Bad Art Friend

[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

If he read all the court documents, why did he choose to leave so much of that out of his article?

[Anonymous]

Who is he kidding with that line in there about “many” readers valued both perspectives and felt they learned about each individual??

That has literally been no one’s take, not even the blue checkmarks’ take.

[Anonymous]

The follow up is upsetting, as is most coverage online. Gawker, etc. are just repeating the original NYT article.

No one has mentioned all the missing facts: that kidney organizations ask donors to talk about the process (shows DD is not needy), the timing of the case (article was sold to Audible right around when DD asked SL about it), and most important: the side-by-side comparisons of DD's letter and SL's version.

Also, the contracts that SL signed with various organizations during all this, etc.

[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

Comments are open. I hope some of the posters here will critique Kolker's narrative stance.

[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

Comments are open. I hope some of the posters here will critique Kolker's narrative stance.

How long does it take for comments to get approved?

[Anonymous]

wow, the powers that try to decide how we all should think about things by controlling information are really showing their asses today.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe how off the mark the followup is. Ok, I should believe it. But how did the editors sign off on this once again?

Leaving out all the court documents, etc, that showed these people ganging up on Dorland?

Acting like this is a “well, who’s to say who’s right?” (shrug) kind of story when there is documented plagiarism — and documented conversations about that plagiarism.

Insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

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

She's being facetious - it's a response to Steve Almond's terrible piece both sidesing this whole thing and then saying the real aggressor is the patriarchy

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2021/10/11/bad-art-friend-new-york-times-steve-almond

This piece was infuriating

[Anonymous]

Kolker's followup just demonstrates what a inveterate sexist he is. I'm never going to read anything of his again.

[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!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It wasn’t “why didn’t you like this?” It was “I noticed you aren’t engaging, would you like to be removed”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kolker's followup just demonstrates what a inveterate sexist he is. I'm never going to read anything of his again.

Same. NYT is good for crossword and cooking at this point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It wasn’t “why didn’t you like this?” It was “I noticed you aren’t engaging, would you like to be removed”

It was also part of a longer correspondence between the two where they were updating each other on their lives. It wasn't like she harangued Sonya out of the blue asking her why she didn't like her stuff. It wasn't like that at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It is true. Dorland explained that as admin, FB gave her engagement metrics and Larson alone was reading every post with no comments.

I’m tired of going over the facts and wish people would read the thread. I do prefer this slightly to the nastily written afactual legal takes from a real lawyer allergic to reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Is this true? Did the New York Times completely manufacture this part of the story where she messages Larson about her kidney donation? Nothing else I have read makes this claim.

It wasn’t “why didn’t you like this?” It was “I noticed you aren’t engaging, would you like to be removed”

It was also part of a longer correspondence between the two where they were updating each other on their lives. It wasn't like she harangued Sonya out of the blue asking her why she didn't like her stuff. It wasn't like that at all.

Where are you getting all this extra information? Is this published anywhere?