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

I don’t agree Clanchy was responsible for a “pile on” - the people who are responsible for any threats or unpleasant comments are the people who made them

My understanding of the situation is Clanchy brought the review up on Clanchy's own Twitter feed. She bears responsibility for bringing it to an attention it would probably never have got.

we only took her career and reputation to the brink of death, she’s still just about alive, fully shamed and found another publisher at the last minute so she wasn’t cancelled.

That simply did not happen.

Kate Clanchy created a scandal because she lied through her teeth in an attempt to cancel and censor anyone with an opinion Kate disliked, or any opinion Kate found offensive. Because Kate obviously disagrees with free speech.

Kate Clanchy's career has done very well off the back of this scandal and she's certainly profited substantially it. The idea that her career and reputation was brought "to the brink of death" is simply not based on fact.

I’m not sure being able to publicly write about your total and complete public shaming

She's written and spoken out publicly about this absolutely loads! What on earth are you talking about? And she has not undergone any "public shaming" - negative tweets are not "shaming." Being held accountable for lying and attacking others is not "shaming."

made it so she could have no possible redemption.

Except a new publishing deal. And a new book release. And a ton of newspaper and magazine articles supporting her and talking about how she's a victim of a woke witch hunt. And the support of big parts of the publishing industry and other writers.

‘My understanding of the situation is Clanchy brought the review up on Clanchy's own Twitter feed. She bears responsibility for bringing it to an attention it would probably never have got.’

That doesn’t make her responsible for everyone’s actions in any situation that followed.

How do Clanchy's descriptions support sexual predation of children?

I'm just saying we can't make laws on the basis of 'offence'.

What "laws" are you referring to?

yelling how they were being abused.

The only person who did that was Kate Clanchy.

It was read, and then it was recalled by the same publisher that released it for ‘editing’ after the fact. That’s censorship.

No, that's a normal, standard part of book editing.

Book publishers are not obligated to publish anything anyone wants them to publish. They choose what to publish based on what's marketable.

It's only "censorship" or an infringement of free speech laws if a) someone is being prevented from disseminating their work at all or b) they are being threatened with violence or imprisonment for doing so. There's literally nothing stopping Kate Clanchy from putting the entire unedited first edition out on Amazon or any of the million other platforms available to her should she so choose.

"A publisher doesn't want to publish my work" is not censorship.

www.reading.ac.uk/english-literature/our-staff/kate-clanchy

Kate Clanchy seems to be a member of staff at Reading University. That's hardly evidence of being silenced or cancelled.

What do you think should happen in these situations @JemimaPuddlegoose? Who should get to decide what can and can't be written in a book, if not the author? How many negative reviews should it take to get a book pulped? Should there be a criminal law made for writers who offend their readers, or certain of their readers? Should authors have to undergo some sort of training before being allowed to publish books? What kind of punishment should there be for writers who offend their readers? I'm interested to know how you would solve the problem.

I have to agree with posters saying that, if we're against censorship and bullying, then the instigator appears to be Clanchy.

I can understand how upsetting that write up on Goodreads must have been when you believe yourself to be an upstanding liberal artist and you're used to being lauded and awarded, but I don't think that excuses the way she went after an amateur reviewer.

I don't agree with the idea that Clanchy has profited from this - she sounds absolutely wretched. I do wonder though all how this might have ended if she had either ignored the review or responded along the lines of, 'This was upsetting for me to read but thank you, I will think about what you've said.'
I guess we'll never know now.

No, that's a normal, standard part of book editing.

No, it's not. Books are edited before publication and sometimes there are amendments made to later print runs. Pulping a book is censorship.

I'm an author myself, so I'm fairly interested in this discussion. I'd love to know what you think the solution to the problem of reader offence is. What should be done about it?

Do I really need to spell that out ? On here?

Her sexualised descriptions of these young girls are portraying them as sex objects and sexually available. If that's what their middle aged, female teacher thinks of them , then why shouldn't they be seen as sex objects by others?

I do wonder though all how this might have ended if she had either ignored the review or responded along the lines of, 'This was upsetting for me to read but thank you, I will think about what you've said.'

I agree it seems like she handled it really badly. Most authors know you're not supposed to respond to reviews, especially not ones on GR. But then again, we don't know if the goodreads reviewers would have let it go, either - there's a whole world of purity spirals there. Goodreads have been responsible for more than one demolition of a book and author.

Her sexualised descriptions of these young girls are portraying them as sex objects and sexually available.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, I must say.

But okay, let's say you're right about that. What's the solution? What should happen to Clanchy and her book?

‘No, that's a normal, standard part of book editing.’

