Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP above, I agree with this. Grub Street has to fire the CMs who participated in the abusive chats, revamp HR, hire an ombudsman, and have public results of an investigation. The Times will never fix their culture, ever. Post Judith Miller, the Times unofficial posture is, “don’t hate us because we’re beautiful.”

I doubt GrubStreet is going to do much self-reckoning. Same with the NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP above, I agree with this. Grub Street has to fire the CMs who participated in the abusive chats, revamp HR, hire an ombudsman, and have public results of an investigation. The Times will never fix their culture, ever. Post Judith Miller, the Times unofficial posture is, “don’t hate us because we’re beautiful.”

Grub Street won’t do anything unless their enrollment is down because of this.

[Anonymous]

You have to check out Celeste Ng's Wiki page:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeste_Ng

Someone added:

"In October 2021, she was involved in an online controversy wherein she stated a kidney donor should “go f*ck herself and her one kidney.”[7][8]"

[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.

+100

Darmond is a harmless doofus who craves attention. Larson is a socially sophisticated mean girl who craves attention. Larson should do better.

Dorland is not a harmless doofus who craves attention.

This characterization is offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By centering so much of this conversation on Ng and Gay, we miss how many WOC have publicly acknowledged Dorland. One Twitter comment from a Black woman said early on, "I hate Sonya Larson because she made me side with an annoying white woman," which made me laugh. Some may have been more quiet. I checked the likes for some authors, and one prominent AAPI writer who is friends with Ng was liking tweets in favor of Dorland and kidney donation.

Ng and Gay are loud, but do not let them dominate the conversation, nor speak universally. If we are asking WOC to see that not all white women are the same, we also have to respect that not all Asian women are the same. Not all Black women are the same. While they certainly are happy to push buttons, both Ng and Gay are both married to white people, so I am fairly certain they see nuance. Maybe their online reactions stem from deep hurt; I know that Gay has had people ask weirdly about a chair size and someone assumed she was a maid at her own house - that's really shitty. While I think what Ng did was shitty, I also believe that she must be pretty sad/hurt for whatever reason to engage in such sustained vitriol. I also think it's fine to feel that they aren't your type, and that you won't buy books from them in the future. I've decided that myself. But, precisely because there are so many WOC voices out there. Someone pointed out the Mikki Kendall was tweeting favorably about Dorland, and if that makes you happy, then buy her book Hood Feminism (which is great and all white women should read). We need to help amplify the voices we want to hear!

I’m sorry, is that bigoted response supposed to help your argument here? If you changed the race on that statement all hell would break loose. There’s the open bigotry of the oppressed. No wonder white people don’t want to give up their power. Because all humans are the same, we’re all bigoted and will give as good as we get if we have the power. If you don’t want to be talked about that way, don’t talk about others that way. Hateful AF.

Please read Hood Feminism and get back to me.

Oh brother, all that white women have been told the last 5 years is that we are toxic and it’s time to shut up. I get it. I did the hard work for years and plan on improving myself for the rest of my life... but I don’t see how giving hatred back by calling Dorland an “annoying white woman” is making feminism more inclusive and lifting up anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP above, I agree with this. Grub Street has to fire the CMs who participated in the abusive chats, revamp HR, hire an ombudsman, and have public results of an investigation. The Times will never fix their culture, ever. Post Judith Miller, the Times unofficial posture is, “don’t hate us because we’re beautiful.”

I doubt GrubStreet is going to do much self-reckoning. Same with the NYT.

NYT definitely won't. They don't care and think they are right no matter what.

One thing about Grubstreet though, is that it has a weirdly parasitic relationship with the many unpublished and hobbyist writers who take classes, attend events, buy the books and publications of the teachers and leadership, etc. Basically, people like Dawn Dorland.

I've been in organizations like this before. People spend A LOT of money on classes and other things with the organization (there is always merch). Partly people do it because they derive value from these things. I'm sure plenty of people learn things in Grubstreet classes. But orgs like this are also selling access to a community. By taking classes you get to know to know other writers, including members of the staff. If you do it long enough you wind up rubbing elbows with people link Ng, for instance, which would be a huge selling point for a lot of people. You go to panel discussions and conferences, you become "friends" with writers you admire, you feel like you are part of something even if you, personally, are not publishing much.

