Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other day on Twitter Celeste Ng was offering up this “I actually feel bad for her” sort of thing while issuing tweet after tweet mocking her and divulging that she pitched the story. Will there be any social consequences for this group of writers? Or can you just be this cruel and people will forget about it?

Can someone explain the significance of pitching the story herself other than she did not have money to hire a publicist?

People who are inclined to think Dawn is an obsessive nut will add it to there "see, she's crazy list" I'm more inclined to think that she has less power than Larson and her more established friends so that is how she was able to get her story out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

Once again, it's a public forum. If you're not open to anyone in the world watching you while making a public presentation, maybe don't make one. Not stalkerish. Normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other day on Twitter Celeste Ng was offering up this “I actually feel bad for her” sort of thing while issuing tweet after tweet mocking her and divulging that she pitched the story. Will there be any social consequences for this group of writers? Or can you just be this cruel and people will forget about it?

Should have stuck by her initial take for the sake of everyone's entertainment

[Anonymous]

Boy, do I hope Larson loses and is never published in a significant or remunerative way again. She’s a total liar. She lied in her sworn deposition. And she and her Clunky Monkeys (see? I’m a better writer than they; look at some of those sentences FGS) are detestable.

We did get a hero, though - you can see the emails of the Boston book festival organized in response to Larson and one of her dumb flying Monkeys and she told them in a clear and direct way to go F themselves. (It’s better written than the plea to her, as well).

[Anonymous]

It's really embarrassing the way SL tried to racialize the incident for some kind of identity cover.

She wrote a story to troll someone she didn't like for petty reasons, had TWO YEARS to fix the plagiarism while Dawn did nothing but privately sulk but decided to fcuk around and find out instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

Zoom forums in her profession, that’s not weird. But also if someone has been deceptive and plagiarized my work I’d be keeping tabs on them too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other day on Twitter Celeste Ng was offering up this “I actually feel bad for her” sort of thing while issuing tweet after tweet mocking her and divulging that she pitched the story. Will there be any social consequences for this group of writers? Or can you just be this cruel and people will forget about it?

Should have stuck by her initial take for the sake of everyone's entertainment

Plot twist: Ng is trying to get Larson canceled

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

Nothing about her behavior was stalkerish. You sound unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

Once again, it's a public forum. If you're not open to anyone in the world watching you while making a public presentation, maybe don't make one. Not stalkerish. Normal.

But they are part of the same profession. If Larsen is on the professional panel speaking circuit, I don’t find it out there for Dorland to be taking part in those same events. Why should she allow these women to further ostracize her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

Once again, it's a public forum. If you're not open to anyone in the world watching you while making a public presentation, maybe don't make one. Not stalkerish. Normal.

But they are part of the same profession. If Larsen is on the professional panel speaking circuit, I don’t find it out there for Dorland to be taking part in those same events. Why should she allow these women to further ostracize her?

+1

I would feel differently if Dorland were doing anything inappropriate at these events -- asking Larsen direct questions, making her presence known in bigger ways than simply attending the event with her name, etc. But she's just going to the events. What does Larsen want? For the entire writing profession to ban Dorland from any future participation?

Oh wait, that is 100% what Larsen wants. Who is obsessed with who again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read it in the NYTimes. I was bored by it frankly. It was just small minded and completely spun out of control by both parties - both equally obsessive, equally petty, and yes, nuts as far as their behaviors and words portrayed them.

Storm in a tea-cup.

But they weren’t equally obsessive and their “crimes” weren’t equal. The author really wanted to spin this to make Dorland look obsessive but there was a period of two YEARS where Dorland was not contacting Larson. Once she realized the extent of the plagiarism she rightfully decided to resume contact. Larson’s emails and texts were subject to discovery due to her suing first.

Sure but now she (Dorland) sits on live zoom chat panels and watches her (Larson). That is stalkerish and unhinged.

Once again, it's a public forum. If you're not open to anyone in the world watching you while making a public presentation, maybe don't make one. Not stalkerish. Normal.

But they are part of the same profession. If Larsen is on the professional panel speaking circuit, I don’t find it out there for Dorland to be taking part in those same events. Why should she allow these women to further ostracize her?

+1

I would feel differently if Dorland were doing anything inappropriate at these events -- asking Larsen direct questions, making her presence known in bigger ways than simply attending the event with her name, etc. But she's just going to the events. What does Larsen want? For the entire writing profession to ban Dorland from any future participation?

Oh wait, that is 100% what Larsen wants. Who is obsessed with who again?

Larson: Stays in Dawn's private facebook group, reads every post, discusses it with her friends, steals passages from Dawn's letter, writes a whole story inspired by Dawn, names it after Dawn's email signature
"OMG Dawn, why are you so obsessed with me?!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would feel differently if Dorland were doing anything inappropriate at these events -- asking Larsen direct questions, making her presence known in bigger ways than simply attending the event with her name, etc. But she's just going to the events. What does Larsen want? For the entire writing profession to ban Dorland from any future participation?

Oh wait, that is 100% what Larsen wants. Who is obsessed with who again?

Larson: Stays in Dawn's private facebook group, reads every post, discusses it with her friends, steals passages from Dawn's letter, writes a whole story inspired by Dawn, names it after Dawn's email signature
"OMG Dawn, why are you so obsessed with me?!!"

+1000, nailed it.

