Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am writing this just after reading it today and have not read the thread yet because I don't want to be influenced until I get out my thoughts.

If you have had a falling out with a narcissistic friend in your life you can pick it up immediately in Dawn - attention seeking with a victim complex masking their low self esteem, also an overwhelming need for revenge when exposed.

Larson and friends are totally relatable. And of course she wasn't going to give an inch to her face because people like Dawn take a mile when you do so.

That said, she did cross the line into plagiarism with the letter. However, she did change it repeatedly, which shows she didn't intend to plagiarize. It's possible some pride stopped her from changing it more, but the crux of the letter is that 'celebrating you' because it was really the opposite of what that was all about. It was celebrating Dawn. I also understand that Larson had to hold the line for the sake of artistic expression.

I also openly admit that I was triggered by Dawn bc of the own narc in my life. They ruin lives.

I too am interested to hear where you land on this when you catch up.

One thing I will say is that this situation has illustrated for me that sometimes when a woman gets labeled as “a narcissist with a victim complex masking their low self esteem, and an overwhelming need for revenge” a LOT of that characterization may be driven by things like misogyny and classism (or just plain old in group/out group dynamics) and I now have a strong skepticism of anyone describing someone this way.

Bad Art Friend has really shown me how easily facts can be twisted to make someone look crazy or obsessed, and also how the desire of bystanders to fit in or curry favor with one side or another can lead to a pile on that really warps them situation.

There is a lot of harmless or justified behavior in this situation that got painted as needy, obsessive, and unreasonable. And there is a lot of truly harmful and offensive behavior that got painted as normal ands reasonable. If you can get all the way through the follow up on this and not take a second to question why women who simply had a “friend falling out” are described regularly as sociopaths, I am surprised and disappointed.

+1

My faith in society really diminished after this whole thing. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am writing this just after reading it today and have not read the thread yet because I don't want to be influenced until I get out my thoughts.

If you have had a falling out with a narcissistic friend in your life you can pick it up immediately in Dawn - attention seeking with a victim complex masking their low self esteem, also an overwhelming need for revenge when exposed.

Larson and friends are totally relatable. And of course she wasn't going to give an inch to her face because people like Dawn take a mile when you do so.

That said, she did cross the line into plagiarism with the letter. However, she did change it repeatedly, which shows she didn't intend to plagiarize. It's possible some pride stopped her from changing it more, but the crux of the letter is that 'celebrating you' because it was really the opposite of what that was all about. It was celebrating Dawn. I also understand that Larson had to hold the line for the sake of artistic expression.

I also openly admit that I was triggered by Dawn bc of the own narc in my life. They ruin lives.

I too am interested to hear where you land on this when you catch up.

One thing I will say is that this situation has illustrated for me that sometimes when a woman gets labeled as “a narcissist with a victim complex masking their low self esteem, and an overwhelming need for revenge” a LOT of that characterization may be driven by things like misogyny and classism (or just plain old in group/out group dynamics) and I now have a strong skepticism of anyone describing someone this way.

Bad Art Friend has really shown me how easily facts can be twisted to make someone look crazy or obsessed, and also how the desire of bystanders to fit in or curry favor with one side or another can lead to a pile on that really warps them situation.

There is a lot of harmless or justified behavior in this situation that got painted as needy, obsessive, and unreasonable. And there is a lot of truly harmful and offensive behavior that got painted as normal ands reasonable. If you can get all the way through the follow up on this and not take a second to question why women who simply had a “friend falling out” are described regularly as sociopaths, I am surprised and disappointed.

Well put, and I feel the same.

[Anonymous]

Hi it's me, the one who just started this whole saga an hour or so ago. I am now on page 34.

I am definitely way less sympathetic to Sonya, et al., at this point, but I still do not trust Dawn either. She is not the amazing person people are claiming in order to contrast her with Chunky Monkeys.

Dawn was trying to get revenge on Sonya as shown here: https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

Additionally, I am pretty positive that this 'mistext' she admits here was not an accident: https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447626879788277765/photo/1

At this point I feel they are both manipulative just in different ways.

I am open to my mind being changed more, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me, the one who just started this whole saga an hour or so ago. I am now on page 34.

I am definitely way less sympathetic to Sonya, et al., at this point, but I still do not trust Dawn either. She is not the amazing person people are claiming in order to contrast her with Chunky Monkeys.

Dawn was trying to get revenge on Sonya as shown here: https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

Additionally, I am pretty positive that this 'mistext' she admits here was not an accident: https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447626879788277765/photo/1

At this point I feel they are both manipulative just in different ways.

I am open to my mind being changed more, however.

I don't think the mistext there would have been intentional at all. What would Dawn have to gain from including Chris in a chunk of this exchange with Sonya? And considering that Chris and Sonya are both directors at GrubStreet, it doesn't strike me as unlikely at all for there to have been some exchange of cell numbers in this manner at a conference.

