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

The thing is, even if Clanchy called some kids “feral”, so what? Some children behave in unruly ways, and feral is a word that communicates this wildness to the reader. It’s not bigoted. It’s observation of a particular mode of behaviour in some rooms in state schools that - I would argue - it’s beneficial for some people not working in education to know about, so they can understand how challenging it can be. There’s no reason to lie about it.

She is using 'feral' to say how bad a grammar school is. She's not calling students that word. See what I mean about single words! One is too small. Good classroom rule. And I looked up 'double chin and rotting teeth'... nope. Not there.

Those are direct quotes from the original version, before she decided to edit it. They were removed from the new version.

In the original version, the word feral was directly used to describe a student and was specifically used to describe working class white students.

‘In the original version, the word feral was directly used to describe a student and was specifically used to describe working class white students.’

But again, the student isn’t identified. Some children behave as if they have never been socialised. “Feral” is a vivid, not particularly pleasant, honest word to describe her impressions of their behaviour. If she didn’t tell the truth about this, and nobody did, how would we know this?

I expect this is very boring for everyone, as it been said many times before, but for the benefit of the posters who haven't read the thread here is Clanchy's tweet denying that the terms identified by a Good Reads reviewer as racist are in her book.

Apart from saying Jewish rather than Ashkenazi, all the terms are in the book.

The thing is, even if Clanchy called some kids “feral”, so what?

That's a completely different argument than the one I was responding to, which was the claim that none of the students were upset - a claim which obviously is illogical since none of us have the slightest clue what the 99%+ of students who haven't made public statements feel.

However like I said, it is logical to assume that students who were described using derogatory and unflattering physical descriptors will be less happy than students who were described using flattering ones.

Some students have come forward and publicly identified themselves as specific individuals in the book, so clearly the descriptors are identifiable enough for them to clearly recognise themselves.

Again for the benefit of posters who haven't read the thread- these reviews contain more quotes from the book which have now been removed.

The review by "Ceridwin" is the reviewer and review which Clanchy attacked on Twitter.

www.goodreads.com/review/show/3632935388

www.goodreads.com/review/show/4246225216

‘However like I said, it is logical to assume that students who were described using derogatory and unflattering physical descriptors will be less happy than students who were described using flattering ones.’

But if feral is so offensive, who’s going to recognise themselves in it? Who is going to say, “Yes, that was me, I was feral in Ms Clanchy’s lessons and it’s all her fault?”

Nobody. This is concocted, politically motivated offence.

Ha, just seen they have deleted my post, and I can only chuckle, given I am of Black African heritage, and a person who reads a lot of Black African writers who use the same physical descriptions when describing Black people.

But hey, I'll let a (probably) white moderator decide how best to define people who share the colour of my skin.

But if feral is so offensive, who’s going to recognise themselves in it?

We are not talking about one single word in isolation here.

Some students have come out and said "yes I am this specific individual from Kate's book". So clearly some of the descriptions of specific individuals are detailed enough that those individuals can recognise themselves.

It's simply not logical to assume that the students described in flattering ways can identify themselves, but that it's impossible that the students described in unflattering ways might do the same.

They deleted my post! Same reasons. This is a crazy site. I can't believe it . Do you know I'm only here because I set my Year 12s a challenge and said I'd do it too. They will laugh when I told them I got deleted! I go on about playing nice all the time.

Seriously though, these ladies are crazy.

Me - Monsiha's book is rude! Hurts my feelings as a fat brown lady.
Them - That's okay cos the lady doesn't know. KC though, that book harmed children
Me : What children?
Them : Position of trust blah blah rape blah blah link thread...
Me: What children? Her students stuck up for her. Show me other children!
Them: Those children don't count! The other children.. rape .. feral,.. blah blah
Me: What children? I don't see them?
Them: They're hiding cos they're sad?
Me: What about the fat lady on Monisha's train? Or the dwarf? Are they hiding cos they are sad?
Them: We'll get you banned!

WOC here, giving an honest opinion. I like this book so far. Tells it like it is. And your argument is D- !

Okay so this is what it says in the introduction. Some kids are composites and some aren't/ I think it's fair. I read This is Going to Hurt and it does the same thing. Don't get the problem and the Language of Kindness, same same. Any one here a writer? Isn't this normal?

Lady, they aren't their school reports! When I write my school reports I'm super careful and super positive, but this is a book. Like, she's writing about them, don't you get it? She's talking about poverty and race and the kids are the examples, like in This is Going to Hurt and hospitals. It would be really bad if the ladies in the This is Going to Hurt knew who they were but I guess we think they don't know by the way no one has said so. Same same with Monisha and the fat lady on the train. So why not the same here? Produce your victim, or admit you lost the argument! I mean a real victim not someone you think is probably there, or I get to use the fat lady on the train and cancel Monisha!!! 😜

That’s a good point and has made me think of something. If people think these things, even if they don’t want to sometimes - as in that tune you might catch yourself thinking ‘wow, that person is annoying, jarring, insert physical attribute here’ and then correcting it, do we not write those things too, do teachers / nurses / doctors whatever only admit to pure thoughts? It seems that the women authors are only supposed to, although Monisha is largely getting away with it.

