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

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

I got your point. I was asking what would make it a cancellation, in your opinion?

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

It changes nothing in mine. If her publisher had declined to take or reprint more of her books and given her her rights back, fine. Rewriting the book is censorship and I don’t want to see it.

Oh fgs Clanchy has had lengthy articles defending her/allowing her to put her side of the story in the mainstream UK press; at least two this year.

She continues to have a teaching post at one of the UK's leading universities. And on top of that has a new publishing deal which will re-print her previously out of print books.

On what alternative universe can that constitute "cancellation" or "silencing"?

No, it’s censorship if your communication is suppressed

LOL publishers not wanting to publish your work is not "censorship". You clearly have no idea what "censorship" means. Try talking to writers from Russia or North Korea.

It's a financial decision, that's all. Publishers make business decisions based on what's profitable.

Public figures who acts badly in public make themselves less profitable (with certain exceptions) because audiences don't want to give their money to them. Zillions of actors and other public figures have created scandals due to things they have said or done and faced the consequences, which is that movie studios, TV networks, and publishers don't want to invest money on people who piss off and alienate their audience. Because if you alienate your audience YOU LOSE MONEY. This is not rocket science. Why are people struggling to understand this very basic fact?

People no longer want to buy Kate Clanchy's book because they don't want to give money to an abusive liar. The publisher has to be seen to do something in response to the scandal Kate created, in an attempt to ameliorate the financial fallout of the scandal. It happens all the time.

‘On what alternative universe can that constitute "cancellation" or "silencing"?’

Just because people fought back, doesn’t mean they didn’t do everything possible to ‘cancel’ her. They absolutely did.

Jemima, we’re done here. (LOL)

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 completely agree, 100%. But I'm confused as to where you're going with this. So she deserves no free speech defence? Or she deserved to get cancelled? Or whatever happens to her now is justified? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to work out what you mean.

I think it would be more to the point for you explain why you think a person who has a voice and access to the media which the vast majority do not, has been "cancelled"

Blood Heir by Amelie Wen Zhao
The Black Witch by Laurie Forest
The Witchlands by Susan Dennard
The Continent by Keira Drake

Honestly, spend half a minute lurking on #publishingtwitter and you’ll find someone’s always getting “cancelled” aka “rethinking their racist tropes” after a Twitter storm. The hubris in this particular storm is that Clanchy instigated it herself!

Ok but we'll have to disagree about where the original fault lies. I think Clanchy behaved disgracefully when she went after that reviewer and, while I don't wish her ill and even have sympathy for how things ended for her, I think she has been totally hoisted by her own petard.

It's a financial decision, that's all. Publishers make business decisions based on what's profitable.

Well that makes no sense, since her book was selling well and it would have cost the publisher money to recall it and reprint it.

Censorship is not a business decision. It's a political decision.

I completely agree, 100%. But I'm confused as to where you're going with this. So she deserves no free speech defence? Or she deserved to get cancelled? Or whatever happens to her now is justified? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to work out what you mean.

I think my post upthread answers this question. If not, then sorry but I cant explain it any better.

She hasn't been cancelled. She hasn't been denied free speech.

She still has her teaching job and I assume the GR reviewer still has hers, despite Clanchy's allegedly threatening to report the GR reviewer to her employer.

But helping writers rewrite their books is literally what traditional publishing is?! No one hands in a manuscript that goes straight to print. There’s development editing, structural editing, copy editing, beta reading, sensitivity reading and proofreading, then print. In Clanchy’s case clearly the checks and balances weren’t enough, or they failed, so Picador wanted to revisit the process. It’s really not unusual.

I gave my definition of cancellation earlier - when a person's reputation is publically attacked, leading to a loss of status and prospects. What's your definition?

It’s really not unusual.

It's very unusual for this to happen after the book has been published, when it is selling well.

Sure, and with this level of attention. Usually publishers wait til the reprint/next edition to change stuff. But they still change stuff. There’s a weird misunderstanding on this thread that a publishing contract entails a writer just writing whatever they want and they publisher has to release it, which is fundamentally untrue and books are frequently corrected or changed between print runs, and certainly edited heavily ahead of publication. Hence: not censorship.

So those of you who think there was no censorship - do you think censorship EVER happens in publishing? Do you think any writers have been cancelled? What would have to happen for you to identify that a writer had been censored or cancelled? I'd like to know where you draw the line.

For me, I'm happy with this definition from wikipedia and believe it's clear that Clanchy's publisher censored her book. But I'm really interested to know how the rest of you would define censorship, if not this?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies."

This is not what happened and isn't a good analogy.

It's a perfect analogy.

Kate Clanchy viciously and very publicly attacked and told lies about an innocent woman - an ordinary member of the public - because that woman once expressed an opinion that Kate Clanchy found offensive.

That woman's opinion was on a website for eight months without anyone noticing or paying attention, so Kate can hardly claim that it damaged her or her career.

If you publicly attack someone, then people who witness that attack may well decide they don't want to buy your products anymore, which means your boss loses money. A boss is perfectly entitled to fire you or take whatever action needed to make their audience/buyers not leave in droves, since your behaviour has cost them money. Kate's abuse damaged her sales which cost her publisher money.

It's an unusual case simply because it's unusual for a writer to behave so abusively and dishonestly towards their own readers. Of course a publisher can't ignore one of their authors abusing readers!

books are frequently corrected or changed between print runs, and certainly edited heavily ahead of publication.

No one's arguing with that. But you do realise this is not what happened in this case?

I gave my definition of cancellation earlier - when a person's reputation is publically attacked, leading to a loss of status and prospects. What's your definition?

But that hasn't happened has it?

Many public figures in any sector are likely at some point have their reputation publically attacked.

And in Clanchy's case it has hardly led to a loss of status and prospects.

I'm not interested in giving a definition. It's irrelevant.

Of course a publisher can't ignore one of their authors abusing readers!

Not sure I agree with that, since a publisher isn't an employer and isn't really responsible for how their authors behave. Plenty of publishers have worked with writers who have been criminals and prisoners.

But if we agree with your premise, why is the appropriate response to censor the book? I guess I can follow your argument if the publisher were to say, look, we dislike your behaviour so we don't want to work with you anymore. But why would the response be to recall and rewrite the book? According to you, the book's got nothing to do with it.

I'm not interested in giving a definition. It's irrelevant.

That's fine. That pretty much answers my question, anyway.

I realise perfectly and have followed the Clanchy storm from the beginning. It’s entirely relevant to the case that publishers continually revise books after publication. Acting as though Clanchy is the only author in history to have her book revised is disingenuous at best.

I didn't answer because your question was irrelevant. You were insisting Clanchy was "cancelled". Even by your own definition Clanchy wasn't "cancelled"

But as you are insisting here's a definition; if Clanchy had carried out her threat of reporting the GR reviewer to her employer and the GR reviewer was fired - that's cancellation. Especially given Clanchy was lying about quotes being fabricated.