Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe so but people waiting for organs probably don’t agree. Recognition inspires others to donate. Honestly I think donating to a stranger is a big deal. Is it so much to ask for her friends to be supportive? I get that they were just pretending to be friends, but from Dorland’s prospective they were friends and I too would find it odd for my friends not to acknowledge a momentous life event.

Also while some texts or messages would be embarrassing if they became public, I stopped acting like a middle school girl decades ago. And when friends say things mean girl-ish, the rest of us call them out. Ng is 40, not some 20 something newbie.

[Anonymous]

A New Yorker editor is on Team Sonya? Ugh how depressing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't think we read the same article >> it clearly said that Larson was gaslighting her and sending mean texts about her years before the first legal action >> which was started by Larson herself. Many writers consider twitter, IG, and FB microblogging. I guarantee if you were a writer, you would not want someone lifting your text verbatim and using it in fiction, while completely ignoring you. If Larson had not lifted the letter, Darmond would not have a leg to stand on legally. I bet if Larson had acknowledged her in any genuine way, this wouldn't have escalated. At the very least, Larson should not have said she cared about the relationship when she clearly did not.

BTW, I don't have toxic friends in my life, so none of my text chains would embarrass me. If someone said that shit to me, I would have called her out or unfriended her. Snarky, bitter rants just add more negative energy into a world that already has plenty of it.

Ng's writing is taking on a new hue with this lens of cruel pettiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol, she locked her Twitter. Not so fun to be on the receiving end this time, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

1) I don't actually think most people would come off this badly if a court publicized your work or friend chats. Maybe you would. Some of the people who come off the worst in those chats are the people around Larson who barely even knew Dorland but engaged in really harsh, gossipy chat about her. That's actually not a "most people" thing. I might gossip on a group text but not about people I barely know. And I certainly wouldn't say anything as negative and angry as what Celeste Ng and some of these other folks said -- I simply do not have that level of hate for anyone who hasn't personally hurt me. That level of cattiness is specific to catty, gossipy people. Not everyone.

2) I'm in the "serious fiction/writers workshop" genre and I could imagine being inspired by someone like Dorland, and by something like her kidney donation and the way she chose to talk about it online. But I still wouldn't just steal her letter from a private Facebook group (especially since she's also a writer and would obviously be proprietary about it, but also just because -- yuck, don't do that). I've written stories based on bad experiences with people I hate. But the difference is that my stories are based on direct experiences, not stuff they wrote on Facebook. And since I'm a creative writer, I changed all the details and took the stories in a different direction. I'm not a memoirist.

3) Dorland didn't sue any of those people except Larson, and only after Larson sued her first. So the texts weren't in response to the "legal attack." They just didn't like her. They never did. That's why Larson stuck around in Dorland's private Facebook group mining it for content, that's why she wrote the story in the first place. She hated Dorland and wanted to channel that hatred somewhere. And she wanted Dorland to know she hated her, and why, which is why her first draft of the story didn't even change her name or the any of the text of the letter.

Sorry, but this is just a group of petty mean girls ganging up on someone they don't like. Whether I like the person or not is irrelevant. I dislike many people. I don't treat them like this because I'm not an insecure hack who has to tear down others in order to feel good about myself. Imagine being Celeste Ng, having multiple best selling novels and a deal with Hulu, and wasting time and energy hating some unpublished writing teacher on the other side of the country because she [checks notes] donated a kidney to a stranger? Sorry, but no. These people are vile.

[Anonymous]

I think I'm so stunned by this, that I'm hooked. Here's another text chain and at the end Ng proves she thinks this is all a joke - more story for them. She writes in 2018: "When this all blows over - which it will be soon - this whole situation is going to be fodder for an AMAZING essay that you are going to publish in some high-profile place."

https://twitter.com/MNeta2001/status/1446944103120314370/photo/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe so but people waiting for organs probably don’t agree. Recognition inspires others to donate. Honestly I think donating to a stranger is a big deal. Is it so much to ask for her friends to be supportive? I get that they were just pretending to be friends, but from Dorland’s prospective they were friends and I too would find it odd for my friends not to acknowledge a momentous life event.

Also while some texts or messages would be embarrassing if they became public, I stopped acting like a middle school girl decades ago. And when friends say things mean girl-ish, the rest of us call them out. Ng is 40, not some 20 something newbie.

I was thinking about that, too. I wrote and said things in my 20s and early 30s that I would be mortified by now - am mortified by, in fact; I've even talked to my therapist about lingering shame over having stolen details of people's lives and put them in published works. And if I got called out on it today I would be humiliated - and would apologize. Not double down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm so stunned by this, that I'm hooked. Here's another text chain and at the end Ng proves she thinks this is all a joke - more story for them. She writes in 2018: "When this all blows over - which it will be soon - this whole situation is going to be fodder for an AMAZING essay that you are going to publish in some high-profile place."

https://twitter.com/MNeta2001/status/1446944103120314370/photo/1

Good geezus. What a bunch of wankers. I mean, self-obsessed a-hole wankers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm so stunned by this, that I'm hooked. Here's another text chain and at the end Ng proves she thinks this is all a joke - more story for them. She writes in 2018: "When this all blows over - which it will be soon - this whole situation is going to be fodder for an AMAZING essay that you are going to publish in some high-profile place."

https://twitter.com/MNeta2001/status/1446944103120314370/photo/1

Disgusting. I hope Dawn feels completely vindicated by the court of public opinion slowly turning the tide against Larson and her posse as more people start to understand the details around this story.

