Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

[Anonymous]

Can someone summarize the link?

I skimmed it, and I don't get what the problem is.

Dawn gave a kidney. She is mad that Larson wrote about it. But why is Dawn mad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

I don’t understand why she didn’t change it, and why she was so vicious and long-winded in slamming Dawn. Both seem pointless, especially texting about being unable to change the letter and being proud of that (?) because being a copyist meant she was making “good art.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize the link?

I skimmed it, and I don't get what the problem is.

Dawn gave a kidney. She is mad that Larson wrote about it. But why is Dawn mad?

In an earlier draft, Larson used Dorland's facebook letter about the donation almost verbatim in her text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This story really is a Rorschach test. I found myself identifying with both women in uncomfortable ways throughout the article.

I will say that I have been a part of a community a little like Grub Street. Not a writing community, but something else. And they are inherently problematic because they are never actually what they purport to be.

These organizations will call themselves a community, function as non profits, tout that they are inclusive and tolerant... but often they quickly become clique-ish and exclusive because that is human nature and because that's what happens at self-managed organizations. There's always some core group of insiders who become friends. And they'll be friendly to everyone else because, again, that's what the organization is supposed to do. But it can be confusing for people like Dorland. She though these people were her friends and they definitely were not. In fact, it's pretty clear they didn't really like her at all. I see people on Twitter making fun of Dorland for not understanding that, but I know from experience that an organization like Grub Street can pretty effectively obscure those relationships. When people are also doing a ton of trash talking members of the organization behind their backs, it becomes pretty gross to me. Because at that point you are just lying and being fake when you are friendly to someone like Dorland. Not saying they should have treated her poorly, but there is a way to interact with someone so that you are polite, without giving the impression that you are friends.

Anyway, Dorland seems pretty annoying! I probably wouldn't like her either. But I also don't think she'd get confused and think we were good friends, either, because I tend to be a lot more up front about stuff like that. I also would not have engaged in hundreds of pages worth of nasty texts and emails about her, because I don't like gossip and stuff like that makes me feel icky.

You hit the nail on the head. Yes, I am also tangentially familiar with these kind if organizations. It’s a snake pit, and I an really sorry for anyone who doesn’t realize the dynamics going in. It doesn’t help that the arts /non-profits world is extremely competitive and not only in obvious ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

Well, one of the women is a back-stabbing, race-baiting mean girl; the other donated a kidney to a stranger. So.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

Well, one of the women is a back-stabbing, race-baiting mean girl; the other donated a kidney to a stranger. So.

You know, that's part of what makes this story compelling.

Both women seem to be good people in other aspects of their life. Dorland donated a kidney to a total stranger. Regardless of whether she bragged about it online or not, you can't undo the goodness of that. It really doesn't even matter what her motivations were -- she saved someone's life.

And Larson seems like a talented writer who has accumulated a lot of very supportive friends. You can be cynical about that if you want, but that rarely happens if you are actually a jerk. She seems like she is probably a really kind an generous person within that friend group and that people appreciate her enough to stand up for her in this situation.

But they both treated each other TERRIBLY. Dorland contacted Larson basically to ask why she hadn't liked her posts on Facebook is so beyond narcissistic and needy -- if someone did that to me I would have been a lot less polite about it frankly. It's one of those massive blinking red light behaviors, like "Hi, I've totally lost control of my sense of self and will violate any boundary I find to try and regain it!" It's nuts. And while I get Dorland's anger with Larson for using the kidney donation in the story, and especially for lifting her language directly from the letter, it's also clear that this is something she just needed to let go. There is no end game to this that benefits Dorland, and the fact that she can't see that, that she is blinded by her anger, is troubling. I've been probably about that angry at a former friend before, for doing something similarly hurtful. But even in my anger, I could reason through to see that there was no benefit to me in trying to pursue it. She needs (and needed) to walk away from that situation for her own sake.

And yeah, Larson is a petty mean girl, and she is absolutely leaning on the race angle of this even though I really don't think it's particularly relevant to her interactions with Dorland. Dorland didn't donate her kidney to a POC, that was something Larson invented in her own story. Which is fine! But Larson and her friends are treating Dorland like she actually is the "Rose" in Larson's story, which is messed up. They've basically painted Dorland as worse than she actually is (which is already bad enough, this was not necessary) because it helps to weaken their target. It is gross group-think mean-girl behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story really is a Rorschach test. I found myself identifying with both women in uncomfortable ways throughout the article.

I will say that I have been a part of a community a little like Grub Street. Not a writing community, but something else. And they are inherently problematic because they are never actually what they purport to be.

