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

But when people ask you to ‘check your internalised misogyny’ they don’t mean ‘check’ like ‘think about’, they mean ‘check’ like ‘stop’. They mean agree.

Oh, maybe I missed this nuance. Although I think the pp said 'consider' which I agreed was fair - certainly seems reasonable to consider your motivations and reflect on your words. Maybe I am naive!

‘Although I think the pp said 'consider' which I agreed was fair - certainly seems reasonable to consider your motivations and reflect on your words. Maybe I am naive!’

They might insist they mean consider if you asked them, but consider... what would their response be if you said, ‘I considered, and I don’t regard it as such’?

Yes there are signs of life there. It must have all just been a walk in the park with no lasting implications at all. Phew.

Posters, myself included, have pointed out what they consider to be racist, sexist and classist comments- the sort of comment which would usually attract condemnation on here

LasswiaDelicateair

Is it alright to make classist remarks so long as it’s the upper classes who are being criticised?

Freedom of speech means not having your expression unlawfully interferes with.

Her expression has not been unlawfully interferred with, since absolutely nothing has prevented her from dissemminating her expression on numerous platforms of her choice. That is not what "unlawfully interfered with" means.

I believe Clanchy would have won a case against her publisher if they had insisted on her changing something that isn’t libellous, that they had already edited and agreed for publication.

No, she wouldn't. There's absolutely no way she would have won since they acted within the powers the terms that her publishing contract grant them. Publishing contracts have clauses governing exactly this kind of circumstance and publishing contracts are watertight.

It’s censorship

It is not censorship since Kate Clanchy had complete freedom of expression to choose from a wide range of options, many of which would have resulted in her book being published un-edited. The fact the option you assume she wanted, for the publisher to ignore her abusive behaviour and the resulting financial catastrophe, is not censorship.

Her publisher could have declined to reprint her book and returned her rights.

Which is exactly what they did, hence her publishing the book with another publisher.

They might insist they mean consider if you asked them, but consider... what would their response be if you said, ‘I considered, and I don’t regard it as such’?

Yeah... that's the test.

‘Her expression has not been unlawfully interferred with, since absolutely nothing has prevented her from dissemminating her expression on numerous platforms of her choice. That is not what "unlawfully interfered with" means.’

I didn’t say she has. I said IF they tried to make her change what she printed. I don’t know if they did. What I know is they had the power in that relationship and I believe the power was misused.

And no, they didn’t do that. They tried to revise the text. Depending on how that was approached it might well have been interference with her freedom of artistic expression.

And unless you’ve read her contract, first, you don’t know what it says. And second contracts aren’t the law, they have to follow the law. I don’t believe making someone reprint their own thoughts based on a post-publication sensitivity read to placate an online mob is legal. So there we go.

She has literally been censored.

I think the argument that it's not an attempt at censorship is just weird, sorry. A lot of weird, gaslighty type comments.

They’re always like that, beastly. But I think they have to be. They get further by saying ‘accountability’ than ‘bullying’ and ‘censorship’.

I said IF they tried to make her change what she printed. I don’t know if they did.

So all your comments are pure speculation about something that factually did not happen?

I mean, she left. You can make up whatever hyperbole you like but the actual on the record proven facts are that she and her publisher parted ways, and that they gave her the rights to her book back.

So they obviously didn't "force" or "make" her do anything, did they?

What I know is they had the power in that relationship and I believe the power was misused.

Obviously not since she walked away with the rights to her book, and complete freedom to release the book in any medium or platform she liked with zero "force" involved.

This is a really simplistic and basically just...incorrect take on contemporary poetry.

The vitriol directed against Clanchy is wildly excessive, when you consider what male authors have been writing for decades. All this 'oh if a writer with XYX characteristic wrote it...'

They do. And it's all just derailing anyway. KC has become not herself but a symbol for people to project weird hate and bitterness onto.

It's depressing.

The only bullying and gaslighting has been from the posters pretending that Kate Clanchy is some sort of anti-woke anti-censorship hero.

They’re always like that, beastly. But I think they have to be. They get further by saying ‘accountability’ than ‘bullying’ and ‘censorship’.

By "they" you mean other posters on Mumsnet who have committed the crime of having an opinion you find offensive, and who must be punished by being smeared and bullied?

@JemimaPuddlegoose Genuinely, why do you have such a bee in your bonnet about this? Do you know KC and hate her personally? It comes off as if you do from the strength of your comments.

Fwiw, I am not at all invested in 'woke' and 'anti woke' as concepts.

The only bullying and gaslighting has been from the posters pretending that Kate Clanchy is some sort of anti-woke anti-censorship hero.

A case in point. Quote some of the posts that have said this. I don't think there have been any at all on this thread. Not a one.

It’s not censorship, though. It’s also not gaslighting to adhere to that fact. It is a bit weird to misuse terms such as gaslighting in an attempt to win a debate.

@beastlyslumber Agree that I haven't seen anyone calling Kate a hero. Maybe on Twitter someone has? I guess the woke/anti woke stuff is popular there.

‘Obviously not since she walked away with the rights to her book, and complete freedom to release the book in any medium or platform she liked with zero "force" involved.’

That’s the point, though, Jemima. As it turned out, they couldn’t make her do it. It doesn’t mean they didn’t try, and if they did try to coerce her (there are types of coercion and one is economic) then in my view they risked breaking the law, because sometimes freedom of expression is freedom from some consequences.

It's a shame some posters are so offended at the existence of opinions they disagree with, but please stick to discussing the book, and not making personal attacks or barely veiled troll-hunting on posters whose opinions you happen to disagree with.

If that's directed at me, it really isn't the gotcha you might be hoping for. No it isn't ok , I don't do and have criticised comments which do.

‘It is a bit weird to misuse terms such as gaslighting in an attempt to win a debate.’

Gaslighting is when people try to distort other people’s perceptions of truth and reality. This is definitely an example of that.

*As it turned out, they couldn’t make her do it. It doesn’t mean they didn’t try, and if they did try to coerce her"

But there's literally no evidence at all that they tried to "coerce" her. You're just completely making stuff up!

then in my view they risked breaking the law

You don't understand the law.

sometimes freedom of expression is freedom from some consequences.

No. This is completely and utterly factually wrong and astounding ignorance of the law.

I'm not trying to win a debate. I just find it so weird that people can deny reality to your face. Maybe it's not gaslighting, maybe it's just genuinely not being able to connect ideas together? I don't want to say 'stupidity' because it's obviously not that. It's just weird.