Look, sometimes people get under your skin for whatever reason. That's clearly what happened here for Larsen -- there were things about Dorland that pushed her buttons. But part of being an adult is having the self awareness to realize when this is happening and make mature choices about how to handle. Larsen handled this like a teenager would, and even worse, her friends facilitated that choice by doing the same.

At any point, Larsen could have said "You know, this is obviously something that annoys the crap out of me. I'm going to (1) distance myself from Dorland and stop engaging because it's obvious we are not friends and I don't like her, and (2) spend some time thinking hard about why this is activating me and see if I can untangle it. Who knows, maybe some good fiction will come of it." That was always available to her, but she instead chose the least mature, most provocative route. It's annoying.

When you actually understand the timeline, another thing you notice is that Dorland actually did work hard to step back from the relationship, and to create space. She didn't interact with Larsen for two full years. She sent a pretty thoughtful email to Larsen in which she offered to just remove Larsen from the group (a magnanimous way to just and the problem that Larsen specifically chose not to take up because she wanted access to Dorland). Dorland also had voices in her life willing to say "maybe you are making too big a deal of this." It's obvious from the NYT piece, for instance, that Dorland's husband had suggested the story wasn't a big deal. But even he was a bit shocked when he saw the degree to which Larsen had lifted language from Dorland's letter.

All around, it seems like Dorland is a sensitive person who was working hard FOR YEARS to keep her feelings in check and not blow this situation up. And Larsen is immature and petty and basically wanted to stir up sh!t with Dorland in order to ensure Dorland knew she was inferior and disliked. And worst of all, it's going to work because Larsen's similarly immature friends have decided to play along. These people are in their 30s and 40s! That is messed up.

I initially thought "these people are both troubled." But the more I learn, the more I think Larsen probably owes Dorland money for therapy bills. There was just no excuse for Larsen's behavior and the gaslighting and ganging up in the last week has made it so much worse. I really hope Dorland actually gets the support she needs from her own friends and family because she deserves it. She donated her kidney to a stranger! She obviously has many redeeming qualities and deserves kindness. She definitely doesn't need to be the target of adult trolls so unhappy with themselves they must take it out on someone they deem inferior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would feel differently if Dorland were doing anything inappropriate at these events -- asking Larsen direct questions, making her presence known in bigger ways than simply attending the event with her name, etc. But she's just going to the events. What does Larsen want? For the entire writing profession to ban Dorland from any future participation?

Oh wait, that is 100% what Larsen wants. Who is obsessed with who again?

Larson: Stays in Dawn's private facebook group, reads every post, discusses it with her friends, steals passages from Dawn's letter, writes a whole story inspired by Dawn, names it after Dawn's email signature
"OMG Dawn, why are you so obsessed with me?!!"

+1000, nailed it.

Look, sometimes people get under your skin for whatever reason. That's clearly what happened here for Larsen -- there were things about Dorland that pushed her buttons. But part of being an adult is having the self awareness to realize when this is happening and make mature choices about how to handle. Larsen handled this like a teenager would, and even worse, her friends facilitated that choice by doing the same.

At any point, Larsen could have said "You know, this is obviously something that annoys the crap out of me. I'm going to (1) distance myself from Dorland and stop engaging because it's obvious we are not friends and I don't like her, and (2) spend some time thinking hard about why this is activating me and see if I can untangle it. Who knows, maybe some good fiction will come of it." That was always available to her, but she instead chose the least mature, most provocative route. It's annoying.

When you actually understand the timeline, another thing you notice is that Dorland actually did work hard to step back from the relationship, and to create space. She didn't interact with Larsen for two full years. She sent a pretty thoughtful email to Larsen in which she offered to just remove Larsen from the group (a magnanimous way to just and the problem that Larsen specifically chose not to take up because she wanted access to Dorland). Dorland also had voices in her life willing to say "maybe you are making too big a deal of this." It's obvious from the NYT piece, for instance, that Dorland's husband had suggested the story wasn't a big deal. But even he was a bit shocked when he saw the degree to which Larsen had lifted language from Dorland's letter.

All around, it seems like Dorland is a sensitive person who was working hard FOR YEARS to keep her feelings in check and not blow this situation up. And Larsen is immature and petty and basically wanted to stir up sh!t with Dorland in order to ensure Dorland knew she was inferior and disliked. And worst of all, it's going to work because Larsen's similarly immature friends have decided to play along. These people are in their 30s and 40s! That is messed up.

I initially thought "these people are both troubled." But the more I learn, the more I think Larsen probably owes Dorland money for therapy bills. There was just no excuse for Larsen's behavior and the gaslighting and ganging up in the last week has made it so much worse. I really hope Dorland actually gets the support she needs from her own friends and family because she deserves it. She donated her kidney to a stranger! She obviously has many redeeming qualities and deserves kindness. She definitely doesn't need to be the target of adult trolls so unhappy with themselves they must take it out on someone they deem inferior.

I will admit that at times I have had these impulses, to stay in a facebook group for voyeuristic or other not so great intentions. Reading this story made me feel a healthy amount of shame over that. Fortunately I have had people in my life who were kind/smart enough to say something like "maybe unfriend your brother in law" and they were right.

Also F*ck Celeste Ng and her two kidneys

[Anonymous]

This twitter thread from Joshua Luna really gets at the heart of what bothered me about Larson retreating behind race once she was exposed:

https://twitter.com/Joshua_Luna/status/1446215316011356165

Dorlan wasn't a white saviour. She donated her kidney anonymously and did not choose its recipient. It didn't become a race issue until a white-passing woman made it one.