Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Dorland was in the wrong to sue, and I also think the weight of public replies are vindicating her.

Wait I fell into it: Dorland didn’t sue, Larson did and Dorland asking for a cease and desist seems incredibly appropriate.

I think Dorland retained a lawyer and tried to resolve without litigation and Larson beat her to it with the slander lawsuit. Dorland sued when she realized she wasn’t getting anywhere by asking Larson to stop publishing or at least giving her credit.

That’s right. A poster up thread said she’d had a situation similar to Dorland’s and that she couldn’t help but criticize Dorland’s decision to sue. That is NOT what happened. A lot of us are really falling into not super sophisticated traps to “both sides” this, because the need to not be a permanent outcast is a present thing in everyone’s consciousness. This is a situation where the more that comes out, the clearer it is that Larson and Ng and co could not be guiltier of amoral and dishonest behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question that occurred to me today: Has Larson written or published anything *other* than The Kindest?

It seems like if her career were more robust she'd have been more willing to put that story away and work on other projects - and would have included other projects in her NEA grant app.

My question too. I am a writer with a day job and this story has made me wonder if I could get an NEA grant. I have several stories published in reputable journals and a first draft of a novel currently workshopping. Maybe I’ve short changed myself? Though I do wonder if Larson benefits from having someone like Ng likely writing letters of recommendation? I have some wonderful editors and writing instructors from indie presses but no one with that name recognition to vouch for me.

I’m curious about both of their finances. I have to work, and grad school loans mean I need a decent paying job to cover loans and a middle class lifestyle. I’m guessing they are both supported by spouses? Nothing wrong with that but as a writer it’s a detail I’d be interested in knowing more about. I think writers at this level (no book deals, perhaps some success with publishing short fiction and essays) generally need to be thick skinned and realistic. Perhaps if you have a spouse bankrolling your writing career, it makes you more fragile? I just can’t imagine getting involved with anything like this with my writing circle. People are professional and supportive. I’ve never known anyone well enough to develop the kinds of feelings at play here. They are “work friends.” There’s a degree of detachment.

[Anonymous]

Team Dorland!
And using the race card to trash her is damaging to genuine issues of race and racial dynamics. I’m
Never reading another book by Celeste Ng and I don’t have to worry about saying the same for the rest, since their “works” are not likely to ever come into my view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question that occurred to me today: Has Larson written or published anything *other* than The Kindest?

It seems like if her career were more robust she'd have been more willing to put that story away and work on other projects - and would have included other projects in her NEA grant app.

My question too. I am a writer with a day job and this story has made me wonder if I could get an NEA grant. I have several stories published in reputable journals and a first draft of a novel currently workshopping. Maybe I’ve short changed myself? Though I do wonder if Larson benefits from having someone like Ng likely writing letters of recommendation? I have some wonderful editors and writing instructors from indie presses but no one with that name recognition to vouch for me.

I’m curious about both of their finances. I have to work, and grad school loans mean I need a decent paying job to cover loans and a middle class lifestyle. I’m guessing they are both supported by spouses? Nothing wrong with that but as a writer it’s a detail I’d be interested in knowing more about. I think writers at this level (no book deals, perhaps some success with publishing short fiction and essays) generally need to be thick skinned and realistic. Perhaps if you have a spouse bankrolling your writing career, it makes you more fragile? I just can’t imagine getting involved with anything like this with my writing circle. People are professional and supportive. I’ve never known anyone well enough to develop the kinds of feelings at play here. They are “work friends.” There’s a degree of detachment.

I am the PP - and I am a writer with a day job, too. I've had a few novels published but I've never earned enough from this to be able to not work. That's a great observation about how thin skinned they all are. That's what I thought about that other nasty story Ng was involved with, where she and some other famous writers piled on some college kid who thought that one of their friends' YA books didn't belong in some college reading list.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/famous-authors-drag-student-in-ya-twitter-controversy.html#comments

People have written some mean things about my books. I just sort of figure that's life. Sometimes you'll put your heart and soul and hopes into something and then someone doesn't like it, and what can you do? I guess I usually internalize it and figure that it means I'm not as good as I hope I am - not that I should try to rally an army of important people to attack the person who doesn't like what I wrote. Perhaps it's that lack of a killer instinct contributing to me not being more successful as a writer!

[Anonymous]

Main takeaway for me is that Larson is a lazy writer. Even if legally okay, she should’ve asked if she could lift details from Dorland’s life, particularly an act that was so meaningful to her.