[Anonymous]

For me, I think it’s a fools errand to try and decide which of these two women is the most right. They both made mistakes. And I am certain they both have good qualities, even if those qualities are not on display here.

But the thing I keep coming back to is that it’s really not Dorland v. Larson. It’s Dorland up against Larson, the Chunky Monkeys, Grubstreet (which please remember was *her employer* through most of this saga), bestselling novelist with a TV deal Celeste Ng, and a long list of influential writers on Twitter who made some snap judgments on this case based mostly on the opinions voiced by their friend Celeste.

Ultimately, the worst thing that happened to Dorland wasn’t the plagiarism. That was hurtful and frankly petty on Larson’s part. But if that has happened in isolation, and no one else had gotten involved, I don’t think this would have blown up the way it did.

The worst part was the pile on. The one that happened years ago, when those writers were making fun of Dorland’s kidney donation, icing her out at conferences, vowing to destroy her, etc. This was a classic gang up. That part is unforgivable to me and what has me firmly Team Dorland. Larson was unkind, but her powerful friends turned this situation toxic, abusive, and exploitative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, I think it’s a fools errand to try and decide which of these two women is the most right. They both made mistakes. And I am certain they both have good qualities, even if those qualities are not on display here.

But the thing I keep coming back to is that it’s really not Dorland v. Larson. It’s Dorland up against Larson, the Chunky Monkeys, Grubstreet (which please remember was *her employer* through most of this saga), bestselling novelist with a TV deal Celeste Ng, and a long list of influential writers on Twitter who made some snap judgments on this case based mostly on the opinions voiced by their friend Celeste.

Ultimately, the worst thing that happened to Dorland wasn’t the plagiarism. That was hurtful and frankly petty on Larson’s part. But if that has happened in isolation, and no one else had gotten involved, I don’t think this would have blown up the way it did.

The worst part was the pile on. The one that happened years ago, when those writers were making fun of Dorland’s kidney donation, icing her out at conferences, vowing to destroy her, etc. This was a classic gang up. That part is unforgivable to me and what has me firmly Team Dorland. Larson was unkind, but her powerful friends turned this situation toxic, abusive, and exploitative.

I'm still completely unconvinced by this whole "Dawn made mistakes too" argument. All the evidence points to the fact that one side in this whole mess was wholly in the wrong. Not saying Dawn is a saint or Larson is the devil. In this story, however, the worst offense Dawn had was that she posted about her kidney donation on social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, I think it’s a fools errand to try and decide which of these two women is the most right. They both made mistakes. And I am certain they both have good qualities, even if those qualities are not on display here.

But the thing I keep coming back to is that it’s really not Dorland v. Larson. It’s Dorland up against Larson, the Chunky Monkeys, Grubstreet (which please remember was *her employer* through most of this saga), bestselling novelist with a TV deal Celeste Ng, and a long list of influential writers on Twitter who made some snap judgments on this case based mostly on the opinions voiced by their friend Celeste.

Ultimately, the worst thing that happened to Dorland wasn’t the plagiarism. That was hurtful and frankly petty on Larson’s part. But if that has happened in isolation, and no one else had gotten involved, I don’t think this would have blown up the way it did.

The worst part was the pile on. The one that happened years ago, when those writers were making fun of Dorland’s kidney donation, icing her out at conferences, vowing to destroy her, etc. This was a classic gang up. That part is unforgivable to me and what has me firmly Team Dorland. Larson was unkind, but her powerful friends turned this situation toxic, abusive, and exploitative.

i totally agree with this take. i am the PP who said this left me so depressed and disappointed in the NYT, New Yorker, all of them.

[Anonymous]

Framing this as only two women pitted against each other completely excuses the wildly inappropriate and unethical organizational behavior at GrubStreet, their mutual employer.

Dorland could be the most annoying, narcissistic person in the world,* but she should still have been ethically treated with dignity when she raised an employment complaint to Grub Street.

At the end of the day, this is in large part an employment matter, and how it was handled by GrubStreet executives is horrifying.

* I don't think she is. I think that description is misogynist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me, the one who just started this whole saga an hour or so ago. I am now on page 34.

I am definitely way less sympathetic to Sonya, et al., at this point, but I still do not trust Dawn either. She is not the amazing person people are claiming in order to contrast her with Chunky Monkeys.

Dawn was trying to get revenge on Sonya as shown here: https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

Additionally, I am pretty positive that this 'mistext' she admits here was not an accident: https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447626879788277765/photo/1

At this point I feel they are both manipulative just in different ways.

I am open to my mind being changed more, however.

