The Rupture of the Royal Society of Literature

Bad decisions come back to bite you on the backside.

Not many writers I know will be shedding any tears for the duo at the head of the Royal Society of Literature, Daljit Nagra and Molly Rosenberg, who have resigned before a vote of no confidence was taken in their leadership.

The Royal Society of Literature has an honourable history. Founded in 1820 under the patronage of George lV, its fellowship was intended to encompass ‘the most distinguished writers working today.’ The society is behind several literary awards including the RSL Ondaatje Prize.

But recently, its aims have swayed from the previously stated ones of excellence. In 2020, it announced that for its 200th anniversary it would be launching major new initiatives and making 60 new appointments ‘championing the great diversity of writing and writers in the UK.’ The initiatives included collecting new fellows from communities, backgrounds and experiences currently under represented in UK literary culture. Previously, a fellowship could only be given if the subject had at least two acclaimed publications, but under the new rules, members of the public are allowed to nominate candidates.

Although it is always a laudable aim to increase access to create an equal playing field, all too often this kind of initiative means cutting standards to allow in the mediocre. There are so many incredibly talented writers who come from a non-British/non-white familial background - Salman Rushdie, Kazuo Ishiguro, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the late Andrew Levy - that it seems patronising to them to lower entrance criteria simply to usher in more of their non-white kin. Anyone who has succeeded in a challenging profession in the UK who is not of strictly British origin will resent the suggestion that positive discrimination played any role in their career trajectory. How wrong then, to dilute their success by welcoming in those without the same background of excellence and success.

There have been other controversies. In 2022, a horrific murder attempt was made on the life of distinguished writer and Booker winner Salman Rushdie. Dame Marina Warner, who had just finished a stint as President, called for the society to post a pledge of support. Astonishingly, they were told - allegedly by new President Bernadine Evaristo- that this ‘might give offence.’ To those who sympathised with murder? To those who disagree with freedom of speech? Quite astonishing that in the 21st century, a society set up to celebrate literature should cower and quiver at the thought of enraging religious extremists with murderous inclinations by pledging support for an innocent writer almost killed in an assault, not to mention someone who had lived half his adult life in fear and hiding.

Another writer the Society failed to stand up for was Orwell Prize winner Kate Clanchy, subjected to social media trolling and dumped by her publisher because of accusations of resorting to racist stereotypes in her memoir descriptions of some of her students - who stood by her. When the Society gave a fellowship to one of her main online critics, Sunny Singh, Clanchy resigned as a Society fellow. Having not read Clanchy’s book but heard descriptions of some of the wording used eg - ‘chocolate skin’ , I can see that it might sound patronising, insensitive, or as if it was resorting to tired racial cliches. However, if someone makes a mistake inadvertently, with no malice intended, and if the mistake did not involve treating anyone badly in any way but rather a clumsy use of language now decreed outmoded, one would hope that their apology would be enough to ensure their professional body backed them against vile abuse in the public domain. Some of what came in for castigation certainly did not seem problematic to me: ‘almond shaped eyes’? I was told I had almond shaped eyes as a child, by the mother of a schoolfriend, and apart from blushing furiously I was quite flattered to be noticed. It is quite appalling to read Clanchy’s account of her fellow authors jeering at her in front of her at the Society’s annual summer party:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/65205/the-rsl-rushdie-and-gaza-kate-clanchy

I would urge the society to issue an apology to her for her treatment and invite her back as a fellow. I would also say that anyone who can’t state their support for a man who has been almost killed because of a novel he wrote doesn’t belong in any society, leave alone one related to writing in a democratic state.

There has also been controversy about the sacking of Maggie Fergusson, the Society’s former director and editor of its Review magazine, who was allegedly told by the Society’s director Molly Rosenberg, that the current annual edition of the magazine, Review, would be the last one she edited. It is alleged that this was because of an article which discussed a visit to Palestine’s Festival of Literature which was unrelentingly negative about Israel, mentioning ‘ the devastating machinery of the Israeli state in operation: the armed checkpoints, apartheid road systems, arbitrary identity checks against Palestinian children, and other violent structural harms.’ That issue of the magazine was postponed.

Here a tricky question arises. Is it okay to pull an article - leave alone a whole issue of a magazine - and sack the editor because you disagree with it? I am pro freedom of speech and also pro Israel and democracy. Some of the coverage of the war in Gaza upsets me because it neglects to mention the horror of the Oct 7 2023 pogrom that triggered the latest hostilities. Of course it is right to talk about the tragic loss of human life in a war zone. But many news outlets, including the BBC have consistently quoted dubious mortality figures fed to them by Hamas, a terrorist group who started the war by carrying out mass murder and rape and torture and kidnapping on innocent civilians at a music festival and kibbutzim. I think by rights a balanced piece should cover atrocities on both sides. If a piece is biased or only highlights the bloody results of war without describing the atrocities that caused it, it is fair to pull it. Ideally, the pulling of the piece would require input from several peers who all agreed, and not just be based on the view of one individual who disagreed with its tone or balance. It would be unusual to sack the editor unless she/he refused to pull the article or had a history of other problems. It would be highly unusual to sack her without holding a negotiatory meeting between the editor and a panel from the Society who agreed that the article was unsuitable for publication. On the other hand, one can see how a person from a minority subjected to the most violent pogrom since The Holocaust might act emotionally rather than rationally, especially when experiencing the huge surge in antisemitism that has occurred as a result of the War, and the credulous reporting of the UK’s state funded media. A better decision would have been to publish the article - freedom of speech is all - but simultaneously commission and publish a piece on the pogrom by a journalist who experienced and survived it.

However, it is clear that the fellows of the Society had lost faith in both director Molly Rosenberg and chairman Daljit Nagra. When this happens, it is right for the leadership to resign and for the Society to reconsider the values they wish to honour and a leadership suited to respecting these.

Time now to regroup, rethink, and take democratic votes on edicts that were previously passed, such as the diluting down of the achievements required to become a fellow. The Royal Society of Literature forgot that leaders of an organisation exist to represent the members, not rule autocratically.