Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

At this point there would be no point. Even if she didn't publish it, it's part of a public court record and is widely available that way.

But the thing is, Dorland has also accomplished her goal already too. As bad as the NYT and initial misreading of the situation by some literary fiction folks on twitter was, Dorland got her story out. Based on the reaction in the comments to the NYT story and the world outside that LitFic bubble, most people's reaction tot his story has been "Uh, the one lady donated a kidney and the other lady gave her a mean nickname in chats with her friends -- team kidney donor lady." Most people do not care about literary fiction, don't care about Celeste Ng, don't care about Roxane Gay or blue checkmark twitter. The average person gets that choosing to donate a kidney is a great thing and making fun of someone for donating a kidney is a bad thing. We do not actually live in the upside down.

So Dawn got what she wanted, for the most part. Most people looking at this story get she was wronged and that Larson was being a turd.

The only problem is that this teeny tiny corner of the universe -- a group of successful literary fiction writers who all kind of hang out together and support each other -- will never agree. I honestly don't get it. I've read a lot of those people's books! I have enjoyed Ng and Gay's writing, as well as Jennifer de Leon, Alexander Chee, and others. I don't really get what their deal is. But it is their deal and it's not going to change.

I hope Dawn just recognizes that it's probably not worth it to care what they think. I am certain that's painful for her because these are her heroes. But maybe that will liberate her, too. Maybe what she need in order to be successful as a writer is to free herself of the need to be part of this one little corner of the literary universe. Dawn, it's not worth it! Let them go!

[Anonymous]

I think dawn should write a story about a a self aggrandizing and catty fiction writer and include lightly altered excerpts of her The Kindest in it. But also make the protagonist anti-Semitic or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I'm not here for calls for Larson's blood and the voodoo doll poster above needs to take a seat, but I agree that the weight of this matter is still weighing most heavily on Dorland now because the establishment (the NYT, Grub Street, the famous blue check writers that piled on, Kolker) have resolutely closed ranks against Dorland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I'm not here for calls for Larson's blood and the voodoo doll poster above needs to take a seat, but I agree that the weight of this matter is still weighing most heavily on Dorland now because the establishment (the NYT, Grub Street, the famous blue check writers that piled on, Kolker) have resolutely closed ranks against Dorland.

Yes. And I couldn’t think less of those parties because of their behavior. Damn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

At this point there would be no point. Even if she didn't publish it, it's part of a public court record and is widely available that way.

But the thing is, Dorland has also accomplished her goal already too. As bad as the NYT and initial misreading of the situation by some literary fiction folks on twitter was, Dorland got her story out. Based on the reaction in the comments to the NYT story and the world outside that LitFic bubble, most people's reaction tot his story has been "Uh, the one lady donated a kidney and the other lady gave her a mean nickname in chats with her friends -- team kidney donor lady." Most people do not care about literary fiction, don't care about Celeste Ng, don't care about Roxane Gay or blue checkmark twitter. The average person gets that choosing to donate a kidney is a great thing and making fun of someone for donating a kidney is a bad thing. We do not actually live in the upside down.

So Dawn got what she wanted, for the most part. Most people looking at this story get she was wronged and that Larson was being a turd.

The only problem is that this teeny tiny corner of the universe -- a group of successful literary fiction writers who all kind of hang out together and support each other -- will never agree. I honestly don't get it. I've read a lot of those people's books! I have enjoyed Ng and Gay's writing, as well as Jennifer de Leon, Alexander Chee, and others. I don't really get what their deal is. But it is their deal and it's not going to change.

I hope Dawn just recognizes that it's probably not worth it to care what they think. I am certain that's painful for her because these are her heroes. But maybe that will liberate her, too. Maybe what she need in order to be successful as a writer is to free herself of the need to be part of this one little corner of the literary universe. Dawn, it's not worth it! Let them go!

I know you’re correct…I just fantasize that whatever people in the arts or media would come out, crack their knuckles, and tell these people they’re pathetic, have no stones, and that they won’t be talking to them at parties from here on out. It’s just maddening. (I know yours is the right take, I know it!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I'm not here for calls for Larson's blood and the voodoo doll poster above needs to take a seat, but I agree that the weight of this matter is still weighing most heavily on Dorland now because the establishment (the NYT, Grub Street, the famous blue check writers that piled on, Kolker) have resolutely closed ranks against Dorland.

Y’all do know that voodoo isn’t real right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think dawn should write a story about a a self aggrandizing and catty fiction writer and include lightly altered excerpts of her The Kindest in it. But also make the protagonist anti-Semitic or something.

I've thought about this, too. That would be great! But I also think that's just not the kind of person she is, nor the kind of writer she wants to be. I don't think it's her style and I don't think it would feel authentic to her. What she wants is reconciliation, not revenge. It's actually pretty admirable, even if it's also futile.

Me, on the other hand... I don't have these hang up and I have to admit I've been tempted to fictionalize this narrative because there are a lot of fun ways you could do it. Not sure I have the balls to give the middle finger to some of these people IRL though. Maybe. I still have to make a living and while I'm the sort of person who is honest about what I think, I also generally avoid drama and as a rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I'm not here for calls for Larson's blood and the voodoo doll poster above needs to take a seat, but I agree that the weight of this matter is still weighing most heavily on Dorland now because the establishment (the NYT, Grub Street, the famous blue check writers that piled on, Kolker) have resolutely closed ranks against Dorland.

Y’all do know that voodoo isn’t real right?

Hey, I’ve been to New Orleans and loved “Eve’s Bayou”!

My point really wasn’t to rain on anyone’s parade. I just get very flinty about the idea that people are being unfair to Larson or making irrational comments about her, because the criticisms I’ve seen tie in only to her dishonesty and heinous behavior, that’s all I mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Adorable.

Disgusting and unverified. Boo.

[Anonymous]

It’s sad when you are kicked out of the world you wanted to belong to (the writers group) but Dawn was already out so at least it’s clear. The NYT will never admit it was a publicity stunt.

[Anonymous]

It’s also sad when your writing is so bad you have to plagerize to get attention. Who’s the narcissist now?

[Anonymous]

Honestly the more this goes on, the more convinced I am that the bad art friend is Kolker and the NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Adorable.

Disgusting and unverified. Boo.

I believe this is just a spoof on the situation or Sonya Larsen, but I could be wrong. I don't find offensive.

My work friend and I used to write each other these poems based on William Carlos Williams all the time, like to make fun of snack room situations or reports or whatever, and we thought we were SO clever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad when you are kicked out of the world you wanted to belong to (the writers group) but Dawn was already out so at least it’s clear. The NYT will never admit it was a publicity stunt.

How was it a publicity stunt? By Dawn?

[Anonymous]

Right. People writing versions of this for every new cultural event. It’s a meme.