I also don’t think Dorland did anything wrong in seeking recognition. Let’s face it, if Larson had donated a kidney and sent the same types of emails, the writing group would’ve praised her. I would certainly acknowledge and thank someone for donating, even if I found them a bit annoying. It’s worthy of recognition. Plus the whole point of publicizing her donation was to encourage others to donate as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great deep dive into timeline of events!

https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

I like this take and largely agree with him that Sonja starts out as the villain but that Dorland eventually joins her in the mud and you can’t ignore that.

I have a lot of empathy for Dorland because I experienced something somewhat similar a while back, and I cannot describe here how strong that feeling of wanting redemption/revenge is. In my case, the women who hurt me were unquestionably friends, as well as professional colleagues. What they did felt like a deep rejection of me both personally and professionally and it messed me up a lot— I still talk about this situation in therapy years later. Reading Bad Art Friend and threads like this are both triggering and cathartic. I have accepted that this will probably be something that marks me in one way or another for the rest of my life.

So I understand why Dorland went scorched earth in trying to get back at Sonja. I know that feeling of righteous rage so well I can taste it. But the difference between Dawn and I is that I ultimately didn’t go down that road. I had some private fits about it, I demanded loyalty from my closest friends (something I am now both embarrassed by and also still feel was necessary?), but that’s where it ended. I cut those women out of my life, distanced myself from anyone who might support them, and did my best to move on. It sucked! I still fantasize about them getting their comeuppance, and still sometimes check in on them online to see if karma has done any work on my behalf.

But I didn’t sue and I didn’t go public and watching what Dorland is going through now, I am glad I had the sense to move on.

You do know that Dawn countersued, right? That Sonya sued her first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question that occurred to me today: Has Larson written or published anything *other* than The Kindest?

It seems like if her career were more robust she'd have been more willing to put that story away and work on other projects - and would have included other projects in her NEA grant app.

My question too. I am a writer with a day job and this story has made me wonder if I could get an NEA grant. I have several stories published in reputable journals and a first draft of a novel currently workshopping. Maybe I’ve short changed myself? Though I do wonder if Larson benefits from having someone like Ng likely writing letters of recommendation? I have some wonderful editors and writing instructors from indie presses but no one with that name recognition to vouch for me.

I’m curious about both of their finances. I have to work, and grad school loans mean I need a decent paying job to cover loans and a middle class lifestyle. I’m guessing they are both supported by spouses? Nothing wrong with that but as a writer it’s a detail I’d be interested in knowing more about. I think writers at this level (no book deals, perhaps some success with publishing short fiction and essays) generally need to be thick skinned and realistic. Perhaps if you have a spouse bankrolling your writing career, it makes you more fragile? I just can’t imagine getting involved with anything like this with my writing circle. People are professional and supportive. I’ve never known anyone well enough to develop the kinds of feelings at play here. They are “work friends.” There’s a degree of detachment.

My sibling got an NEA grant very early in her career. She's awesome, but was not widely published. You should go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've read so much about this over the past few days and now I am convinced that not only did Dorland do nothing wrong, but that Larson, Ng and the other people in the circle are true monsters.

Exactly the same feeling. And I also feel a bit duped by the NYT article which was trying to draw a moral equivalency between them. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great deep dive into timeline of events!

https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

I like this take and largely agree with him that Sonja starts out as the villain but that Dorland eventually joins her in the mud and you can’t ignore that.

I have a lot of empathy for Dorland because I experienced something somewhat similar a while back, and I cannot describe here how strong that feeling of wanting redemption/revenge is. In my case, the women who hurt me were unquestionably friends, as well as professional colleagues. What they did felt like a deep rejection of me both personally and professionally and it messed me up a lot— I still talk about this situation in therapy years later. Reading Bad Art Friend and threads like this are both triggering and cathartic. I have accepted that this will probably be something that marks me in one way or another for the rest of my life.

So I understand why Dorland went scorched earth in trying to get back at Sonja. I know that feeling of righteous rage so well I can taste it. But the difference between Dawn and I is that I ultimately didn’t go down that road. I had some private fits about it, I demanded loyalty from my closest friends (something I am now both embarrassed by and also still feel was necessary?), but that’s where it ended. I cut those women out of my life, distanced myself from anyone who might support them, and did my best to move on. It sucked! I still fantasize about them getting their comeuppance, and still sometimes check in on them online to see if karma has done any work on my behalf.