[Anonymous]

This really succinctly summarizes why, I think, I've been so invested in this. I was genuinely taken aback to see soooo many writers that I admired immediately taking Sonya's side and piling on the bandwagon to essentially bully Dawn. I think it really piqued something in me. Roxane Gay, Celeste Ng, Helen Rosner, and others. All the blue checks immediately went HARD to basically justify bullying, plagiarism, and the weaponization of race (I say this as a POC). Absolutely disappointed. I don't think I would have become so invested and interested in this story if the initial reaction had collectively been, like, "Wow, Sonya sucks, and I feel bad for Dawn, even though she's real messy and socially inept." Instead, a sick pile-on ensued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This really succinctly summarizes why, I think, I've been so invested in this. I was genuinely taken aback to see soooo many writers that I admired immediately taking Sonya's side and piling on the bandwagon to essentially bully Dawn. I think it really piqued something in me. Roxane Gay, Celeste Ng, Helen Rosner, and others. All the blue checks immediately went HARD to basically justify bullying, plagiarism, and the weaponization of race (I say this as a POC). Absolutely disappointed. I don't think I would have become so invested and interested in this story if the initial reaction had collectively been, like, "Wow, Sonya sucks, and I feel bad for Dawn, even though she's real messy and socially inept." Instead, a sick pile-on ensued.

Sonya and Celeste deserve what they get here.

[Anonymous]

https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalspice/status/1447261010662985736
Here’s a guy who was inspired to donate a kidney after seeing Dawn at the Lakers game. That’s why you’re supposed to talk about your donation. To take the fear out of it, show that you can live a full life after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalspice/status/1447261010662985736
Here’s a guy who was inspired to donate a kidney after seeing Dawn at the Lakers game. That’s why you’re supposed to talk about your donation. To take the fear out of it, show that you can live a full life after.

I was actually JUST going to post this. I actually almost teared up, in part because the message itself is quite beautiful and important, but also knowing that the person who inspired this action is being villainized by a flurry of self-important privileged elites who found glee in shitting on her. Wow. And her posts about this were SO NORMAL. Like, SO NORMAL. Wtf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalspice/status/1447261010662985736
Here’s a guy who was inspired to donate a kidney after seeing Dawn at the Lakers game. That’s why you’re supposed to talk about your donation. To take the fear out of it, show that you can live a full life after.

I was actually JUST going to post this. I actually almost teared up, in part because the message itself is quite beautiful and important, but also knowing that the person who inspired this action is being villainized by a flurry of self-important privileged elites who found glee in shitting on her. Wow. And her posts about this were SO NORMAL. Like, SO NORMAL. Wtf.

The only thing that makes it make any sense is that Dawn was really, really annoying. But even still, so annoying that grown-ups acted like this over her? It's SO weird. I've hated on some annoying people, but not to the point I'd write a story that everyone would know was about them (except that was the point, right!), lift a whole letter .. UGH!! No one has explained what Dawn could have possibly have done to deserve this treatment by Sonya and the writers. I saw this post from a Jezebel writer who personally knows Dorland: https://jezebel.com/for-the-love-of-bad-art-friends-1847828213

"Dorland inspired a different reaction, and I have never known why. Here was someone who was driven and passionate about many of the same things as me (writing, social justice, reproductive rights) but whose approach to those subjects made me feel insecure in ways I still find hard to pinpoint. We were friendly at first but the chemistry went sour. I shrank back, but there was so much I wanted to say. The wall of her intensity clammed me up, and I didn’t know how to handle this in a healthy way. The viability of a friendship can seem less reliant on shared values or interests, sometimes, than whether your insecurities are compatible."

I don't know exactly what she's talking about though. In my twenties, I hated this girl at work called "Larla," and I can enumerate her many faults, with detailed stories explaining how Larla was a suck up, a twit, a hypocrite, a baby, and besides all that ugly, and etc. No one is very clear about why Dorland was offensive.

[Anonymous]

You know, one reason I quit Facebook is because I found myself increasingly annoyed by everyone on Facebook, even people I liked. I got sick of the banal posts. And I was also connected to tons of people I either didn't know that well or knew fairly well but didn't like that much. I think the era this whole dispute takes place during was this explosion in people connecting on Facebook -- people would connect because you were in the same barre class or because your kids went to school together. You'd connect with your neighbors, your coworkers, your cousins. I think I went from having maybe 100 friends on Facebook (mostly people my age with similar lives to mine) to having like 1000 friends from all different parts of my life, all different ages and different approaches to social media. I hated it!

At first I just muted people a lot and tried to avoid going on the app. But I found that it was addictive and that when I did go on it, I'd get sucked into it and wind up scrolling through posts and photos from people I didn't like very much. It was the social media version of the "hate watch". And it made me feel gross and tacky. So I quite FB cold turkey and have never regretted it. I remember thinking back before I did it how lame it was that I might stay up an hour later just to look at wedding photos from some former coworker so I could evaluate her dress and decor on tackiness. How small and lame that was, and how it was all happening in my own head, too. Such a waste of time and energy.

Anyway, I really wish these people had maybe had the same epiphany.