Bad Art Friend
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You’re right. We’ve discussed this too though. |
Anonymous
|
I think this story provokes a "yuck" response in a lot of people and that makes people want to say "everyone is equally culpable." I get it. This kind of intractable interpersonal conflict is so unpleasant to be around. If you've ever had something akin to this happen in your social circle or at job or in a school you attended, you can probably relate to the feeling of "oh my god, just stop."
But usually in these situations, both sides have behaved kind of badly from the start. Like one person was a bully, but the other person was also gossiping behind their back or something. At least, that's been my experience. I keep waiting to hear that's the case here too. I keep waiting to find out exactly what it was that made Sonya Larson decide that Dawn Dorland was a villain worthy of a take down. The race angle had me waiting to read that Dawn had been engaging in micro aggression, had a history of negative behavior toward Sonya or POC in general, that kind of thing. The fact that it's been weeks and I still haven't seen anything like this though, makes me think it's not out there. And that leads me back to what we know, which is that Sonya and her friends were really, really annoyed with Dawn for talking about her kidney donation. And by my count, she was punished for this "crime" with: - Nasty gossip and backbiting from people who called themselves her friends and were nice to her face - A thinly veiled takedown of her kidney donation in Sonya's story - The theft of a letter she wrote from a private FB group - The potential mishandling of a sexual harassment claim at Grub Street - Literal years of gaslighting from Sony and others about all of the above - A lawsuit initiated by Sonya - Getting dragged in the NYT and on Twitter by Sonya and multiple bestselling authors who Dawn almost certainly counts among her literary heroes If this happened to me, I can tell you for certain I would not have gone after Sonya as aggressively. No way would I have done things like ask a publisher to pull the story or offer me space to publish my own response. But it's not because I'm nicer or kinder or more emotionally stable than Dawn. It's because I lack the self-esteem and the effing cajones to stand up for myself like that. If this happened to me, I'd probably just crawl away and stop writing and focus on treating the depression, anxiety, and PTSD this situation would definitely cause. So, no, I don't think Dawn is now the Bad Art Friend. |
Anonymous
| PP at 9:04, I agree with your take entirely, including why people are perhaps not thinking very critically about their desire to both-sides an issue where one side was abusive, dishonest, engaged in unethical and potentially illegal behavior, and the other side….is expected to take it. |
Anonymous
If that's the case, what a colossal waste of time. If Chee is done with the incessant chatter, then maybe he should tell his pal Larson to take the damn letter out of her story. Then it would quite literally be over. |
Anonymous
Well said. I also think that class comes into this. The writer class -- the Hobbes essay above is an example -- cannot see another UMC member as the wrongdoer. Look at Hobbes, look at Kolker, not to mention Ng and Gay and the smarmy sexist Almond. The commonality among all of these authors is that they are MC and UMC successful authors who are contorting themselves to come up with a world view where Dawn did something "as bad." I think it is because they cannot abide by a world in which a lower class writer attempting to climb into their world isn't somehow wrong, somehow at fault in some way. There is a deep need on their part to "both sides" this because that protects a class member and -- conveniently -- keeps a lower class interloper out. |
Anonymous
That's not remotely inline with the undisputed facts as laid out in discovery provided by Larson. This is a fantasy view, not grounded in reality. |
Anonymous
Agreed. I know people in real life who are friends with Chee. They seem to find him a wonderful person, but I admit his social media presence irritates me. He's a little too self-righteous or something. I think he doesn't want people discussing this story because it throws too much light on how literary cliques work. |
Anonymous
Interesting take. Are you SL's friend? Or perhaps someone who engages in unethical behavior and is worried someone might hold you accountable? Dawn was not trying to "destroy" SL's career or her living -- that is simply false, hyperbolic and melodramatic. Dawn wanted one part of SL's story, a plagiarized "chunk" if you will, to be removed. Period. SL could have made this go away at any time by just being a decent and ethical human. And by following the edits of fiction 101. |
Anonymous
| ^^ edicts, not edits. |
Anonymous
And these are his friends. How to Be a Writer on Social Media: Advice from Roxane Gay, Alexander Chee, Celeste Ng, and Adam M. Grant https://lithub.com/how-to-be-a-writer-on-social-media-advice-from-roxane-gay-alexander-chee-celeste-ng-and-adam-m-grant/ GrubStreet conference organized by SL, featuring Alexander Chee (and Jennifer DeLeon) https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/03/h2-write-it Alexander Chee Praises Everything I Never Told You in The New York Times Book Review https://www.penguin.com/newsroom/alexander-chee-praises-everything-never-told-new-york-times-book-review/ Writers of Color Roundtable: With Alexander Chee, Jennifer De Leon, Kaitlyn Greenidge, Mira Jacob, Celeste Ng, Regina Brooks, & Emi Ikkanda. At GrubStreet’s Muse & the Marketplace 2016 literary conference, Boston https://larsonya.com/media/ This is a very tight community. They are annoyed this "scandal" has not blown over by now. |
Anonymous
It also raises significant questions about the selection of lit fic. I think it is really important to a lot of lit fic authors to believe that they are published and had success because they are objectively good authors. They are the chosen good writers, as demonstrated by how they've been chosen over and over by publishers, by book festivals, by awards committees, etc. But what if it turns out that selection has very little to do with quality, that there is a thumb on the scale, that those selections have a lot less to do with quality and a lot more to do with being picked for admission based on immutable personal characteristics. In other words, that the world of lit fic is as nepotistic and corrupt as any other, that writers who may mercilessly mock the grossly capitalist wall street bankers who only give business to their buddies are actually no different at all from those bankers. Of course Chee wants to stop talking about this. Of course the blue check writers want to be silent. This entire affair shows the lit fic world as being no different and no better than any other clubby, corrupt industry, and their egos as artists cannot abide by that. |
Anonymous
Disagree that Hobbes can be lumped in with that group. He's a writer but not successful the way Chee, Gay, or Kolker are. He is mostly known now as a podcaster, because You're Wrong About and Maintenance Phase both got really popular in the last couple years. His writing day job is more mundane and lower level (and likely not that well compensated), and unlike these other folks, he's never published a book and certainly not a bestseller. If you are familiar with his podcasting work, he just likes doing this kind of deep dive into controversial issues to try and sort them out. I disagree with his conclusion here, but I think he's very much acting in good faith. |
Anonymous
|
Imagine a world in which a more junior employee of, say, Goldman Sachs filed an HR complaint alleging a significant policy violation and unethical behavior by a more senior director. But that complaint is investigated by a friend of the accused director, and the outcome and progress of the investigation are shared widely and loosely by the internal investigator with others in the Goldman Sachs, including with a managing director who threatens -- in written communication -- to destroy the complainant in wildly florid language.
That's precisely what happened at Grub Street. If this had happened at a bank, or at a hedge fund, or something like that, I guarantee the literary world would have no problem excoriating the management of that bank or that tech company. But because this happened in Grub Street, because they are the establishment here, they side with management. I find it inconceivable that there is a world where Chris Castellani, for instance, remains in any way associated with Grub Street, but at the end of the day, Grub Street is acting like any other corrupt institution and I should not be surprised. |
Anonymous
He isn't at the same level, but if he is working on a book, he can't go scorched earth on the literary establishment. There is a reason that aspiring writers who are horrified by this are pouring into Reddit, or Datalounge or even (on a small scale) DCUM. It's because they can't take the public risk of not "both siding" this, because the side that is actually wrong is also the one with power. |