I am enjoying your updates as you read! I am curious whether your position will stay the same. Please keep us updated!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me, the one who just started this whole saga an hour or so ago. I am now on page 34.

I am definitely way less sympathetic to Sonya, et al., at this point, but I still do not trust Dawn either. She is not the amazing person people are claiming in order to contrast her with Chunky Monkeys.

Dawn was trying to get revenge on Sonya as shown here: https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

Additionally, I am pretty positive that this 'mistext' she admits here was not an accident: https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447626879788277765/photo/1

At this point I feel they are both manipulative just in different ways.

I am open to my mind being changed more, however.

I’ll get yelled at but whatever. Rotten in Denmark is a shit source, and I’m well and truly over people still slamming Dorland. And I won’t stop posting it. Telling people to actually read the whole damned thing is less disruptive than people coming in late and saying a kidney “brag” negates the donation.

[Anonymous]

I ask this respectfully, but what mistakes did Dawn make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi it's me, the one who just started this whole saga an hour or so ago. I am now on page 34.

I am definitely way less sympathetic to Sonya, et al., at this point, but I still do not trust Dawn either. She is not the amazing person people are claiming in order to contrast her with Chunky Monkeys.

Dawn was trying to get revenge on Sonya as shown here: https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

Additionally, I am pretty positive that this 'mistext' she admits here was not an accident: https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447626879788277765/photo/1

At this point I feel they are both manipulative just in different ways.

I am open to my mind being changed more, however.

I’ll get yelled at but whatever. Rotten in Denmark is a shit source, and I’m well and truly over people still slamming Dorland. And I won’t stop posting it. Telling people to actually read the whole damned thing is less disruptive than people coming in late and saying a kidney “brag” negates the donation.

That PP is only on p. 34 and is still reading and learning. It's okay. I am very firmly pro-Dorland now and I was probably "both sides made mistakes" on around that page, because the facts were still unfurling. The thread is quieted down, it's okay for someone to read and update as she goes along. I like the updates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Framing this as only two women pitted against each other completely excuses the wildly inappropriate and unethical organizational behavior at GrubStreet, their mutual employer.

Dorland could be the most annoying, narcissistic person in the world,* but she should still have been ethically treated with dignity when she raised an employment complaint to Grub Street.

At the end of the day, this is in large part an employment matter, and how it was handled by GrubStreet executives is horrifying.

* I don't think she is. I think that description is misogynist.

+1000

And the flip side is true too. Dorland could be an amazing person with a great personality and an enormous amount of writing talent, but if a group of relatively powerful people in her profession decide she’s terrible, then suddenly she is terrible because she’s now a person who has to overcome this mountain of hatred and dislike.

A therapist once told me that we have to let go of the shame of being needy. My ex had called me needy and it was a huge trigger. But my therapist was like “you’re needy because you need love, support, empathy, and kindness and you’re not getting it! Of course you’re needy.” Like Dawn, I had a rough childhood that left me emotionally disregulated and neglected. I’m sure plenty of people thought I was needy. Because I needed stuff that a lot of people get from birth but I never had.

[Anonymous]

I think most people who have immersed themselves agree that Rotten in Denmark is not a good source because of factual errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, I think it’s a fools errand to try and decide which of these two women is the most right. They both made mistakes. And I am certain they both have good qualities, even if those qualities are not on display here.

But the thing I keep coming back to is that it’s really not Dorland v. Larson. It’s Dorland up against Larson, the Chunky Monkeys, Grubstreet (which please remember was *her employer* through most of this saga), bestselling novelist with a TV deal Celeste Ng, and a long list of influential writers on Twitter who made some snap judgments on this case based mostly on the opinions voiced by their friend Celeste.

Ultimately, the worst thing that happened to Dorland wasn’t the plagiarism. That was hurtful and frankly petty on Larson’s part. But if that has happened in isolation, and no one else had gotten involved, I don’t think this would have blown up the way it did.

The worst part was the pile on. The one that happened years ago, when those writers were making fun of Dorland’s kidney donation, icing her out at conferences, vowing to destroy her, etc. This was a classic gang up. That part is unforgivable to me and what has me firmly Team Dorland. Larson was unkind, but her powerful friends turned this situation toxic, abusive, and exploitative.

I'm still completely unconvinced by this whole "Dawn made mistakes too" argument. All the evidence points to the fact that one side in this whole mess was wholly in the wrong. Not saying Dawn is a saint or Larson is the devil. In this story, however, the worst offense Dawn had was that she posted about her kidney donation on social media.

This. What mistakes? What did she actual do besides act as donors are asked to, let some abusive crap go, and ultimately try to stand up for herself? Even Becky Tuchs, an OG-shittalker, can’t find a bad thing to say about Dorland now that she’s extricated herself from the group and looks at the situation with distance.