Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have posted a lot of comments on NYT. You can’t say anything “mean”. Or call “names” like sexist etc. They won’t print it.

Mean? I called the article sexist and they published none of my comments. I also replied to a few posters who referred to Dawn as needy and narcissistic and explained the article didn't portray that accurately.
None were posted.

I believe the press in important and pay for subscriptions to 4 large papers and a local paper. I comment on a lot of articles and have argued with sexist or racist posters. I've never had my comments declined like I have with the NYTimes. That is why I cancelled my subscription.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT got exactly what they wanted. More publicity.

Do they report their subscriber numbers and changes to those numbers somewhere?

I wish there were enough of us to make a difference. I have a feeling they are laughing at the readers who are upset about this and I'd bet they assume this is a "Karen" type of outrage. It's sexism and misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT got exactly what they wanted. More publicity.

Do they report their subscriber numbers and changes to those numbers somewhere?

I wish there were enough of us to make a difference. I have a feeling they are laughing at the readers who are upset about this and I'd bet they assume this is a "Karen" type of outrage. It's sexism and misogyny.

The only way these people will feel any actual shame is if a major publication, one with clout, does an expose of some sort on just how gross this entire takedown was. Put Celeste to task, and drag her name through the mud. Same with Helen Rosner, Robert Kolker, Roxane Gay, and the other bit players.

Somewhere like The New Yorker, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Kokler and Larson have something in common: Anything that happens is “art” and can be described any way they want to. Big ego view.

Totally. I really dislike people like this. I’m a fine artist PP and perhaps needless to say my community is teeming with this nonsense

Out of curiosity, what is the take of the fine art community?

Painter here and you don't want to know. Fine artists are even worse than the Sonya friend blue check twitter writers when it comes to explaining away an obvious stealing ideas as "art" in the most dispiriting, dishonest and phony way. though after reading this thread, maybe the two groups are actually tied for first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Book agents aren’t stupid — I would bet cold hard money one has already signed Dawn, and that in due time, we will hear about a book of hers coming out. Maybe memoir, maybe fiction, who knows, but I will be buying, and I know others in here will be too.

The discovery shows Dawn writing to an agent and mentioning sending novel pages, so it is quite possible she already has representation. If so, that was another way Kolker's articles slammed her. They implied she was less talented than Sonya Larson, though it seems she may have been getting fellowships and residencies, as well as agent, through her novel pages. And, as we've already gone over here, a lot of Sonya's successes seem dubious given that they were facilitated by powerful friends.

I know from one of the screenshots of Dawn's Facebook that she was selected for one of the Tin House residencies. I'm a writer and have applied to that residency several times and never been accepted. But all but one of the writers I know personally who have done that residency have published books, many of them originating from the residency.

I know it's hard for people outside of the litfic world to conceptualize, but Dawn is actually fairly successful within this world. Not as successful as the CMs, but that is an elite level. To make a comparison, if litfic were the NFL, Celeste Ng is a starting quarterback, most of the other CMs are on active team rosters, and Dorland is on a practice squad and might get pulled up to the roster. It's easy, if you aren't a football player or don't care about football to scoff and say the player on the practice squad has failed. But if you are familiar with the industry, you understand that getting to that point means having a stellar high school and college career, getting drafted, and surviving NFL training camps and doing well enough to join an organization. Is it as impressive as being Tom Brady? No. But almost nobody is Tom Brady. It's still very, very impressive and more successful than 99.999% of people who aspire to become a professional football player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The top-rated reader comments on the second NYT piece are critical of Kolker. And there’s also someone giving themselves the handle “Advocate for Justice” trying to insert themselves into those comments and is getting their ass handed to them. Hm.

I wish I had waited a day to cancel so I could see the comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Kolker wrote the piece overcompensating for the fact that he got the story tip from Dorland, so tried to give some slant to Larson, also. I don't really believe that he understood Dorland the way we do and wrote the story that way, anyway. Thinking it's more probable that he didn't read all the legal filings and also that his story may have gotten changed around a bit in editing (he suggests it did but I don't know which side it might have favored more in the original draft form). I suspect that he did maybe see things from both sides. He does after all write stories about female harassment etc. that misogynists probably wouldn't bother spending their time on, I don't personally think he's a misogynist.

Characterizing women who stand up for themselves as needy, extra, or emotional is not a good look in 2021.

I agree but I think we are far from this type of misogyny going away.

One of the take-aways I have from this whole thing is that we are still stuck in the misogynist viewpoint that there are "good" women and "bad" women. The 2021 spin on this is that "good" women deserve to be treated fairly (like a man!) and that "bad" women may be treated in a sexist way because we still live in a sexist culture that believes feminine traits are inherently bad.

