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 promise you it's not normal to recall a book in response to online criticism.

But it wasn't "a response to online criticism" it was a response to how abusively Kate Clanchy handled online criticism. The fact the review was online for eight months without a word proves it wasn't the review but Kate's own behaviour that was to blame.

I've had two books and several stage plays published. I currently have two books out next year. I know how publishing works.

I've absolutely had books that were revised after publication due to reader feedback or changes in the political climate. In 2018 I was commissioned to write something about Israel that's been bogged down in discussion about what's politically acceptable for three years.

I've absolutely seen other writers get dumped by publishers over things they've tweeted, because the publisher just didn't want to be associated with that.

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.

You're wrong. I believe in the vital importance of free speech for everyone, even for people I disagree with. As i've repeatedly said on this thread, the price of my freedom of speech is everyone else's freedom of speech. Therefore it is a matter of self-interest to defend it even for those views which I despise.

‘But it wasn't "a response to online criticism" it was a response to how abusively Kate Clanchy handled online criticism.’

That’s nonsense. Why would changing the book be any remedy to way Clanchy handles criticism?

The problem for me is, that when the writer concerned has herself tried to censor someone - not even a professional critic - for a single, unfavourable review, then appeals about freedom of speech and cancel culture just don't cut it in my eyes.

I do have some sympathy for Clanchy because I can see how, once she'd done that and then doubled down on Twitter, things must have spun out of her control, but I think her behaviour goes way beyond overreacting or handling things badly. And as for threatening to contact the reviewer's employers - which I've only just read on about here - well that's astonishing and, as far as I'm concerned indefensible.

But it wasn't "a response to online criticism" it was a response to how abusively Kate Clanchy handled online criticism.

If that's the case, then what's it got to do with what's written in her book? Why did her book need to be changed?

her entire personal and professional reputation, and it appears, relationships, has been completely destroyed.

She* *has had numerous supportive press articles .There was an Observer article earlier this year. The Times and The Spectator have also supported her as have Spiked and Unherd.

She's on the teaching staff at Reading University , department of English Literature. She has a new publishing deal and at least one of her older books. Antigone and Me is being republished.

‘If that's the case, then what's it got to do with what's written in her book? Why did her book need to be changed?’

Exactly, how would changing the book make any difference to how she responded? Changing the book is in response to the criticism of it, not to her response to the critics.

She’s not being censored. She’s free to self-publish, to write a blog, to be interviewed by anyone who cares to, to write new books and submit them. Freedom of speech allowed her the right to write the book: there’s no right to be published.

The problem for me is, that when the writer concerned has herself tried to censor someone - not even a professional critic - for a single, unfavourable review, then appeals about freedom of speech and cancel culture just don't cut it in my eyes.

Surely that makes freedom of speech even more important to defend? Otherwise you're saying - what? That Clanchy attacking someone's right to speak is wrong but it's fine for her to have her own right to speak attacked? How's that going to play out? Either it's right or wrong. If it's wrong to attack someone's freedom of speech, then it's wrong no matter who's doing it or who the victim is.

‘She’s not being censored. She’s free to self-publish, to write a blog, to be interviewed by anyone who cares to, to write new books and submit them. Freedom of speech allowed her the right to write the book: there’s no right to be published.’

She was published. And then her publisher tried to make her self-censor (in other words, censor her).

So for you, cancellation would mean a complete erasure of the person from public life?

This is sophistry.

To me, cancellation is an attack on your reputation which damages your status and prospects.

Then by your own definition she is the one who committed "cancellation" since she attacked the reputation of her critics, damaging their careers and prospects. Everything that's happened to Kate resulted from people witnessing and dislike her behaviour, and deciding she wasn't the kind of person they wanted to support.

If I go up and punch someone in the face because they said something that offended me, and my boss sees and fires me, am I a victim of "cancel culture"?

her entire personal and professional reputation, and it appears, relationships, has been completely destroyed.

That clearly is not true, since she's landed a new publishing deal, has university posts, has had two books re-published off the back of the scandal, seems to have a huge amount of support within the media and publishing industries, and has had many articles in the press defending her and holding her up as a brave hero against wokeness. She has absolutely profited off a scandal that she herself created.

Her talking hurts us!’

Why are you making stuff up??

The book was definitely censored.

No it wasn't. One publisher deciding they can no longer financially support a particular writer/book is not "censorship." It's only censorship if you're prevented from disseminating your work at all, or threatened with imprisonment or violence as a result of your work. Absolutely nothing stopping Kate Clanchy from publishing her book un-edited elsewhere.

Freedom of speech allowed her the right to write the book: there’s no right to be published.

Exactly.

Has anyone said Clanchy has no right to speak out? I haven't and I don't think anyone else has.

The issue for me is the "poor Kate Clanchy, isn't it a shame", mindset.

Well, no, (a) a lot of the criticism was valid (b) she hasn't been cancelled or silenced and (c ) why is this being raked over again?

Anyway, I was browsing Twitter when the ‘revised edition’ was being mooted. Her loudest critics were not placated. They said (paraphrasing) harmful, inappropriate, violence has been perpetrated etc - and there wasn’t a chance they were letting go of the issue even if an edited version was put out. They wanted it cancelled completely.

What am I saying? I'm saying is that, if you're a writer, then unfavourable reviews are part of the job and you have no business trying to attack anyone who writies one, however hurtful or unfair you might think it is.
I'm not commenting on the content of the book because, as I've already said, I've not read it and I don't like making a judgement based on extracts. My comments are entirely focused on Clanchy's behaviour towards the reviewer.

‘It's only censorship if you're prevented from disseminating your work at all, or threatened with imprisonment or violence as a result of your work.’

No, it’s censorship if your communication is suppressed. Re-editing the book and publishing it as something else was going to suppress the original meanings of the book.

Eh? What are you on about? As another poster has said- stop making things up.

My point is Clanchy and her defenders are claiming she was "cancelled" She quite clearly has not been cancelled.

Nah. Loads of books get edited after the fact, withdrawn from publication, quietly left to go out of stock, etc. This one just had more brouhaha surrounding it. There’s always something in a publishing contract about the publisher being able to withdraw from publication if they discover XYZ.

There have always been limitations to freedom of speech. It’s only censorship if she’s got no platform to share her (frankly, offensive) writing. The book isn’t banned. No one’s going to trial.

‘My point is Clanchy and her defenders are claiming she was "cancelled" She quite clearly has not been cancelled.’

Given there’s no consensus meaning of that term, this is like fighting over fistfuls of air.

And so what? They asked- they didn't get.

‘Loads of books get edited after the fact, withdrawn from publication, quietly left to go out of stock, etc.’

Name another book where the writer has been coerced by their publisher after a Twitter storm into significantly changing the published text of their book.

‘And so what? They asked- they didn't get.’

I’m discussing their intention to ‘cancel’ Clanchy now. It was never going to satisfy them for various phrases to be removed, and I’m not convinced this is a path publishing wants to go down anyway.

...after a Twitter storm that the writer instigated herself. Sorry but that changes everything in my view.

If I go up and punch someone in the face because they said something that offended me, and my boss sees and fires me, am I a victim of "cancel culture"?

No, but irrelevant. This is not what happened and isn't a good analogy.

The issue for me is the "poor Kate Clanchy, isn't it a shame", mindset.

I couldn't give less of a shit about Kate Clanchy. The issue for me is the harm that is being done to authors and publishers - the chilling effect on free speech - and the worry that this is happening to more and more writers. Which is also what the article about. I don't think people are defending "poor Kate Clanchy" or saying it's a shame - we are talking about the issues raised with regard to rights and freedoms.