Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

And annoyingly, Larson has basically succeeding in casting this as a race issue and casting Dorland as a white savior even though nothing Dorland has ever actually done justifies this. But I've seen multiple POC writers on Twitter who obviously don't know any of these people personally respond to this story by buying into this white savior narrative, and I think it's really troubling. I have no doubt that these writers have experienced racism and white saviorism in their own lives, but Dorland is not an appropriate stand in for that narrative. I've seen her called a Karen, compared to to white women who dominate conversations, as being the epitome of "white womens tears", a situation in which white women halt or co-opt conversations about race by weaponizing their emotions. None of that is what happened here at all. Those are real phenomena, just don't apply here. But lots of POC are buying into it and Larson and Ng have effectively convinced them that Dorland is just like all those white women they've dealt with in the past. But she's not!

I have no doubt that something in the way Dorland talked about her kidney donation in that group reminded Larson of white saviorism. But she should have been able to recognize how the situation as different from those past experiences, and to separate them in her own mind. Instead, she just conflated the two and, by writing her fictional story, made them one in the same.

There's no cause of action for this, but I think the worst thing Larson did to Dorland is use her fictional story to make Dorland's kindness and generosity in donating her kidney into something nefarious. Imagine if someone took the nicest thing you'd ever done, the thing you could point to when you were unsure if your life mattered, and someone made it offensive and racist.

Dorland's feelings about her kidney donation must be so caught up with this stuff with Larson now. And why?? Why would you destroy someone's one purely good act just because you find them annoying? That's cruelty, and it's way worse than the plagiarism in my mind. It's like Larson (and Ng, based on those texts) couldn't stand the thought of Dorland feeling proud of this genuinely selfless act she committed. That tells you a LOT about Larson and Ng, and very little about Dorland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

And annoyingly, Larson has basically succeeding in casting this as a race issue and casting Dorland as a white savior even though nothing Dorland has ever actually done justifies this. But I've seen multiple POC writers on Twitter who obviously don't know any of these people personally respond to this story by buying into this white savior narrative, and I think it's really troubling. I have no doubt that these writers have experienced racism and white saviorism in their own lives, but Dorland is not an appropriate stand in for that narrative. I've seen her called a Karen, compared to to white women who dominate conversations, as being the epitome of "white womens tears", a situation in which white women halt or co-opt conversations about race by weaponizing their emotions. None of that is what happened here at all. Those are real phenomena, just don't apply here. But lots of POC are buying into it and Larson and Ng have effectively convinced them that Dorland is just like all those white women they've dealt with in the past. But she's not!

I have no doubt that something in the way Dorland talked about her kidney donation in that group reminded Larson of white saviorism. But she should have been able to recognize how the situation as different from those past experiences, and to separate them in her own mind. Instead, she just conflated the two and, by writing her fictional story, made them one in the same.

There's no cause of action for this, but I think the worst thing Larson did to Dorland is use her fictional story to make Dorland's kindness and generosity in donating her kidney into something nefarious. Imagine if someone took the nicest thing you'd ever done, the thing you could point to when you were unsure if your life mattered, and someone made it offensive and racist.

Dorland's feelings about her kidney donation must be so caught up with this stuff with Larson now. And why?? Why would you destroy someone's one purely good act just because you find them annoying? That's cruelty, and it's way worse than the plagiarism in my mind. It's like Larson (and Ng, based on those texts) couldn't stand the thought of Dorland feeling proud of this genuinely selfless act she committed. That tells you a LOT about Larson and Ng, and very little about Dorland.

I've actually seen way more white women jumping onto the white savior narrative, and the people who are pushing back against that tend to be POC. POC actually know what racism looks and feels like, and can smell the BS.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I also really agree with the sentiments in this thread, like 100%. Including in the replies.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

And annoyingly, Larson has basically succeeding in casting this as a race issue and casting Dorland as a white savior even though nothing Dorland has ever actually done justifies this. But I've seen multiple POC writers on Twitter who obviously don't know any of these people personally respond to this story by buying into this white savior narrative, and I think it's really troubling. I have no doubt that these writers have experienced racism and white saviorism in their own lives, but Dorland is not an appropriate stand in for that narrative. I've seen her called a Karen, compared to to white women who dominate conversations, as being the epitome of "white womens tears", a situation in which white women halt or co-opt conversations about race by weaponizing their emotions. None of that is what happened here at all. Those are real phenomena, just don't apply here. But lots of POC are buying into it and Larson and Ng have effectively convinced them that Dorland is just like all those white women they've dealt with in the past. But she's not!

I have no doubt that something in the way Dorland talked about her kidney donation in that group reminded Larson of white saviorism. But she should have been able to recognize how the situation as different from those past experiences, and to separate them in her own mind. Instead, she just conflated the two and, by writing her fictional story, made them one in the same.