So Dorland is portrayed as needy specifically because she is making an emotional claim. She is far less concerned with the theft of intellectual property that she might have profited off of than she is in simply having been treated poorly. She is upset over the abuse of her friendship. She is saying that Larson hurt her, and she wants recompense for being hurt. Since emotionality is considered (falsely) a feminine trait, Kolker feels comfortable portraying it as needy and cloying.

But Larson's approach to the conflict is based in a professional interest. She is a writer; she wrote something. She isn't personally hurt by Dorland's actions. Instead, she is alleging that Dorland has deprived her of income, has interfered with her career. Since we still treat economic interests and work as "masculine" concepts, Kolker portrays Larson as rational, calm, independent.

But of course, if you read the court documents, you can see why these dichotomies are inaccurate. Not only offensive, but wrong. Though her claim is based in an emotional harm, Dorland's actions are carefully thought out and executed. Whether she is writing to Larson directly or reaching out to Boston Book Festival or Grubstreet or another professional organization, her communications are clear, with remarkably little sentiment. She is honest that her interest is an emotional one, but she is rational about describing that emotion and asking for generally very basic things.

Meanwhile, the emails and texts between the CMs show Larson to be incredibly emotional, seemingly blinded by her dislike of Dorland. The CMs commentary about Dorland is petty, small-minded, bitter, and untempered by reason. You might expect at some point for someone to say "well, she did donate a kidney to a stranger and that's a laudable thing." But they can't even manage that level of objectivity. And it's not limited to the women on these threads -- the men are largely as bad, with a couple small exceptions.

Kolker (and Grubstreet, and Gay and Rosner and Twitter at large) decided Dorland was the wrong kind of woman. A woman doing feminine things, like making sacrifices, caring about people, nurturing relationships, communicating. And Larson was the right kind of woman, the one acting like Salinger or Hemingway or any of the man male writers who have used and abused their personal relationships in the name of their art.

Great, thoughtful analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have posted a lot of comments on NYT. You can’t say anything “mean”. Or call “names” like sexist etc. They won’t print it.

Mean? I called the article sexist and they published none of my comments. I also replied to a few posters who referred to Dawn as needy and narcissistic and explained the article didn't portray that accurately.
None were posted.

I believe the press in important and pay for subscriptions to 4 large papers and a local paper. I comment on a lot of articles and have argued with sexist or racist posters. I've never had my comments declined like I have with the NYTimes. That is why I cancelled my subscription.

That is terribly disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Kolker wrote the piece overcompensating for the fact that he got the story tip from Dorland, so tried to give some slant to Larson, also. I don't really believe that he understood Dorland the way we do and wrote the story that way, anyway. Thinking it's more probable that he didn't read all the legal filings and also that his story may have gotten changed around a bit in editing (he suggests it did but I don't know which side it might have favored more in the original draft form). I suspect that he did maybe see things from both sides. He does after all write stories about female harassment etc. that misogynists probably wouldn't bother spending their time on, I don't personally think he's a misogynist.

Characterizing women who stand up for themselves as needy, extra, or emotional is not a good look in 2021.

I agree but I think we are far from this type of misogyny going away.

One of the take-aways I have from this whole thing is that we are still stuck in the misogynist viewpoint that there are "good" women and "bad" women. The 2021 spin on this is that "good" women deserve to be treated fairly (like a man!) and that "bad" women may be treated in a sexist way because we still live in a sexist culture that believes feminine traits are inherently bad.

So Dorland is portrayed as needy specifically because she is making an emotional claim. She is far less concerned with the theft of intellectual property that she might have profited off of than she is in simply having been treated poorly. She is upset over the abuse of her friendship. She is saying that Larson hurt her, and she wants recompense for being hurt. Since emotionality is considered (falsely) a feminine trait, Kolker feels comfortable portraying it as needy and cloying.

But Larson's approach to the conflict is based in a professional interest. She is a writer; she wrote something. She isn't personally hurt by Dorland's actions. Instead, she is alleging that Dorland has deprived her of income, has interfered with her career. Since we still treat economic interests and work as "masculine" concepts, Kolker portrays Larson as rational, calm, independent.

But of course, if you read the court documents, you can see why these dichotomies are inaccurate. Not only offensive, but wrong. Though her claim is based in an emotional harm, Dorland's actions are carefully thought out and executed. Whether she is writing to Larson directly or reaching out to Boston Book Festival or Grubstreet or another professional organization, her communications are clear, with remarkably little sentiment. She is honest that her interest is an emotional one, but she is rational about describing that emotion and asking for generally very basic things.