I would have to assume this incident has impacted that relationship. It only works if the organization values and respects these people. It's a weird balance. Many of them may not be particularly talented writers, for instance. But they are helping to support the writing of others (many, many litfic writers basically make it work financially by teaching a lot) as well as the organization. So you can't be too dismissive of the fact that a lot of these people may never get published. You need to value people for who they are, for things like their dedication, their attitude, what they contribute to the community. If you only respect the best writers, the organization can't support itself.

But what happens if that community feels had? If they suddenly suspect all their writing teachers and "friends" might be sitting around making jokes about how bad they are, or worse, might be stealing things they wrote to incorporate into their own work, to mock it and to mock them?

If I were a student at Grubstreet, I would be taking my money elsewhere for the time being. And I'd be looking for a change in leadership, real repercussions for the people who behaved unethically and immorally, and a clear public stance against bullying and plagiarism. But I'm not, so I don't know what they think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP above, I agree with this. Grub Street has to fire the CMs who participated in the abusive chats, revamp HR, hire an ombudsman, and have public results of an investigation. The Times will never fix their culture, ever. Post Judith Miller, the Times unofficial posture is, “don’t hate us because we’re beautiful.”

I doubt GrubStreet is going to do much self-reckoning. Same with the NYT.

NYT definitely won't. They don't care and think they are right no matter what.

One thing about Grubstreet though, is that it has a weirdly parasitic relationship with the many unpublished and hobbyist writers who take classes, attend events, buy the books and publications of the teachers and leadership, etc. Basically, people like Dawn Dorland.

I've been in organizations like this before. People spend A LOT of money on classes and other things with the organization (there is always merch). Partly people do it because they derive value from these things. I'm sure plenty of people learn things in Grubstreet classes. But orgs like this are also selling access to a community. By taking classes you get to know to know other writers, including members of the staff. If you do it long enough you wind up rubbing elbows with people link Ng, for instance, which would be a huge selling point for a lot of people. You go to panel discussions and conferences, you become "friends" with writers you admire, you feel like you are part of something even if you, personally, are not publishing much.

I would have to assume this incident has impacted that relationship. It only works if the organization values and respects these people. It's a weird balance. Many of them may not be particularly talented writers, for instance. But they are helping to support the writing of others (many, many litfic writers basically make it work financially by teaching a lot) as well as the organization. So you can't be too dismissive of the fact that a lot of these people may never get published. You need to value people for who they are, for things like their dedication, their attitude, what they contribute to the community. If you only respect the best writers, the organization can't support itself.

But what happens if that community feels had? If they suddenly suspect all their writing teachers and "friends" might be sitting around making jokes about how bad they are, or worse, might be stealing things they wrote to incorporate into their own work, to mock it and to mock them?

If I were a student at Grubstreet, I would be taking my money elsewhere for the time being. And I'd be looking for a change in leadership, real repercussions for the people who behaved unethically and immorally, and a clear public stance against bullying and plagiarism. But I'm not, so I don't know what they think.

I think you are right. And fairly or unfairly, this reflects on other writing programs as well. The unpublished who watch this will wonder what their instructors are doing behind their backs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By centering so much of this conversation on Ng and Gay, we miss how many WOC have publicly acknowledged Dorland. One Twitter comment from a Black woman said early on, "I hate Sonya Larson because she made me side with an annoying white woman," which made me laugh. Some may have been more quiet. I checked the likes for some authors, and one prominent AAPI writer who is friends with Ng was liking tweets in favor of Dorland and kidney donation.

Ng and Gay are loud, but do not let them dominate the conversation, nor speak universally. If we are asking WOC to see that not all white women are the same, we also have to respect that not all Asian women are the same. Not all Black women are the same. While they certainly are happy to push buttons, both Ng and Gay are both married to white people, so I am fairly certain they see nuance. Maybe their online reactions stem from deep hurt; I know that Gay has had people ask weirdly about a chair size and someone assumed she was a maid at her own house - that's really shitty. While I think what Ng did was shitty, I also believe that she must be pretty sad/hurt for whatever reason to engage in such sustained vitriol. I also think it's fine to feel that they aren't your type, and that you won't buy books from them in the future. I've decided that myself. But, precisely because there are so many WOC voices out there. Someone pointed out the Mikki Kendall was tweeting favorably about Dorland, and if that makes you happy, then buy her book Hood Feminism (which is great and all white women should read). We need to help amplify the voices we want to hear!

I’m sorry, is that bigoted response supposed to help your argument here? If you changed the race on that statement all hell would break loose. There’s the open bigotry of the oppressed. No wonder white people don’t want to give up their power. Because all humans are the same, we’re all bigoted and will give as good as we get if we have the power. If you don’t want to be talked about that way, don’t talk about others that way. Hateful AF.