These organizations will call themselves a community, function as non profits, tout that they are inclusive and tolerant... but often they quickly become clique-ish and exclusive because that is human nature and because that's what happens at self-managed organizations. There's always some core group of insiders who become friends. And they'll be friendly to everyone else because, again, that's what the organization is supposed to do. But it can be confusing for people like Dorland. She though these people were her friends and they definitely were not. In fact, it's pretty clear they didn't really like her at all. I see people on Twitter making fun of Dorland for not understanding that, but I know from experience that an organization like Grub Street can pretty effectively obscure those relationships. When people are also doing a ton of trash talking members of the organization behind their backs, it becomes pretty gross to me. Because at that point you are just lying and being fake when you are friendly to someone like Dorland. Not saying they should have treated her poorly, but there is a way to interact with someone so that you are polite, without giving the impression that you are friends.

Anyway, Dorland seems pretty annoying! I probably wouldn't like her either. But I also don't think she'd get confused and think we were good friends, either, because I tend to be a lot more up front about stuff like that. I also would not have engaged in hundreds of pages worth of nasty texts and emails about her, because I don't like gossip and stuff like that makes me feel icky.

You hit the nail on the head. Yes, I am also tangentially familiar with these kind if organizations. It’s a snake pit, and I an really sorry for anyone who doesn’t realize the dynamics going in. It doesn’t help that the arts /non-profits world is extremely competitive and not only in obvious ways.

+100 — creative professional here and these in-groups are so horrible and so true, not matter how small the pond, and as an outsider, to a degree you do have to try to play along, because these are the people who will end up the ones who curate a show and decide whether to pick you (or put you on the panel of their conference, or whatever). It is something gross and fake that goes beyond just how networking works in other careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story really is a Rorschach test. I found myself identifying with both women in uncomfortable ways throughout the article.

I will say that I have been a part of a community a little like Grub Street. Not a writing community, but something else. And they are inherently problematic because they are never actually what they purport to be.

These organizations will call themselves a community, function as non profits, tout that they are inclusive and tolerant... but often they quickly become clique-ish and exclusive because that is human nature and because that's what happens at self-managed organizations. There's always some core group of insiders who become friends. And they'll be friendly to everyone else because, again, that's what the organization is supposed to do. But it can be confusing for people like Dorland. She though these people were her friends and they definitely were not. In fact, it's pretty clear they didn't really like her at all. I see people on Twitter making fun of Dorland for not understanding that, but I know from experience that an organization like Grub Street can pretty effectively obscure those relationships. When people are also doing a ton of trash talking members of the organization behind their backs, it becomes pretty gross to me. Because at that point you are just lying and being fake when you are friendly to someone like Dorland. Not saying they should have treated her poorly, but there is a way to interact with someone so that you are polite, without giving the impression that you are friends.

Anyway, Dorland seems pretty annoying! I probably wouldn't like her either. But I also don't think she'd get confused and think we were good friends, either, because I tend to be a lot more up front about stuff like that. I also would not have engaged in hundreds of pages worth of nasty texts and emails about her, because I don't like gossip and stuff like that makes me feel icky.

You hit the nail on the head. Yes, I am also tangentially familiar with these kind if organizations. It’s a snake pit, and I an really sorry for anyone who doesn’t realize the dynamics going in. It doesn’t help that the arts /non-profits world is extremely competitive and not only in obvious ways.

+100 — creative professional here and these in-groups are so horrible and so true, not matter how small the pond, and as an outsider, to a degree you do have to try to play along, because these are the people who will end up the ones who curate a show and decide whether to pick you (or put you on the panel of their conference, or whatever). It is something gross and fake that goes beyond just how networking works in other careers.

Yes to all of this, plus:

Making art of any kind as an adult is really scary and vulnerable and hard. It takes this weird blind confidence at times, and it can be difficult to weather criticism or failure as adult. Especially for someone like Dorland who came to it a bit later and hasn't had success (and may never have success, this happens a lot). One thing about this story that bothers me is the way these other writers treat Dorlan like the privileged person when she is so clearly not. Yes, she is white. But that's not the only form of privilege. She is vulnerable in many ways that these other writers, especially someone like Ng, are not. Being successful is a form of privilege! Earned privilege, yes, but it still counts.

It's just gross to me for more successful artists to pile on someone who is not successful. It's not necessary. They are already getting rejected. You can just stay neutral or even be kind. It costs you nothing.

[Anonymous]

yes to all of this above^. It’s the punching down by super successful people like Ng that is truly repellant and so incredibly unnecessary - and an abuse of Ng’s power and influence. I hate this kind of stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

Well, one of the women is a back-stabbing, race-baiting mean girl; the other donated a kidney to a stranger. So.

You know, that's part of what makes this story compelling.

Both women seem to be good people in other aspects of their life. Dorland donated a kidney to a total stranger. Regardless of whether she bragged about it online or not, you can't undo the goodness of that. It really doesn't even matter what her motivations were -- she saved someone's life.

And Larson seems like a talented writer who has accumulated a lot of very supportive friends. You can be cynical about that if you want, but that rarely happens if you are actually a jerk. She seems like she is probably a really kind an generous person within that friend group and that people appreciate her enough to stand up for her in this situation.