Meanwhile, the emails and texts between the CMs show Larson to be incredibly emotional, seemingly blinded by her dislike of Dorland. The CMs commentary about Dorland is petty, small-minded, bitter, and untempered by reason. You might expect at some point for someone to say "well, she did donate a kidney to a stranger and that's a laudable thing." But they can't even manage that level of objectivity. And it's not limited to the women on these threads -- the men are largely as bad, with a couple small exceptions.

Kolker (and Grubstreet, and Gay and Rosner and Twitter at large) decided Dorland was the wrong kind of woman. A woman doing feminine things, like making sacrifices, caring about people, nurturing relationships, communicating. And Larson was the right kind of woman, the one acting like Salinger or Hemingway or any of the man male writers who have used and abused their personal relationships in the name of their art.

Exactly. Practically every day I see this automatic valuing of the masculine and devaluing of the feminine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top-rated reader comments on the second NYT piece are critical of Kolker. And there’s also someone giving themselves the handle “Advocate for Justice” trying to insert themselves into those comments and is getting their ass handed to them. Hm.

I wish I had waited a day to cancel so I could see the comments.

Yes, from what I can see, almost all of the comments on the second piece are critical of Kolker and/or supportive of Dawn. So that's 2 for 2 (the majority of comments on the first article, with nearly 3000 comments, were supportive of Dawn). But no doubt Kolker and the Chunky Monkey gang pay no heed to the restless plebeians and their "parlor games".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have posted a lot of comments on NYT. You can’t say anything “mean”. Or call “names” like sexist etc. They won’t print it.

Mean? I called the article sexist and they published none of my comments. I also replied to a few posters who referred to Dawn as needy and narcissistic and explained the article didn't portray that accurately.
None were posted.

I believe the press in important and pay for subscriptions to 4 large papers and a local paper. I comment on a lot of articles and have argued with sexist or racist posters. I've never had my comments declined like I have with the NYTimes. That is why I cancelled my subscription.

That is terribly disappointing.

I am a nut about supporting the press. Many times have offered to pay a years subscription to a newspaper for people I know. I hate what the internet did to journalism.
I've never seen the censorship in comments like I have through the NYTimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Kolker wrote the piece overcompensating for the fact that he got the story tip from Dorland, so tried to give some slant to Larson, also. I don't really believe that he understood Dorland the way we do and wrote the story that way, anyway. Thinking it's more probable that he didn't read all the legal filings and also that his story may have gotten changed around a bit in editing (he suggests it did but I don't know which side it might have favored more in the original draft form). I suspect that he did maybe see things from both sides. He does after all write stories about female harassment etc. that misogynists probably wouldn't bother spending their time on, I don't personally think he's a misogynist.

Characterizing women who stand up for themselves as needy, extra, or emotional is not a good look in 2021.

I agree but I think we are far from this type of misogyny going away.

One of the take-aways I have from this whole thing is that we are still stuck in the misogynist viewpoint that there are "good" women and "bad" women. The 2021 spin on this is that "good" women deserve to be treated fairly (like a man!) and that "bad" women may be treated in a sexist way because we still live in a sexist culture that believes feminine traits are inherently bad.

So Dorland is portrayed as needy specifically because she is making an emotional claim. She is far less concerned with the theft of intellectual property that she might have profited off of than she is in simply having been treated poorly. She is upset over the abuse of her friendship. She is saying that Larson hurt her, and she wants recompense for being hurt. Since emotionality is considered (falsely) a feminine trait, Kolker feels comfortable portraying it as needy and cloying.

But Larson's approach to the conflict is based in a professional interest. She is a writer; she wrote something. She isn't personally hurt by Dorland's actions. Instead, she is alleging that Dorland has deprived her of income, has interfered with her career. Since we still treat economic interests and work as "masculine" concepts, Kolker portrays Larson as rational, calm, independent.

But of course, if you read the court documents, you can see why these dichotomies are inaccurate. Not only offensive, but wrong. Though her claim is based in an emotional harm, Dorland's actions are carefully thought out and executed. Whether she is writing to Larson directly or reaching out to Boston Book Festival or Grubstreet or another professional organization, her communications are clear, with remarkably little sentiment. She is honest that her interest is an emotional one, but she is rational about describing that emotion and asking for generally very basic things.

