Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found this Tumblr really interesting, sorry if it was posted before.

https://tienriu.tumblr.com/post/664620642675671040/i-am-so-awake-it-hurts-and-its-been-a-week-of

Holy mother — did Roxane Gay really just suggest that Dawn FAKED her kidney donation for attention?

What is wrong with that woman???

That is awful. Really awful.

I’ve already touched on this, but it really is. I’m so shocked at her amorality. Roxane Gay has a huge public platform and has repeatedly maligned non-public figures on Twitter because it’s a day ending in y. I’m phucking sick of it and of the lack of consequences to her and her ilk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

Yay. Love for the lawyer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

“No matter what color” omg lol bahaha

[Anonymous]

Photolaw at aol.com? You can't make this up.

[Anonymous]

I think many people have probably texted, talked trash about other people but many if not the vast majority of people haven’t taken it that far. I am sure I annoy people. In fact I once learned that a very close friend called me a hot mess (was overheard by another friend) amid some flattering discussion. I was so hurt - called her, she cried, I cried, and we are still friends. And I was a hot mess at the time. But it wasn’t right for her to say it. My point is, if we think people aren’t talking about us we are delusional. But this isn’t that. I remember when I was in HS some boys in my class were involved with a very violent act - someone got into a fight and then a bunch of other friends jumped in and they kicked the guy until he was near dead. They went to jail. While this wasn’t violent in the same way I feel like the chunky monkeys were basically crazed with some sort of blood sport. It was fun to them. Look at that asshat extraordinaire chip cheeks’ story - you could tell he was leaning in hard into everyone’s favorite charades category. It wasn’t about Dawn, she seems like nothing more than a medium for them to discharge hateful electricity into.

Last night I deleted a text about Celeste Ng thinking - I’m not perfect. But she’s there posting damage control refugee posts without a shred of self awareness of the irony. Her only thread on this is aggressive in tone. Then she muted the thread. I don’t know who the Alison person is but she essentially said you should post all this into grub writers of color so if she comes after you [for plagiarism!] they will drag her. Every bit of this is so disgusting. This isn’t Celeste Ng’s first run at this either. She bullied a college student a few years back. It upsets me that there will be no consequences. I never read her work, never will now. Are Do Not Read lists real? I don’t want to ban books but I sure as hell would love to see this on their Wikipedia pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

OMG. The "No matter what color you use to highlight your email" is classic. I kind of love her too. As a lawyer I LOVE to send emails like that. Probably no good for my personal life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

“No matter what color” omg lol bahaha

I'm starting to feel like someone needs to make this into a rock opera. (Except - I do feel like the ultimate outcome of this needs to be a lot more attention to kidney donation!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

“No matter what color” omg lol bahaha

I'm starting to feel like someone needs to make this into a rock opera. (Except - I do feel like the ultimate outcome of this needs to be a lot more attention to kidney donation!)

I would 1000% binge watch a well-made prestige television show about this. Or like a Social Network-type Sorkin-y movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many people have probably texted, talked trash about other people but many if not the vast majority of people haven’t taken it that far. I am sure I annoy people. In fact I once learned that a very close friend called me a hot mess (was overheard by another friend) amid some flattering discussion. I was so hurt - called her, she cried, I cried, and we are still friends. And I was a hot mess at the time. But it wasn’t right for her to say it. My point is, if we think people aren’t talking about us we are delusional. But this isn’t that. I remember when I was in HS some boys in my class were involved with a very violent act - someone got into a fight and then a bunch of other friends jumped in and they kicked the guy until he was near dead. They went to jail. While this wasn’t violent in the same way I feel like the chunky monkeys were basically crazed with some sort of blood sport. It was fun to them. Look at that asshat extraordinaire chip cheeks’ story - you could tell he was leaning in hard into everyone’s favorite charades category. It wasn’t about Dawn, she seems like nothing more than a medium for them to discharge hateful electricity into.

Last night I deleted a text about Celeste Ng thinking - I’m not perfect. But she’s there posting damage control refugee posts without a shred of self awareness of the irony. Her only thread on this is aggressive in tone. Then she muted the thread. I don’t know who the Alison person is but she essentially said you should post all this into grub writers of color so if she comes after you [for plagiarism!] they will drag her. Every bit of this is so disgusting. This isn’t Celeste Ng’s first run at this either. She bullied a college student a few years back. It upsets me that there will be no consequences. I never read her work, never will now. Are Do Not Read lists real? I don’t want to ban books but I sure as hell would love to see this on their Wikipedia pages.

