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 have already quoted them and the GR reviewer Cecily quoted them in full.

I guess some FWR posters are ok with descriptions of 13 year olds curvy bosoms, Cypriot bosoms, Bambi lashes, fresh mouths, etc , etc.

What should happen? Well , a well-used stick on here is "to consider your internalised misogyny".

Okay, I think that's fair.

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

I'm happy to acknowledge fault with the book. My defence is of freedom of speech. Quite happy to agree that the book has faults. I've not read it myself but I have the feeling that it's not really my cup of tea.

I didn’t say I was okay with her comments. I find them uncomfortable. I just asked what they were. I agree with another poster that ‘sex objects’ is a stretch, but prurient isn’t.

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?

The problem that she wrote a book you feel offended by. That's what we're discussing, isn't it? The fact that she caused offence and how she's been punished for that. You've been pretty fierce in your opinion that the book is offensive and you don't agree that the free speech defence is valid. So what is the solution? What should happen to her?

I find Nabokov’s Lolita really offensive actually. Should its publisher pull it?

But then again, we don't know if the goodreads reviewers would have let it go, either

The GoodReads review was left on 7th November 2020. Kate Clanchy tweeted about it on 30th July 2021.

The GoodReads reviewer left one single review online, followed by eight months of silence. She didn't tweet Kate Clanchy, try to contact her publisher, or do any kind of follow up whatsoever. She literally did nothing except express her opinion one single time.

Unfortunately Nabokov is dead so we can't cancel him. Of course we can still besmirch his reputation and destroy his legacy, so maybe all is not lost.

‘Unfortunately Nabokov is dead so we can't cancel him. Of course we can still besmirch his reputation and destroy his legacy, so maybe all is not lost.’

But should his publisher not reflect on the harm done and pull the book?

Yeah, Clanchy was pretty silly to engage the reviewer.

“When Kristell arrived in Year 9, she had a bosomy, curvy figure, with a tiny waist & pretty ankles… She had a soft, breathy voice to match the Bambi lashes & fresh mouth.” p237

Year 9 is 13/14?. That comment is prurient and objectifying. Again, imagine a male teacher saying that.

It reminds me of the comment the trans activist Andrea Long Chu made about femaleness which is awful and is regularly and rightly denounced on here.

The GoodReads reviewer left one single review online, followed by eight months of silence.

Fair enough. It does seem like it was Clanchy's response that started this whole ball rolling. Authors should know better than to respond to reviews, especially on GR. Don't even read them, is the best advice.

But as others have said, it doesn't mean that her book needed to be censored.

You know this is going to happen at any moment, right? I bet no one dares teach Nabokov anymore, anyway. Brave publisher who decides to put out a new edition!

‘When Kristell arrived in Year 9, she had a bosomy, curvy figure, with a tiny waist & pretty ankles… She had a soft, breathy voice to match the Bambi lashes & fresh mouth.” p237’

It’s definitely uncomfortable and I don’t like it. That’s a separate argument to whether it should be withdrawn from publication or edited after the fact. I’d never buy this myself.

Her description of Kristell is cringe. Prurient is maybe the word. I think you do her a disservice comparing Clanchy to ALC though - whose comments are utterly vile and misogynist.

So what's the solution then? Was it right to censor the book and cancel the author? Did it go far enough or what more should be done? Are you worried about what this means for authors and publishing in general? The chilling effect on free speech?

The review was online for EIGHT MONTHS without anyone even noticing it! Stop pretending negative reviews are the problem here. The book was not pulled because of negative reviews. The book was pulled because Kate Clanchy's own actions.

The problem that she wrote a book you feel offended by.

Nope not true at all. The problem is that Kate Clanchy attacked other people's freedom of speech, repeatedly lied, and was abusive in her attempts to get any opinion Kate Clanchy finds offensive censored and cancelled.

I'd love to know what you think the solution to the problem of reader offence is.

I do not believe that "reader offense" is a problem, ergo it does not require a solution.

If you believe that "reader offense" is a problem, then the obvious solution is to simply ignore it. The fact the negative review sat quite happily online for eight months without anyone noticing proves that ignoring is a perfectly good solution.