Meanwhile, the emails and texts between the CMs show Larson to be incredibly emotional, seemingly blinded by her dislike of Dorland. The CMs commentary about Dorland is petty, small-minded, bitter, and untempered by reason. You might expect at some point for someone to say "well, she did donate a kidney to a stranger and that's a laudable thing." But they can't even manage that level of objectivity. And it's not limited to the women on these threads -- the men are largely as bad, with a couple small exceptions.

Kolker (and Grubstreet, and Gay and Rosner and Twitter at large) decided Dorland was the wrong kind of woman. A woman doing feminine things, like making sacrifices, caring about people, nurturing relationships, communicating. And Larson was the right kind of woman, the one acting like Salinger or Hemingway or any of the man male writers who have used and abused their personal relationships in the name of their art.

Thank you for this. This is why their refusal to acknowledge sexism on their part is so upsetting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Kolker (and Grubstreet, and Gay and Rosner and Twitter at large) decided Dorland was the wrong kind of woman. A woman doing feminine things, like making sacrifices, caring about people, nurturing relationships, communicating. And Larson was the right kind of woman, the one acting like Salinger or Hemingway or any of the man male writers who have used and abused their personal relationships in the name of their art.

this is some truth right here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYT got exactly what they wanted. More publicity.

Do they report their subscriber numbers and changes to those numbers somewhere?

I wish there were enough of us to make a difference. I have a feeling they are laughing at the readers who are upset about this and I'd bet they assume this is a "Karen" type of outrage. It's sexism and misogyny.

The only way these people will feel any actual shame is if a major publication, one with clout, does an expose of some sort on just how gross this entire takedown was. Put Celeste to task, and drag her name through the mud. Same with Helen Rosner, Robert Kolker, Roxane Gay, and the other bit players.

Somewhere like The New Yorker, perhaps?

The New Yorker employs Rosner so it won't happen.

Maybe the WSJ or WP, but probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Kolker wrote the piece overcompensating for the fact that he got the story tip from Dorland, so tried to give some slant to Larson, also. I don't really believe that he understood Dorland the way we do and wrote the story that way, anyway. Thinking it's more probable that he didn't read all the legal filings and also that his story may have gotten changed around a bit in editing (he suggests it did but I don't know which side it might have favored more in the original draft form). I suspect that he did maybe see things from both sides. He does after all write stories about female harassment etc. that misogynists probably wouldn't bother spending their time on, I don't personally think he's a misogynist.

When I go back and reread the original Kolker article, I'm struck by how some of the facts that initially put me off Dorland were not actually from the article, but from the original twitter takes. The idea that Dorland went back to Larson to ask her why she wasn't liking her kidney posts on Facebook? That wasn't in the article. Actually Kolker described the whole letter exchange there pretty accurately, though he didn't print all of the letters. I think he does suggest Dorland got a lawyer first, since he notes she was shopping legal opinions sometime around the Boston book fair thing, and that seems to have been incorrect.

But he does include sympathetic details about Dorland. For example, the fact that she didn't read the story right away even when she found a paid for version, which was basically out of Dorland's goodness and trust. “I did what I thought was artistically and emotionally healthy,” she said. “And also, it’s kind of what she had asked me to do.” Moreover, Kolker's quotes from Dorland are generally some of the most insightful parts of the article. On Dorland's reactions to seeing the mean girl texts and email, he wrote: "But there also was something clarifying about it. Now more than ever, she believes that 'The Kindest' was personal. 'I think she wanted me to read her story,' Dorland said, 'and for me and possibly no one else to recognize my letter.'"

I don't think Kolker quotes Larson saying anything this insightful. Maybe her comments about race, from that perspective. He also doesn't pull his punches about her plagiarism: Kolker puts the letter language Larson stole, in the early audible release, side by side with Dorland's letter, showing that of course the language was actually stolen. Like, he made the plagiarism pretty clear, without stating it outright in a way that the paper might be legally liable for. And he includes the letter excerpt where Larson says that she stole sentences word for word and felt like a good artist but a shitty friend.

There are some places where I think that if Kolker had excerpted MORE from the letters and texts he would have given a fuller, more correct portrayal. For example, when Larson was writing to audible about needing to rerecord the letter, he includes the part about her having taken some sentences from a real life letter but not her next sentence about not wanting to take those sentences out, for moral/ethical reasons. Keeping that in would have shown her admitting her mistake. Maybe it was space, or editing.

I remember the article coming out, and reading a lot of "takes" about it on twitter, and feeling like the "takes" weren't really hitting with the way I felt about the article, and then doing some reading on my own about it until I felt really powerfully in favor of Dorland. That's just me, though, and I can totally understand you guys feeling Kolker should not have written this from both perspectives at all.