This is really good and worth doing with the caveat that I don't like the unexamined use of 'cancel culture', since it proposes that any cautioning or reproval falls within this (negative) definition https://twitter.com/thebookseller/status/1278618163253395456

For e.g. shortly after the publication of TES I had both approval (for which I was thankful) and concern/anger re my portrayal of a possibly autistic child; the negative reactions weren't an attempt to cancel me but a response to what I had written - I think the distinction>

between 'Dude you could have done that better' and 'nobody should ever read your books ever again' is v important, as is distinction btwn 'not sure that was ideal tbh' and 'get in the bin forever'

(I fall v much into the 'hmm this particular thing wasn't ideal and may have consequences' camp not the 'this thing you did taints you and all your work forever and ever into all perpetuity amen and a curse be upon you' camp)

Also like sorry to fall back on theology again (ok not sorry) I think the idea of cancel culture is definitely inflected by secular conceptions of behaviour which kind of proposes GOOD PERSON v BAD PERSON and this the re-taxonomy from one category to another is permanent & entire

To anyone with any kind of religious or philosophical sensibility the notion of caution and reproval is set against the happy likelihood of recompense, redemption and restoration and is not a devastating final blow

It would be good if we could arrive at a position which lifts activity at a particular time and place OUT of the whole work, life reputation of an individual; so there may be caution and consequences (and should be) but these do not (necessarily!) constitute damnation

Sorry about another thread but if you all had the decency to have me installed as a Bishop then a) i would look amazing and b) I could do all this from my pulpit/throne