Bad Art Friend

[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.

I haven't seen this DCUM thread linked anywhere. I doubt he has seen it. DCUM is actually pretty small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On Twitter, the only person that Ng has interacted with on this is Becky Tuch, who herself isn't a blue check. Otherwise the blue checks have closed ranks. I am cynical enough to believe that a group of writers has actually read a lot about this and probably some of them have seen the court documents, but they are more interested in protecting their own access to power than in the truth. This is after all at heart a matter of keeping someone with a working class background out of the small group of wealthy and influential writers.

[Anonymous]

"The story was available on Audible — an audio version, put out by a small company called Plympton." -- Bob Kolker

Plympton is not a small company.

Great tweets below showing the ties between Plympton (which has a partnership with the NYTimes!) and many of the authors involved in this fiasco. For example, Cheryl Strayed, who ignored Dorland's appeal for advice (and apparently writes Dear Sugar with the totally-not-sexist Steve Almond) is also listed as a Plympton author.

The conflicts of interest are alarming -- how could the Times not mention any of this?

https://twitter.com/DrDorianCramer/status/1450234752842276869

[Anonymous]

Celeste Ng wikipedia page no longer has the line about her role in bad art friend.

[Anonymous]

Can someone give some detail on Celeste Ng’s role here? I have not been reading the thread all the way through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Can we really pin this one on “the patriarchy?” This seems like a completely women hurting other women event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Celeste Ng wikipedia page no longer has the line about her role in bad art friend.

It's been updated.

[Anonymous]

New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Can we really pin this one on “the patriarchy?” This seems like a completely women hurting other women event.

This is a sarcastic response to a patronizing article he wrote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

A completely useless follow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

I just read that and found it deeply disappointing. Kolker is essentially doubling down on his "two sides" approach and this Rorschach test this is BS. People need to retire that.

In the days since his story was published, much has come to light and Kolker is clearly so fragile in the ego dept. that he cannot acknowledge the possibility that his storytelling style did a disservice to the truth, and that he (inadvertently?) ended up a lackey for the Chunky Monkeys PR game.

This is not about Twitter wars, or interpretations, and it honestly it sickens me to see the powerful NYT wading back in here to scold us that this is about "art" and "inspiration" and "feelings."

He completely ignores the mountain of evidence, which is available thanks to SL suing Dawn Dorland, that paints a picture of powerful people conspiring to silence an outsider.

It is egregious, and shameful.

So disappointed in him and in the NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

A completely useless follow up.

Extremely patronizing. Yet again, the tone these people adopt is one of, "Ugh, these peasants just don't get us enlightened literati." Bob, get over yourself. You too, Celeste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

What kind of weak lame nothing piece is this?

Ugh

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe how bad this follow-up article is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe how bad this follow-up article is

Instead of clarifying it just makes things worse