My main other person I can recently think of is Adam Kay. This is Going to Hurt dripped with misogyny and disdain for the women patients mentioned within it. Yes they were mostly probably anonymized, although based on some of his interviews that’s questionable. I recognised that misogyny because I had experienced it personally from other doctors. And actually, seeing it in a book shone some light on where those views came from, as distasteful as I found it, and unlikable as I found him.

At the time it seemed that everybody loved the book and feted it, and so he was rewarded with a TV show. And then I started to see comments from people who thought like me and references to song lyrics he’d written about women and children that were pretty unforgivable even from me, who believes in free speech and a right for people to offend others. You know what though: two things - him putting that all out there (with what I’d say was very little self reflection on that side of his own character) was illuminating - we could see in clear sight the behaviour from some doctors that’s often hidden between you and them. And secondly, even with all that out there, he’s still feted and rewarded. Must be because of some defining characteristic, he’s a man.

Also I’m having a bit of a smile about the deletions on this thread (not the reasons for them), I’m picturing Kate and Monisha’s books with many missing sections replaced instead with ‘Message deleted by the Publishing Police. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.’

(I’m not referring to MN as the publishing police by the way! Just that online moderation in parallel with this discussion about literature !)

I’m not sure I made my Adam Kay point well, I meant, while the feting jarred, I’m glad he wrote it. We know that’s what a lot of male doctors think, and he unwittingly put it out there by thinking he was making a point about one thing (and yes of course some of his points about the NHS are valid, because people are a mixture of things we agree and disagree with) while meanwhile revealing something else that impacts patients just as much. And I think there same could be said for KC. So hurrah for free speech and all that it reveals and that we learn from it.

As much as it might seem
this thread is combative, I do learn and change my views from
these conversations. Not wholesale, but nuances, and nuances is often what this is all about.

I think there is at least one individual who is reporting comments they disagree with and suspect mnhq is just deleting because it's the path of least resistance.

I'm a writer. It's normal. KC is sensitive and generous to her subjects. Many writers have written about the people in their lives with far, far less thought given to the potential impact.

PlantSpider, I agree. There's nothing to be gained from writers lying and pretending to be something they're not. It's good that Adam Kay's attitude is exposed. It's good that KC's feelings are revealed, too. We can gain a lot through insight into other people's inner worlds and that is what literature gives us. If we take that away, I think we will lose way more than we can even imagine.

Yes absolutely. If the publishing world had pre-sanitised all of this, and future instances then we’d only ever really know what people in those positions deemed as ‘acceptable thinking.’ We’d never have these discussions.

I absolutely don’t agree with KC’s first response to her reviewer, but I think I can understand where it might have come from. Admitting that isn’t flattering to me, but again I think it’s important to see the less palatable sides of ourselves. In fact I can imagine women writers getting called out in future might have an internal panic based on seeing how this can go, I wonder whether it’s been a bit scary for Monisha too. I hope not but she’s probably in a less common position now of being both the critic and the critiqued. The Shamer and the Shamee (I don’t wish shame on her at all of course but I think expecting perfection from others can backfire unfortunately as it invites scrutiny.)

I think is a good time to leave this quote here from Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie, one of my favourite writers of all time who has used the phrase a Mumsnet moderator deleted. Thank God, they weren't Ngozie's editor, or probably some of the best books of all time wouldn't have been written!

"People who claim to love literature – the messy stories of our humanity – but are also monomaniacally obsessed with whatever is the prevailing ideological orthodoxy. People who demand that you denounce your friends for flimsy reasons in order to remain a member of the chosen puritan class.
People who ask you to ‘educate’ yourself while not having actually read any books themselves, while not being able to intelligently defend their own ideological positions, because by ‘educate,’ they actually mean ‘parrot what I say, flatten all nuance, wish away complexity.’
People who do not recognize that what they call a sophisticated take is really a simplistic mix of abstraction and orthodoxy – sophistication in this case being a showing-off of how au fait they are on the current version of ideological orthodoxy."

I didn’t see the deletion but don’t see a contentious phrase in there? I didn’t at the time she wrote the piece either.

How do you describe people in a way that does not give offence?

I'm a published writer an this is how I'd get readers to visualise a man I like very much

In order for you not to see some kind of composite male from an advertisement I'd have to emphasise the features that are distinctive about him.

His height (shorter than average.)
Age (Old)
Hair (relative lack of on head, but some in nostrils, ears)
Mouth (Thin-lipped)
Teeth (Prominent Incisors)
Physical dexterity (Tends to knock things over, drop things)
Nose (Snub, makes him look younger)
Voice (Quiet to point of inaudibility, but v cultured)
Gait (bustling)

It's a sketch that will exaggerate slightly to get effect. Very much as actors in the theatre will project. Otherwise you end up saying something like, 'A male senior citizen of around 5ft 6 came into the room'.

Which isn't exactly vivid writing.

‘IC1 male entered the room’