Not really. They published it two years ago with no concerns. It’s not normal to recall it in response to a rush of online criticism. Imagine if publishers did this every time someone was offended.

‘Book publishers are not obligated to publish anything anyone wants them to publish. They choose what to publish based on what's marketable.’

Which they did, and it did really well.

‘I do wonder though all how this might have ended if she had either ignored the review or responded along the lines of, 'This was upsetting for me to read but thank you, I will think about what you've said.'

This would have been more fuel to the fire. They don’t want thought, they want obedience. Her only defence was to say nothing public at all.

If that's what their middle aged, female teacher thinks of them , then why shouldn't they be seen as sex objects by others?

There's no logic to this argument. I'd also just like to speak up for the children here, who said they loved Clanchy and loved being part of the book until it got torn to shreds by people 'defending' them.

This would have been more fuel to the fire. They don’t want thought, they want obedience. Her only defence was to say nothing public at all.

I suspect this is probably true. Whatever she said, it would have all blown up the same way, although I guess she wouldn't have given them so much ammunition.

Which of her comments made the students into ‘sex objects’ btw?

‘although I guess she wouldn't have given them so much ammunition.’

It’s all ammunition. As soon as you respond - whether you apologise or not - you validate them as people you need to explain yourself to. They’re not, they’re readers. Readers are entitled to hate, slag off or complain about books. Writers don’t have to engage and usually shouldn’t.

A bit of a stretch? Imagine if those words had been written by a male teacher- this forum would be down on him like a ton of bricks.

What should happen? Well , a well-used stick on here is "to consider your internalised misogyny". (I think it's over-used and often just means "does not agree with the person using it own view") but in the case of Clanchy- perhaps it's something she should consider. The language used was prurient.

As for her book, at no point have I said it should not be published or read. It's there for all to see, albeit with the most egregious passages edited out. My objection is largely the refusal by Clanchy's defenders to acknowledge any fault with the book.

‘My objection is largely the refusal by Clanchy's defenders to acknowledge any fault with the book.’

Loads of people who don’t think she was treated well acknowledge fault with the book and with her presentation of the facts.

Yes, but what followed was along the lines of ‘what you did was so awful that now we require you to take all punishment meted out otherwise you’re fully responsible for everyone else’s behaviour.’

It’s too much, denouncing one person so fully in every way. Even criminals are allowed redemption. There’s an element of some behaviour in this that is slightly reminiscent of when my brother used to hit me and then yell ‘OW!’

Who should get to decide what can and can't be written in a book, if not the author?

There is literally nothing stopping Kate Clanchy or any other author from having 100% control over what is published in their book. (Obviously not counting libel/legal challenges, which does not apply here.)

Anyone in the UK can go to Amazon or any number of other platforms and self-publish absolutely anything they like, without a single word being changed.

If an author wants a publisher to invest substantial money in their book, they need to accept that the publisher will edit the book according to what the publisher determines is most marketable. This is an absolutely standard part of book publishing and something literally every writer, bar a handful of super-famous celebs, goes through.

If you want someone to invest money in you then they get a say on what their money will be used on. Not censorship, just the practicalities of finance and marketing.

How many negative reviews should it take to get a book pulped?
Her book was not pulped due to negative reviews. Stop inventing falsehoods.

Should there be a criminal law made for writers who offend their readers, or certain of their readers? Should authors have to undergo some sort of training before being allowed to publish books? What kind of punishment should there be for writers who offend their readers?

You are literally just making stuff up.

I'm interested to know how you would solve the problem.

What "problem"? The "problem" of authors who try to cancel and censor negative reviews? Or the problem of publishers being unwilling to spend money on authors who create scandals?

That doesn’t make her responsible for everyone’s actions in any situation that followed.

She flat out lied and pretended that she was the victim of a vendetta because she wanted to cancel and censor her own readers, simply because those readers had opinions that Kate found offensive, and Kate believed that opinions she found offensive shouldn't be allowed online.

If she hadn't lied - repeatedly lied - none of this would have happened.

Yes. Most people I think and her behaviour relating to the first reviews.

If she hadn't lied - repeatedly lied - none of this would have happened.

Yes, but that doesn’t give a license to everything that followed, forever.

‘She flat out lied and pretended that she was the victim of a vendetta because she wanted to cancel and censor her own readers, simply because those readers had opinions that Kate found offensive, and Kate believed that opinions she found offensive shouldn't be allowed online.

If she hadn't lied - repeatedly lied - none of this would have happened.’

Repeat though, that doesn’t make her responsible for (for example) any unpleasant comments other people made. That’s how this works. We’re all responsible for our own decisions.