Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Adorable.

[Anonymous]

And yes, we all know it’s from the William Carlos Williams poem before things get educational around here.

[Anonymous]

I wonder what dawn’s next move will be it seems like there would be a big audience for an interview with her.

I would love to see Sonya Larson interviewed by Isaac Chotiner!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yes, we all know it’s from the William Carlos Williams poem before things get educational around here.

Do you think William Carlos Williams will mind? Who is the bad art friend here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what dawn’s next move will be it seems like there would be a big audience for an interview with her.

I would love to see Sonya Larson interviewed by Isaac Chotiner!

I think the lawsuits will have to settle first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what dawn’s next move will be it seems like there would be a big audience for an interview with her.

I would love to see Sonya Larson interviewed by Isaac Chotiner!

I think the lawsuits will have to settle first.

I don't think I'd like an interview from either of them, to be honest.

But if an agent hasn't gotten a hold of Dawn, they're really missing out.

In my ideal scenario, the two of them would make up and then sell the TV rights to their story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yes, we all know it’s from the William Carlos Williams poem before things get educational around here.

Do you think William Carlos Williams will mind? Who is the bad art friend here?

You’re an asshole, no need to go to Reddit with the inquiry.

Any funny spins on this that still say, incorrectly, that Dorland was weird/wrong/extra/obsessive about her donation or her treatment of Larson shore up this effed up bullshit narrative that made her a national punching bag. It’s not cute, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what dawn’s next move will be it seems like there would be a big audience for an interview with her.

I would love to see Sonya Larson interviewed by Isaac Chotiner!

I think the lawsuits will have to settle first.

I don't think I'd like an interview from either of them, to be honest.

But if an agent hasn't gotten a hold of Dawn, they're really missing out.

In my ideal scenario, the two of them would make up and then sell the TV rights to their story.

I hope they never make up. I’m ready to make a Larson voodoo doll and send it to Dawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what dawn’s next move will be it seems like there would be a big audience for an interview with her.

I would love to see Sonya Larson interviewed by Isaac Chotiner!

I think the lawsuits will have to settle first.

I don't think I'd like an interview from either of them, to be honest.

But if an agent hasn't gotten a hold of Dawn, they're really missing out.

In my ideal scenario, the two of them would make up and then sell the TV rights to their story.

I hope they never make up. I’m ready to make a Larson voodoo doll and send it to Dawn.

Can we not do this “phase 3” stuff here? None of us want anyone to go extra. I’m the poster who is pissed that a week later, people are still both-sidesing this by insinuating Dorland was nuts, because it doesn’t seem that the power differential will ever be addressed by anyone who mocked her, let alone the Times or Kolker. But no one wants greater harm or to post in a way suggesting that those who are appalled by how Dorland was treated are suggesting punishment from the great beyond for Larson, right? Because that’s not what’s happened.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I mean, at what point does this become the same mean girl pile on that Dorland got stuck under to begin with?

I also suspect that a lot of people commenting in here are white women (I am), and likely well off white women at that, so I am not confident that we are the best audience at detecting some of the class and race issues at play here. I think Dorland was majorly wronged and that plagiarism is never defensible, but I'm not kidding myself that I have some super secret window into what the truth is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what dawn’s next move will be it seems like there would be a big audience for an interview with her.

I would love to see Sonya Larson interviewed by Isaac Chotiner!

I think the lawsuits will have to settle first.

I don't think I'd like an interview from either of them, to be honest.

But if an agent hasn't gotten a hold of Dawn, they're really missing out.

In my ideal scenario, the two of them would make up and then sell the TV rights to their story.

I hope they never make up. I’m ready to make a Larson voodoo doll and send it to Dawn.

Can we not do this “phase 3” stuff here? None of us want anyone to go extra. I’m the poster who is pissed that a week later, people are still both-sidesing this by insinuating Dorland was nuts, because it doesn’t seem that the power differential will ever be addressed by anyone who mocked her, let alone the Times or Kolker. But no one wants greater harm or to post in a way suggesting that those who are appalled by how Dorland was treated are suggesting punishment from the great beyond for Larson, right? Because that’s not what’s happened.

DP. The most recent (excellent) Informatter twitter thread a PP shared on the prior page makes precisely this point. Sonya Larson is an actual person too, and followers of this saga should not demonize and pile on her like the Chunky Monkeys (ugh) did Dawn Dorland. I decided Informatter was exactly right, and I would do better in this regard as soon as Sonya (1) posted an apology that DCUM agrees is acceptably contrite; and (2) withdraws her suit against Dorland. Until then? No can do, and will not try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I mean, at what point does this become the same mean girl pile on that Dorland got stuck under to begin with?

I also suspect that a lot of people commenting in here are white women (I am), and likely well off white women at that, so I am not confident that we are the best audience at detecting some of the class and race issues at play here. I think Dorland was majorly wronged and that plagiarism is never defensible, but I'm not kidding myself that I have some super secret window into what the truth is here.

Well, no.

An anonymous and still small conversation on a local message board isn’t 2,600 comments to one of the most viral New York Times stories of the past few years. No, not close. Almost no one with a verified Twitter account or even a truly visible Twitter account is speaking truth to relative power on this one. I’m objecting to the manipulative crap that I perceive as happening, which includes the idea that those who remain bewildered at how many false notes were hit on in the reporting, are out for Larson’s blood. No.

[Anonymous]

Can Larson even withdraw? For the practicing attorneys here, at this point, is she in it for the hope that her legal fees are paid by Dorland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can Larson even withdraw? For the practicing attorneys here, at this point, is she in it for the hope that her legal fees are paid by Dorland?

neither of them have any money, presumably, so they should settle with NDAs and Larson shredding the story.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see her w any court verdict is going to say that Larson can’t publish a version of the story without the plagiarism in it. There is no way you can muzzle the entire fi guys Noa story into eternity. That is just not reality as the law will see it.