Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

They both come off terribly IMHO

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/magazine/dorland-v-larson.html

[Anonymous]

I’m not defending Larson’s original lifting of the letter, which didn’t make it into the final published letter but woo boy howdy is Darmond out of her depth with her relentless stalking. The story itself is draws from Larson’s own astonishment at the weaponized narcissism and white savior complex exemplified by the kidney story. she saw in I’ve been obsessed with this story all day. This thread is a good summation imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not defending Larson’s original lifting of the letter, which didn’t make it into the final published letter but woo boy howdy is Darmond out of her depth with her relentless stalking. The story itself is draws from Larson’s own astonishment at the weaponized narcissism and white savior complex exemplified by the kidney story. she saw in I’ve been obsessed with this story all day. This thread is a good summation imo.

^as she saw it.

[Anonymous]

But why did Larson lift the letter while pretending not to know about the kidney donation?
Why lift the letter of someone you want nothing to do with?
Seems sloppy and thoughtless...inviting trouble.

[Anonymous]

I think Larson was taken aback by the email about not acknowledging the post about the kidney donation on a page that Darmond added her too without her assent, and was befuddled by what she should respond in that moment. Darmond is such a perfect specimen for examining clueless narcissism (imo) that she couldn’t help but look at that letter as a gift. That was sh*tty for sure. When the author quotes the text messages that said the “letter is too perfect,” my takeaway is about what it so economically captures about the white savior ego. I think Darmond thought that those words were somehow a compliment.

It is true that the entire article is a Rorschach test, and I am a woman of color.

[Anonymous]

What snobby, mean girl a-holes. I don't want to get to know anyone in this story, but I can assure you, I will not be reading any books by Celeste Ng. And I am quite grateful that I do not live in Boston or write there because the writing community there sounds horrid.

[Anonymous]

Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But why did Larson lift the letter while pretending not to know about the kidney donation?
Why lift the letter of someone you want nothing to do with?
Seems sloppy and thoughtless...inviting trouble.

And the arrogance of writing her off as nothing but a wannabe white savior. Just seems intellectually stunted.

[Anonymous]

This is like exhibit #478 for disliking MFA programs

[Anonymous]

Wow wow wow.

I'm not choosing a side because I think mistakes were made all around. I think my main take away is that Dawn is the living embodiment of "be careful what you wish for." Yes, she clearly donated a kidney for the express purposed of getting people to pay attention to her and applaud her for donating a kidney. That doesn't negate that it's a good thing, but that was obviously her motivation, that is clear. Because every choice she made after that is in continued pursuit of that attention and applaud. The email to Larson, the lawsuit, and then pitching this article to the NYTs. She is so desperate for attention and validation and while she got the attention she is NEVER going to get the validation and I wish she would recognize that this was always true.

Even if it had never escalated to this point, donating a kidney was never going to make all the writers she knew like and admire her.

It was never going to make her feel important and secure in the way that she hoped.

Donating her kidney sounds like it saved a man's life and that's an amazing thing! I wish she could see that it stands by itself. But she is looking for something else that can only be found in therapy and self-knowledge and not by having a surgeon remove one of your organs.

So in the end I feel bad for her even though, yes, she's playing white savior and, yes, she seems like a crazy stalker. I don't think she is actually dangerous -- Larson will be largely vindicated by this story and will have the continued support of friends (including some heavy hitters in the writing world) and Dawn will still never get what she is looking for. And it seems like that need is in fact born out of childhood trauma. I wish she'd get what she needs. This is not it.

[Anonymous]

The viciousness, smugness, and limited imagination and talent in the actual successful Grub Street authors was rather mind-blowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

Effing truth. Of course.

One side has Roxane Gay and Celeste Ng and some nobody from Motherboard tripping over themselves to snatch out over #whitewomantears on Twitter. And the other side is this strange woman - but for her awkward letter, Larson would have no story. (She may say “phew!” now but that wasn’t her song when the Globe was knocking on her door). It’s just grotesque.

[Anonymous]

I follow a lot of authors on Twitter and was surprised (maybe foolishly) to see them siding the Larson. Darmond is an irritating piece of work and it's fine to write about her through a white savior lens -- but then own it. And certainly don't steal her open letter without attribution. The citywide book program was right to be furious with Larson.

As for the copyright issues, I've heard Facebook gains rights to your posts. Do they have a claim here too?

[Anonymous]

They were *cruel* to Dorland. And they were ecstatic in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

Effing truth. Of course.

One side has Roxane Gay and Celeste Ng and some nobody from Motherboard tripping over themselves to snatch out over #whitewomantears on Twitter. And the other side is this strange woman - but for her awkward letter, Larson would have no story. (She may say “phew!” now but that wasn’t her song when the Globe was knocking on her door). It’s just grotesque.

Celeste Ng comes off terrible and the whole thing just reeks of the worst parts of these insular writer-artist circles