It’s not normal to recall it in response to a rush of online criticism.

Her publisher ditched her because she repeatedly lied, was abusive towards her own readers, instigated a witch hunt towards her own readers, and tried to cancel and censor opinions she found offensive. Her book was cancelled due to a scandal Kate herself created. Plenty of writers have lost book deals or been dumped by their publishers for causing scandals because those scandals impacted their books' marketability.

Being held accountable for your own actions is not censorship.

‘Her publisher ditched her because she repeatedly lied, was abusive towards her own readers, instigated a witch hunt towards her own readers, and tried to cancel and censor opinions she found offensive. Her book was cancelled due to a scandal Kate herself created. Plenty of writers have lost book deals or been dumped by their publishers for causing scandals because those scandals impacted their books' marketability.’

I thought she ditched them.

Was it right to censor the book and cancel the author?

She wasn't censored or cancelled.

‘Being held accountable for your own actions is not censorship.’

No, censorship is censorship. Deciding things should be withdrawn from publication and retrospectively edited because some people are offended is censorship.

She wasn’t censored because she declined to change things they wanted to censor. Things they’d already published, edited and decided were fine.

The problem is that Kate Clanchy attacked other people's freedom of speech

So we're on the same side - we both believe in the vital important of freedom of speech. I agree it's a problem that Clanchy tried to stop someone from speaking (if she did - haven't followed that closely) but of course that doesn't mean she should have her own freedom of speech removed in retaliation. That would be insanely counterproductive.

If you believe that "reader offense" is a problem, then the obvious solution is to simply ignore it.

That's literally what I've been arguing - that there's no right not to be offended. I'm amazed we were on the same side the whole time.

I think our only remaining difference is that you don't think her book was censored. I promise you it's not normal to recall a book in response to online criticism. It is certainly censorship. It is, as you point out, perfectly normal to edit a book before publication.

I thought she ditched them.

Well this is very interesting!

I don't know - can anyone more knowledgeable than me confirm what actually happened? Was Kate dumped by her publisher due to them being worried that her abuse and lies would damage the book's sales, or did she dump them? If it was the latter, then the entire argument about "censorship" obviously doesn't apply at all.

Deciding things should be withdrawn from publication and retrospectively edited because some people are offended is censorship.

No it's not, and that did not happen. Please stop twisting things. Kate attacking and making up lies in an attempt to "cancel" her critics, and people finding her abusive and censorious behaviour abhorrent, is not "people being offended" no matter how much you try to pretend this is all because "some people chose to take offense."

Again, if a black writer had published such vile comments about white people, or a trans writer had published sexualised comments about young girls, Mumsnetters would be calling for their heads, not defending them in the name of free speech.

The book was definitely censored. That's just a matter of fact.

As to whether she was cancelled, well I guess that depends on your definition. To me, cancellation is an attack on your reputation which damages your status and prospects. By that definition, she's certainly been cancelled. However, some would say it's not cancellation if she still has a job/house/relationship/bank account/can walk in the street without being attacked - so I guess it comes down to where you draw the line with the definition.

’What on earth are you talking about?’

My points are clear, agree or disagree as you wish.

I absolutely stand by that, regardless of whether her initial behaviour warranted it (and I’m sure it warranted some of it), her entire personal and professional reputation, and it appears, relationships, has been completely destroyed. It seems as though any right to reply results in ‘but she wasn’t cancelled! She’s still talking! Her talking hurts us!’

The fact we’re still discussing it, that her name is now synonymous with this, makes the point.

JemimaPuddlegoose

What am I twisting? It’s what happened. Her publisher wanted to call the book in and re-edit it. They employed a sensitivity reader, I thought. She went through the suggested changes and after that I think she published an article about sensitivity readers and how she declined that form of censorship. Shortly after that she ‘parted ways’ with the publisher, a decision I think was hers in the end because she wouldn’t have the book re-edited.

If I’ve got that wrong I’m happy to be corrected on the facts.

Deciding things should be withdrawn from publication and retrospectively edited [even if the author was a dick] is censorship.

It's still censorship even if Clanchy's behaviour was, as you say, abusive.