Please read Hood Feminism and get back to me.

Oh brother, all that white women have been told the last 5 years is that we are toxic and it’s time to shut up. I get it. I did the hard work for years and plan on improving myself for the rest of my life... but I don’t see how giving hatred back by calling Dorland an “annoying white woman” is making feminism more inclusive and lifting up anyone.

Fine, I will explain it to you: Plenty of white women have called Dorland annoying and worse. I mentioned that she said it early because she was basing it on the NYT article, which we've all agreed was slanted and misogynist to invoke a cat fight. Can you acknowledge the fact that she said she IS siding with Dorland? Can you agree that lots of white women said the same thing? Can you acknowledge that the very reason is it's "funny" is BECAUSE she is saying a WOC's behavior is so egregious that she has to side with a white woman. Nobody is saying white women can't talk. They're just asking us to listen. If you'd read Hood Feminism you would see that your very characterization of "making feminism more inclusive" means that you want to bring WOC in to the fold of white feminism, rather than question the very idea of it since it is not all encompassing. At the very least, I encourage you again to read Hood Feminism, which will explain a lot of this. And, as was mentioned Kendall was quite serious. Don't let one comment you don't like ruin a perspective.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, getting worked up about a WOC talking about an annoying white woman WHILE that same WOC is supporting Dorland does seem to be missing the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous]

DP. And that was a very early take. We were ALL influenced by how Kolker wrote the piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. And that was a very early take. We were ALL influenced by how Kolker wrote the piece.

Exactly. That POC Tweeter who stood up for Dorland early on was probably basing her comment on the NYT article, and frankly? Dorland IS portrayed as an annoying white woman in that article.

I think the PP who is strenuously objecting to that tweet, and (deliberately?) missing the larger and more important point is way, way off base. WAY off base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. And that was a very early take. We were ALL influenced by how Kolker wrote the piece.

Exactly. That POC Tweeter who stood up for Dorland early on was probably basing her comment on the NYT article, and frankly? Dorland IS portrayed as an annoying white woman in that article.

I think the PP who is strenuously objecting to that tweet, and (deliberately?) missing the larger and more important point is way, way off base. WAY off base.

Yes. Early in this thread I said they were both awful but Sonya was the worst. Basically the same thing. Before all the extra-text reading that happened.

But, to be clear, I didn't hear anyone in this thread advocating that all women of color should be painted with the same brush. I think that was a red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. And that was a very early take. We were ALL influenced by how Kolker wrote the piece.

Exactly. That POC Tweeter who stood up for Dorland early on was probably basing her comment on the NYT article, and frankly? Dorland IS portrayed as an annoying white woman in that article.

I think the PP who is strenuously objecting to that tweet, and (deliberately?) missing the larger and more important point is way, way off base. WAY off base.

Yes. Early in this thread I said they were both awful but Sonya was the worst. Basically the same thing. Before all the extra-text reading that happened.

But, to be clear, I didn't hear anyone in this thread advocating that all women of color should be painted with the same brush. I think that was a red herring.

Yes, that was also a total red herring. Nobody in this thread has done that. Basically I don't know what thread the objecting PP was reading, but it wasn't this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it not racism when a powerful group of POC bully and exclude this woman because she's white? If she was a POC, would they not just ignore her and exclude her based on her annoying traits? It seems like they revel in hating her because she's not one of them. I'm not saying that should be what people focus on. I think this story is far more about plagiarism and groupthink, but I don't think Dorland would've been exploited and treated this way if she were Asian.

thanks to all the PPs for your input on racism. Much appreciated.

Uhhhh, what?
Only two people in their group were POC, 90% of them were white.

Let's be real -- their treatment of Dorland had ZERO to do with race, and everything to do with their feelings of cringe towards her.
Dawn is needy and polarizing, there's no two ways about it, and they are a more sophisticated, "popular" crowd that she never fit into and never could, no matter how hard she tried.

To attempt to make the claim that their treatment of Dorland was about her race, is laughable.

[Anonymous]

I’m hoping that once Dorland gets over her hurt and any need of these awful people she will continue her very justified lawsuit until she gets some much deserved justice. Putting her down because she defended her own work and her own rather low key actions with this group just wrong. That NYT article is awful but it’s clear it was just to sell a declining rag of a newspaper.