There's no cause of action for this, but I think the worst thing Larson did to Dorland is use her fictional story to make Dorland's kindness and generosity in donating her kidney into something nefarious. Imagine if someone took the nicest thing you'd ever done, the thing you could point to when you were unsure if your life mattered, and someone made it offensive and racist.

Dorland's feelings about her kidney donation must be so caught up with this stuff with Larson now. And why?? Why would you destroy someone's one purely good act just because you find them annoying? That's cruelty, and it's way worse than the plagiarism in my mind. It's like Larson (and Ng, based on those texts) couldn't stand the thought of Dorland feeling proud of this genuinely selfless act she committed. That tells you a LOT about Larson and Ng, and very little about Dorland.

really insightful. they are bullying her because her good deed, which is outside of normal
social conventions, makes them very uncomfortable and hostile.

[Anonymous]

Where can I actually read the short story, entitled “The Kindest” by Sonya Larson?

[Anonymous]

Celeste Ng is reeeaaallly going to regret going down this road. The tide of public opinion is turning against her, quickly.

[Anonymous]

Everyone in this story comes across horribly. I was an English major in college, and my HS weirdly had a few published short story and poetry authors as teachers, so I know the type. Like a PP wrote on this thread, I got PTSD from reading this article. Lol. You think theater people are dramatic and cliquey - they have nothing on writers workshoppers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone in this story comes across horribly. I was an English major in college, and my HS weirdly had a few published short story and poetry authors as teachers, so I know the type. Like a PP wrote on this thread, I got PTSD from reading this article. Lol. You think theater people are dramatic and cliquey - they have nothing on writers workshoppers.

I think the author made Dawn look worse for drama. Reading some updates does not give the impression she is horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone in this story comes across horribly. I was an English major in college, and my HS weirdly had a few published short story and poetry authors as teachers, so I know the type. Like a PP wrote on this thread, I got PTSD from reading this article. Lol. You think theater people are dramatic and cliquey - they have nothing on writers workshoppers.

I think the author made Dawn look worse for drama. Reading some updates does not give the impression she is horrible.

I definitely need to get caught up on this thread and i guess on Twitter too.

[Anonymous]

It’s ridiculous that anyone would take Larson’s side.
She plagiarized. What else is there to say?
And all these writers are defending it?
Is this how they all write? They just mooch off of unknown writers? They seem so blasé about it, they must all do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone in this story comes across horribly. I was an English major in college, and my HS weirdly had a few published short story and poetry authors as teachers, so I know the type. Like a PP wrote on this thread, I got PTSD from reading this article. Lol. You think theater people are dramatic and cliquey - they have nothing on writers workshoppers.

I think the author made Dawn look worse for drama. Reading some updates does not give the impression she is horrible.

I definitely need to get caught up on this thread and i guess on Twitter too.

Some to follow:
https://mobile.twitter.com/kidneygate
https://mobile.twitter.com/moorehn
https://mobile.twitter.com/molls
https://mobile.twitter.com/dancow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s ridiculous that anyone would take Larson’s side.
She plagiarized. What else is there to say?
And all these writers are defending it?
Is this how they all write? They just mooch off of unknown writers? They seem so blasé about it, they must all do it.

I think Larson took advantage of Dorland, but this post misunderstands how creative writers think about this. I don’t personally think what Larson did in terms of taking inspiration (or even borrowing text) from Dorland is outside the realm of ok for a writer. You can take inspiration from wherever and I don’t even think liberal borrowing from a source material is wrong, necessarily (though personall I would only take actual text from something I felt comfortable citing in a postscript, so I would never do what Larson did).

The issue for me is entirely interpersonal. If Larson and her friends didn’t like Dorland, that’s fine! Don’t pretend you do then. You don’t have to be mean, but don’t be solicitous, either. The problem is that in communities like this, people are users. They want people like Dorland to buy their books, take their classes and workshops, say complimentary things in social media, etc. So they will be friendly to their faces, claim friendship, all while making fun of them in private with their “real” writer friends.

I HATE this dynamic, it’s two faced and opportunist. It gets worse all the time because everyone is trying to amass more followers and gain more popularity within this insular community. People are fake, constantly. And people like Dorland get caught in the middle of that and I find it ethically and morally gross. You can be an artist and make art that might offend and provoke. That doesn’t mean you can just lie to people about it and expect there to be no consequences. The whole point of being a brave artist is that you accept the consequences, including that some people might dislike you, that they might be hurt, that they might ignore you and unfollow you.

Larson wanted to be an artist AND be popular. Those things are at odds. I can’t respect that. And I don’t think someone who lies and prevaricated about their art deserves my respect either. Just own it!

[Anonymous]

Centering the experiences of actual people with kidney disease in all this.