But they both treated each other TERRIBLY. Dorland contacted Larson basically to ask why she hadn't liked her posts on Facebook is so beyond narcissistic and needy -- if someone did that to me I would have been a lot less polite about it frankly. It's one of those massive blinking red light behaviors, like "Hi, I've totally lost control of my sense of self and will violate any boundary I find to try and regain it!" It's nuts. And while I get Dorland's anger with Larson for using the kidney donation in the story, and especially for lifting her language directly from the letter, it's also clear that this is something she just needed to let go. There is no end game to this that benefits Dorland, and the fact that she can't see that, that she is blinded by her anger, is troubling. I've been probably about that angry at a former friend before, for doing something similarly hurtful. But even in my anger, I could reason through to see that there was no benefit to me in trying to pursue it. She needs (and needed) to walk away from that situation for her own sake.

And yeah, Larson is a petty mean girl, and she is absolutely leaning on the race angle of this even though I really don't think it's particularly relevant to her interactions with Dorland. Dorland didn't donate her kidney to a POC, that was something Larson invented in her own story. Which is fine! But Larson and her friends are treating Dorland like she actually is the "Rose" in Larson's story, which is messed up. They've basically painted Dorland as worse than she actually is (which is already bad enough, this was not necessary) because it helps to weaken their target. It is gross group-think mean-girl behavior.

I agree with both posts but bolded what is for me the most important thing. Larson and co are doing this **deliberately** and are still at it on Twitter in the NYT comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

Well, one of the women is a back-stabbing, race-baiting mean girl; the other donated a kidney to a stranger. So.

You know, that's part of what makes this story compelling.

Both women seem to be good people in other aspects of their life. Dorland donated a kidney to a total stranger. Regardless of whether she bragged about it online or not, you can't undo the goodness of that. It really doesn't even matter what her motivations were -- she saved someone's life.

And Larson seems like a talented writer who has accumulated a lot of very supportive friends. You can be cynical about that if you want, but that rarely happens if you are actually a jerk. She seems like she is probably a really kind an generous person within that friend group and that people appreciate her enough to stand up for her in this situation.

But they both treated each other TERRIBLY. Dorland contacted Larson basically to ask why she hadn't liked her posts on Facebook is so beyond narcissistic and needy -- if someone did that to me I would have been a lot less polite about it frankly. It's one of those massive blinking red light behaviors, like "Hi, I've totally lost control of my sense of self and will violate any boundary I find to try and regain it!" It's nuts. And while I get Dorland's anger with Larson for using the kidney donation in the story, and especially for lifting her language directly from the letter, it's also clear that this is something she just needed to let go. There is no end game to this that benefits Dorland, and the fact that she can't see that, that she is blinded by her anger, is troubling. I've been probably about that angry at a former friend before, for doing something similarly hurtful. But even in my anger, I could reason through to see that there was no benefit to me in trying to pursue it. She needs (and needed) to walk away from that situation for her own sake.

And yeah, Larson is a petty mean girl, and she is absolutely leaning on the race angle of this even though I really don't think it's particularly relevant to her interactions with Dorland. Dorland didn't donate her kidney to a POC, that was something Larson invented in her own story. Which is fine! But Larson and her friends are treating Dorland like she actually is the "Rose" in Larson's story, which is messed up. They've basically painted Dorland as worse than she actually is (which is already bad enough, this was not necessary) because it helps to weaken their target. It is gross group-think mean-girl behavior.

I agree with both posts but bolded what is for me the most important thing. Larson and co are doing this **deliberately** and are still at it on Twitter in the NYT comments.

apparently attacking Dorland on account of her race is the only tactic they have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yes to all of this above^. It’s the punching down by super successful people like Ng that is truly repellant and so incredibly unnecessary - and an abuse of Ng’s power and influence. I hate this kind of stuff.

100% to this. There is such a circling around of the powerful by the powerful, all cloaked in some sense of justice. It's awful. I am also a creative professional - a quite unsuccessful one unfortunately! - and seeing the mean girl cliques go after people who are less powerful is really quite awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really fascinated how the story about someone weaponizing their class is being twisted into a story of the victim weaponizing their race.

Can you explain this more?

There was an in-group and an outsider. An in-group ridiculed the outsider and treated her as a bit less than human because she was too uncouth. The usual middle school dynamics.

But when all that dirty laundry got aired, the in-group members were smart enough to realize that openly punching down, class wise, may not garner them much sympathy. So they invoked a coded language du jour to imply that the victim did something horrible to deserve it. They know exactly what to say, where and when (and it is a class thing) to invite others to heap even more on her. Their chosen hashtag is #whitewomantears, not something along the lines of #desperate_wannabe.

[Anonymous]

Since when are we calling literature art?