Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

19:28 here again. Like, imagine reading some version of "The Kindest" in a college creative writing class 20 years from now. And having an opinion about it, and then hearing about the story behind the story, the perils of plagiarism, etc.

It would be instructive, is what I'm saying. Not necessarily something Lawson should want her name to be associated with, but it would teach the kids a lesson.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to be a non sequitur because I see the thread is focused on other things, but:

I am baffled by a group chat focused on making fun of another person. My group chats are largely used to make fun of people on the chat, preferably in gif form. I thought that’s what group chats were for, in addition to quoting pat benetar lyrics and posting links to real estate listing with photos of sex dungeons in them? It has never occurred to me to use my group chat for a team pile on of anyone, much less a kidney donor. Just seems lame and humorless and boring!

[Anonymous]

shan1212 wrote:My emotional investment in this story about strangers must be telling me something, and I wish I could figure out exactly what it is. I don't want to be swept up in some kind of mob justice; I totally understand that society functions this way in order to keep errant behaviors in line, but I don't want my brief time on this planet to be spent obsessing on a feud between strangers and trying to teach a lesson to some author I barely thought of before this. On the other hand, I'm a chronically ill SAHP, so I do need something to engage my intellect, and I'm obviously not alone in my interest in this story.

It's definitely unsatisfying that so much has been discovered about Larson's lies, and yet she has continued to maintain the unconditional support of her community. People like Bridburg and Ng are doubling down in the face of obvious malfeasance. So then to me it becomes this question of psychology . . . strutting around defiantly with pointed "likes" and, in Ng's case, all these "You're willfully misrepresenting the facts and somehow not believing me that 2 + 2 = 5 even though I TOLD YOU IT WAS" responses. Now I'm not just marveling at the cruelty shown to Dawn but also the idiocy of continuing to dig at this point. My underlying feeling is one of "oh god, let that never be me."

At first I was not won over by Becky Tuch's apology, but she has continued to show she is willing to own up to her mistakes, and I so appreciate that. We all miss the mark, but we don't all consider that we might be wrong, and even fewer of us seek to repair the damage we caused. She said she left the group, but I do have to wonder . . . how can the group ever go on as before now, with or without Becky? How could anyone trust Sonya? How could anyone not have a fear of their words being leaked again in the back of their mind?

I do hope GrubStreet cleans house. You can't just CC some of the active participants on an HR inquiry, like some posts that insinuate that Dawn is mentally ill, and then handle it with a few "ethics workshops" recommendations from some firm you hired. Of course, that strutting that I referenced earlier is probably a facade to cover up your fear that you are going down for this.

I know this isn't about me, but I am thinking back on some drama that people tried to suck me into. I am an advocate for a type of racial justice that is unpopular among the NIMBYs, and a bunch of local NIMBYs have tried to "win" by baiting, harassing, slandering, and just generally annoying me. I knew that as soon as I responded back in kind, they'd try to make it about my response and not about right/wrong. So I never took the bait, as tempting as it was. I'm glad that I didn't sully myself by slinging mud. You don't need to convince everyone that you're right or show up the haters . . . but sure, it's kind of delicious when they bring it on themselves.

Still, I have always worked hard to keep those people humanized in my heart. Is this case a proxy for my schadenfreude? Oh dear, haha.

Thoughtful post, thank you. I agree with your 2nd paragraph 100%. Was the nimby stuff on your nextdoor?

[Anonymous]

Hi 19:28, I think that the only way that the pro-Larson narrative you described works is if the plagiarism and the unethical actions by Grub Street employees that led to the inclusion of the plagiarized copy are magically forgotten. (Remember, this isn't just the plagiarism, it is also about the institutional failures of Grub Street.) And that's the imaginary world that the CMs inhabited. If you invent a world where the unethical behavior and the plagiarism didn't occur, then suddenly you can create this fantasy narrative where a demanding white woman is trying to hurt the career of an innocent writer of color. But that fantasy narrative only works if both the institutional failures of GrubStreet and the actual plagiarism are swept under the rug. And, honestly, I have a hard time constructing a reasonable narrative where that happens. I can't see a reasonable interpretation where Larson's actions are defensible, based on all the evidence that has come out.

In other words, you asked if anyone could see their point of view, and I think that while I can see how they get there (by ignoring or engaging in unethical behavior and plagiarism), it isn't a reasonable point of view. It requires ethical contortions, and unreasonable entitlement by Dorland. I can't see a reasonable, just path to that world view, in other words.

