

There are several suggestions (buried) in this thread- hence my suggestion that the posters for whom this topic is important start a specific thread.

No one has said what you are saying. The issue is Clanchy's patronising and tone deaf way of saying it, whilst at the same elevating her own status.
Read the book.

This is so so rude. Patronising and tone deaf yourself. If you are going to say that, put up a quote! This whole thread is about racism and this is how you speak to a WOC. I'm never coming on here again.