“Some harm, some foul”: The editor’s duty of care in minimising the potential harm of creative nonfiction that contains problematic or distressing material

The popular Americanism, “no harm, no foul”, was first used in basketball when the play in question caused no physical harm. Today, the expression is used to suggest that, if no one has been harmed by a misdeed, the “foul” should be excused. Kate Clanchy’s controversial memoir, Some Kids I Taught and What They Taught Me (2019), caused considerable psychological harm to readers – and significant reputational damage to both author and publisher. The critical discussion that ensued divided readers, with critics drawing attention to the ableist, classist, racist, and sexist undertones of the work, while Clanchy’s most vocal supporters argued that her critics were “abusive trolls” (Rajesh, 2021, para. 4) who condemned the book without reading it. Thus, this paper scrutinises the public commentary that surrounded the controversy to demonstrate that there was, indeed, “some harm, some foul”. The paper then assesses the value of harm-preventative measures available to practising Australian editors who work with problematic content in creative nonfiction texts. The paper concludes by offering an evidence-based probability of harm model for editing problematic content, with the overarching goal of minimising potential harm, and promoting safe and responsible editing practice.