And the question of what to do with the story now is a good one. It is irrecoverably tainted now, but if she rewrites the letter part entirely, can she still profit off it? Sell it to colleges? I don't think there is a legal reason why not, barring a settlement agreement between Larson and Dorland that bars publication. And I can't see why Larson would agree to that at this point; she seems to be getting terribly bad legal advice from her lawyer with the aol.com email address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to be a non sequitur because I see the thread is focused on other things, but:

I am baffled by a group chat focused on making fun of another person. My group chats are largely used to make fun of people on the chat, preferably in gif form. I thought that’s what group chats were for, in addition to quoting pat benetar lyrics and posting links to real estate listing with photos of sex dungeons in them? It has never occurred to me to use my group chat for a team pile on of anyone, much less a kidney donor. Just seems lame and humorless and boring!

I don't get that either. I am part of several group chats, and I've never seen anything like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to be a non sequitur because I see the thread is focused on other things, but:

I am baffled by a group chat focused on making fun of another person. My group chats are largely used to make fun of people on the chat, preferably in gif form. I thought that’s what group chats were for, in addition to quoting pat benetar lyrics and posting links to real estate listing with photos of sex dungeons in them? It has never occurred to me to use my group chat for a team pile on of anyone, much less a kidney donor. Just seems lame and humorless and boring!

I don't get that either. I am part of several group chats, and I've never seen anything like this.

I'm glad to hear this because I'm part of group chats that are very small and not at all mean girl focused. But my group chats aren't very extensive so I though maybe I was just out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to be a non sequitur because I see the thread is focused on other things, but:

I am baffled by a group chat focused on making fun of another person. My group chats are largely used to make fun of people on the chat, preferably in gif form. I thought that’s what group chats were for, in addition to quoting pat benetar lyrics and posting links to real estate listing with photos of sex dungeons in them? It has never occurred to me to use my group chat for a team pile on of anyone, much less a kidney donor. Just seems lame and humorless and boring!

I guess the quality and integrity of the group chat depends on the quality and integrity of its members. My group chat with all women ages 38-48ish, half SAHM half WOHM, with both white and POC has never descended into anything like Chunky Monkeys.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I was puzzled by some of the blue check "we all do this in our group chats" responses in Twitter. I am by no means perfect and definitely can be snarky and unkind, but what was in all those chats was next-level cruel. I haven't had anything like it in my group chats, and I hope it isn't common.

[Anonymous]

This is a little sad and sweet.

[Anonymous]

Whoops here is the reply

[Anonymous]

Larson refused mediation and published several versions of her story with plagiarized material, and sued Dorland’s representative. Whatever damages or relief Dorland claims, including barring the story from further publication since it’s hung on the letter several times and Larson had years to remedy this, seems fair at least as something to bring to a court. Funny way to contextualize things - since she did get grant money, and won a city-wide contest, by including lifted material, should she not face certain damages because she didn’t do better financially with her actions? Even when she formally set in motion a litigation which could bankrupt both parties? Hm.

I hope Dorland doesn’t walk away on any level. Arthur Chu had a sensitive and thought-provoking take on the “dig two graves” take, which is somewhat implicit in 19:28’s argument, which personally doesn’t work for me at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was puzzled by some of the blue check "we all do this in our group chats" responses in Twitter. I am by no means perfect and definitely can be snarky and unkind, but what was in all those chats was next-level cruel. I haven't had anything like it in my group chats, and I hope it isn't common.

So creepy, right?!

No — people like me do NOT have group chats like this
Yes — emotional stunted at age 12, insecure, unprofessional, competitive “creative class” head cases absolutely have chats like this and have no idea that they are outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was puzzled by some of the blue check "we all do this in our group chats" responses in Twitter. I am by no means perfect and definitely can be snarky and unkind, but what was in all those chats was next-level cruel. I haven't had anything like it in my group chats, and I hope it isn't common.

So creepy, right?!

No — people like me do NOT have group chats like this
Yes — emotional stunted at age 12, insecure, unprofessional, competitive “creative class” head cases absolutely have chats like this and have no idea that they are outliers.

Yes, the "come.on, we all do this" was creepy. We don't!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Larson refused mediation and published several versions of her story with plagiarized material, and sued Dorland’s representative. Whatever damages or relief Dorland claims, including barring the story from further publication since it’s hung on the letter several times and Larson had years to remedy this, seems fair at least as something to bring to a court. Funny way to contextualize things - since she did get grant money, and won a city-wide contest, by including lifted material, should she not face certain damages because she didn’t do better financially with her actions? Even when she formally set in motion a litigation which could bankrupt both parties? Hm.

I hope Dorland doesn’t walk away on any level. Arthur Chu had a sensitive and thought-provoking take on the “dig two graves” take, which is somewhat implicit in 19:28’s argument, which personally doesn’t work for me at all.

Can you link the "dig two graves" post from Arthur Chu?

[Anonymous]

19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.