I did get a sense of a talented writer and teacher but one who appears more open to listening to children from minoritised backgrounds than to adults. This is not that rare in education - but again, Kate and Katy did not explore this. A missed opportunity to go beyond a partial rehashing.

Clanchy has now found friends among those who write articles attacking multiculturalism, dismissing evidence of genocide and mocking trans people. Perhaps the episode radicalised her; perhaps these people aligned with her earlier values. The podcast didn't help me to make sense of this.

The podcast ends with discussion of freedom of speech. Writers are forgrounded here. But Katy Razzall doesn't seem to consider the freedom of speech of those without access to broadsheet and BBC converage, namely GoodReads reviewers (I dislike some of my reviews on there) & (pre-Musk) Twitter users.

She doesn’t acknowledge the irony that she is doing here is exactly what her critics did with her own words - and what she said was wrong.

5) she had some regrets and changed some words 6) the sensitivity reader brought in was over the top and shows she was right in the first place. Clanchy reads out comments from the sensitivity reader and critiques them. She explains to Katy Razzall how her own writing is laced with irony.

Kate Clanchy's arguments slips from 1) The GoodRead reviews were all lies (they weren’t) 2) there were inaccuracies (there were) 3) the screenshots of the book took the words out of context (it’s odd to imply you cannot quote from a text) 4) the actual words were fine and she has no regrets...

Thanks - and apologies for not repeating the questions from the floor for online audience.

Thank you!

Back atcha!

Here’s ⬇️⬇️⬇️your reminder of why you want to be taking your book buying to @bookshop-org-uk.bsky.social 😃

(Nb: if you support our work, this is an additional way to boost us: choose us as your bkshop at bookshop.org & a % of ANY book you buy goes to us + other indie booksellers♥️)