But I didn’t sue and I didn’t go public and watching what Dorland is going through now, I am glad I had the sense to move on.

You do know that Dawn countersued, right? That Sonya sued her first.

I’m glad that Dawn sued. The bullies wanted to keep her quiet, plagiarize her work, and ostracize her from the writing community. Bullies shouldn’t get the last say. Especially not by cheaply playing the race card.

[Anonymous]

I'm way too invested in this so I have looked up a lot of these people in the horrible texts. Very few of them seem to even have much success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Main takeaway for me is that Larson is a lazy writer. Even if legally okay, she should’ve asked if she could lift details from Dorland’s life, particularly an act that was so meaningful to her.

I also don’t think Dorland did anything wrong in seeking recognition. Let’s face it, if Larson had donated a kidney and sent the same types of emails, the writing group would’ve praised her. I would certainly acknowledge and thank someone for donating, even if I found them a bit annoying. It’s worthy of recognition. Plus the whole point of publicizing her donation was to encourage others to donate as well.

Not only did they withhold recognition, but Ng literally mocked her for it. She said she “can eff her one kidney” and then went doubled down writing “there is no right to say people can’t write about you and the idiotic shit you do.” Larson seemed to question her use at several points, and NG never took the opening.

See the links of correspondence I posted a few pages back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Main takeaway for me is that Larson is a lazy writer. Even if legally okay, she should’ve asked if she could lift details from Dorland’s life, particularly an act that was so meaningful to her.

I also don’t think Dorland did anything wrong in seeking recognition. Let’s face it, if Larson had donated a kidney and sent the same types of emails, the writing group would’ve praised her. I would certainly acknowledge and thank someone for donating, even if I found them a bit annoying. It’s worthy of recognition. Plus the whole point of publicizing her donation was to encourage others to donate as well.

Not only did they withhold recognition, but Ng literally mocked her for it. She said she “can eff her one kidney” and then went doubled down writing “there is no right to say people can’t write about you and the idiotic shit you do.” Larson seemed to question her use at several points, and NG never took the opening.

See the links of correspondence I posted a few pages back.

I’m kind of coming around to Ng being an openly terrible person. Maybe we can stop all the stupid cancellation bullsh*t for saying one wrong thing now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've read so much about this over the past few days and now I am convinced that not only did Dorland do nothing wrong, but that Larson, Ng and the other people in the circle are true monsters.

Exactly the same feeling. And I also feel a bit duped by the NYT article which was trying to draw a moral equivalency between them. Nope.

Agree. Why did the NYT try to both sides this?

[Anonymous]

Meh, I suspect most people would come off badly if a court publicized your inner friend or work chats. I just read the NYT article & timeline, and don’t have patience for the prior 20 pages, so this might be repetitive. Dorkand is clearly a thirst trap. True altruism would be anonymously donating, not publicizing it. She’s also a wannabe, not a real writer, which probably doubles down on the annoyance factor, but I think most writers in the “serious fiction/writers workshop” genre probably are “inspired” by people like her. It definitely smacks of mean girls, but frankly, a lot of life is like that. It definitely seems like if Dorland had let it go, Larson wouldn’t have sued; it became a race to the courthouse bc she’s slightly obsessed.

From a big picture view, while the group texts were mean, I would guess they were also a response to the legal attack. It reminds me of the lawsuits in music, where people sue for money based on 2-3 notes. There’s a fuzzy line between artistic inspiration and plagiarism; Larson definitely landed on the wrong side in the beginning but I also wonder if you post on social media, do you lose an expectation of privacy? The question being, if she changed the text, why does it matter? Dorland is obviously hurt bc she thought Larson was a friend (clearly not), she didn’t realize she wasn’t a particularly good writer, and she wanted accolades for her “generous” donation. Personally, I felt like the writer Twitter attack of the college student was more repugnant because they were punching under their weight. If Dorland hadn’t been so litigious, she never would have seen private conversations - it’s like opening Pandora’s box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've read so much about this over the past few days and now I am convinced that not only did Dorland do nothing wrong, but that Larson, Ng and the other people in the circle are true monsters.

Exactly the same feeling. And I also feel a bit duped by the NYT article which was trying to draw a moral equivalency between them. Nope.

Agree. Why did the NYT try to both sides this?

The literati circling the wagons around not just this one clique of writers, but the way such groups operate in general now.

New Yorker editor Helen Rosner going ballistic about how Dawn is evil incarnate and anyone not on Team Sonya is automatically on her enemies list being a prime example.