Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

If a page is pushing 100 pages, it’s a good idea to read a few first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

Jesus. Please catch up before posting. You are about five days behind with that take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

And here we have exhibit A of how misinformation works.

My trust in NYT has taken a beating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

And here we have exhibit A of how misinformation works.

My trust in NYT has taken a beating.

+1

It is horrific how the NYT spread such misinformation. I am still debating whether I keep my subscription.

[Anonymous]

Bad Art Friend goes global!

[Anonymous]

Extremely annoyed that Celeste Ng has just... ignored her entire role in this mess and continues to be tweeting away as if nothing happened. I don't know why, but it bothers me so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bad Art Friend goes global!

A few days ago on Twitter that I saw some Chinese language accounts that were pro-Dorland.

[Anonymous]

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

I agree you should read more but I’ll explain it: no, she did not. After getting the cold shoulder from Larson at a writing conference AND hearing that Larson had written a short story about kidney donation, Dorland became suspicious that Larson was not a supportive friend and possible mining the private group for lolz and content. Both of which were true! Dorland did not demand likes, she politely asked if Larson would like to be removed from the private support group.

When you read the actual emails, what jumps out is how savvy Dorland is (she sniffs out what Larson is doing, even though Larson is lying and claiming that she cares about her friendship with Dorland) and also how restrained. She’s polite, gives Larson several outs, all while holding her boundary, which is that she doesn’t want people in her private support group who are not supportive.

She is not needy, awkward, intense, or unhinged. But Larson kind of is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This comment, by Elizabeth Alexander in the NY times comments section, nails it:

"In my own career as a composer I often encounter creators of music who are overeager, insecure, clingy, pushy, boastful, inappropriately chummy, and downright annoying. I know many who seek affirmation on social media on a regular basis. Their solicitations for encouragement can be cloying. At times, I distance. At times, I wince. But honestly, the intense pain underneath their actions is so nakedly apparent that I can’t imagine adding to it by making fun of them. If music and art don’t lead us to becoming more compassionate people, it has failed at its most important task."

Re Dorland? Doesn’t seem to (have you only read the NYT article?) Don’t know about Larson. Not a “nailed it” comment, especially given how patronizing it is.

What is inaccurate here about Dorland? The woman messaged people who she felt didn't acknowledge her kidney donation. That is unhinged.

I agree you should read more but I’ll explain it: no, she did not. After getting the cold shoulder from Larson at a writing conference AND hearing that Larson had written a short story about kidney donation, Dorland became suspicious that Larson was not a supportive friend and possible mining the private group for lolz and content. Both of which were true! Dorland did not demand likes, she politely asked if Larson would like to be removed from the private support group.

When you read the actual emails, what jumps out is how savvy Dorland is (she sniffs out what Larson is doing, even though Larson is lying and claiming that she cares about her friendship with Dorland) and also how restrained. She’s polite, gives Larson several outs, all while holding her boundary, which is that she doesn’t want people in her private support group who are not supportive.

She is not needy, awkward, intense, or unhinged. But Larson kind of is!

PP, that is really nice of you and boy was that original poster an example of impact of the pernicious misogyny of the NYT article.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone directed the link to this discussion to Kolkata himself? Might be good for him to have a chance to respond - I personally think he was probably trying to give both sides of the story to appear unbiased but the reverse happened for those who read the extra court info and context for timeline of events …the selective Editing to support his non bias actually made Him look very biased towArds Larson’s version of events even though much of what she contended is disproven by her communications with the CM group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone directed the link to this discussion to Kolkata himself? Might be good for him to have a chance to respond - I personally think he was probably trying to give both sides of the story to appear unbiased but the reverse happened for those who read the extra court info and context for timeline of events …the selective Editing to support his non bias actually made Him look very biased towArds Larson’s version of events even though much of what she contended is disproven by her communications with the CM group.

Darn autocorrect - the NYT article author …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Extremely annoyed that Celeste Ng has just... ignored her entire role in this mess and continues to be tweeting away as if nothing happened. I don't know why, but it bothers me so much.

Not on Twitter, but do people then call her out replying to her non sequitur tweets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extremely annoyed that Celeste Ng has just... ignored her entire role in this mess and continues to be tweeting away as if nothing happened. I don't know why, but it bothers me so much.

Not on Twitter, but do people then call her out replying to her non sequitur tweets?

Some, but those responses get buried beneath the many praising and kiss-up responses. Also, most of the critical responses come from people with virtually no followers. So fewer people see them, since Twitter will show you responses from people you follow or who they think you might want to follow first.

Particularly disappointing to me is that a lot of well known others (not just Grub Street people, but others with bigger names) have been interacting with Ng on Twitter as though this never happened. She had a tweet the other day that got responses from Susan Orlean, RO Kwon, and Ada Limón. I have to believe they, like a lot of people. Just don’t understand what Ng did here. That they either didn’t follow the story at all or followed it at a superficial level and just think Ng and Larson’s version of events must be correct.

It makes me a little sick. Dorland, and the truth, will be effectively disappeared. I wonder if Ng even understands the harm she has caused, or if she’s so deluded she still thinks what they did to Dorlsnd is justified.