The mark of a REALLY good friend is when they are willing to call you a hot mess to your face (and you deserve it, and they have built up a foundation of trust and respect so that you know you need to hear it.) If my BFF called me a hot mess to someone else I would know it was because I was a ... hot mess and she needed to vent because of all my messiness I'm subjecting her to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t remember if this was posted upthread, but this person has done a fantastic job of pulling together the timeline and all the court docs: https://piperbookblog.com/bad-art-friend-the-case-files-reveal-lying-perjury-and-deceit/

Also, I’m loving Dorland’s attorney from what I’ve read so far.

Why do you love her attorney?

You have to read the court documents to get a picture of her, but I love the way she responds to Larson’s attorney, who seems like a bit of a knucklehead. He is constantly making excuses for his or his client’s failures to produce complete documents in a timely fashion. She seems incredible dedicated and capable, and funny as well. This interchange cracked me up—she finally allowed her exasperation to show after weeks of patients emails.

“Drew, I understand the temptation to turn this into a tit-for-tat, but I made my production months ago, and you did not ask for a 7.1 conference, and you raised no issues at that time, or at any time until legitimate rules-based issues were raised about YOUR production. Further, what is required to be produced are documents in my client’s possession, custody and control. Facebook does not create lists of members of groups with dates admitted, and neither did my client – there is no such document to produce. No matter what color you use to highlight your email.”

From: Drew Epstein <[e-mail]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:56 AM To: Elovecky, Suzanne M. <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Larson v Dorland-Perry - Notice of Deposition

Where is the list of people who were on Dorland's "semi-public" or so-called "private" Facebook page and the dates they were admitted to the group? [Note: this sentence was highlighted in red in the email to Dorland’s lawyer. ]

“No matter what color” omg lol bahaha

I'm starting to feel like someone needs to make this into a rock opera. (Except - I do feel like the ultimate outcome of this needs to be a lot more attention to kidney donation!)

I would 1000% binge watch a well-made prestige television show about this. Or like a Social Network-type Sorkin-y movie.

would make a terrific Good Wife episode. remember Tricky Thick? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Hwj15F-AM

[Anonymous]

Tangential, but I find Helen Rosner’s reaction to this odd. I know Helen from a college activity and Helen played more of the Dawn role there. It was a competitive oddly hierarchical activity where competitive success created social cache, but obviously lots of other factors played into one’s social standing as well; probably not unlike these writer’s cliques. Anyway, Helen wasn’t as competitively successful as she probably would have liked, wasn’t at an “in” school, wasn’t conventionally attractive and could be sort off putting (sometimes seemingly intentionally so, but then she also seemed to care what people thought and I later heard that she, in fact, had been somewhat hurt by it all). I actually felt kind of bad about it at the time, but didn’t know her that well and was sort of in a weird position vis a vis her for reasons that aren’t super relevant.

Anyway, she moved to NYC at graduation and some of the Sonyas, who moved at the same time, became really good friends of hers, because it turned out that outside of the weird strictures of the activity, they really liked her. They also totally did right by her with respect to friends who still thought of her as a Dawn; always invited her to things, explained to everyone visiting NYC that they were good friends now, etc. I never moved to NYC so that group has never been or become my main friend set and I’ve never gotten to know her really well, but we see each other occasionally, have vacationed together with mutual friends, etc and we have a few close mutual friends in common even now (almost 20 years post college).

By all accounts, she’s great. She’s obviously become quite successful and I, personally, think she’s a fabulous writer. But, she’s still a little bit Dawn when I think of her — because that’s how I first knew her — and even though that’s very much not who she is now, I’m surprised she has so little empathy for actual Dawn. I wonder if her own version of events is totally different or if not empathizing is some sort of defense mechanism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tangential, but I find Helen Rosner’s reaction to this odd. I know Helen from a college activity and Helen played more of the Dawn role there. It was a competitive oddly hierarchical activity where competitive success created social cache, but obviously lots of other factors played into one’s social standing as well; probably not unlike these writer’s cliques. Anyway, Helen wasn’t as competitively successful as she probably would have liked, wasn’t at an “in” school, wasn’t conventionally attractive and could be sort off putting (sometimes seemingly intentionally so, but then she also seemed to care what people thought and I later heard that she, in fact, had been somewhat hurt by it all). I actually felt kind of bad about it at the time, but didn’t know her that well and was sort of in a weird position vis a vis her for reasons that aren’t super relevant.

Anyway, she moved to NYC at graduation and some of the Sonyas, who moved at the same time, became really good friends of hers, because it turned out that outside of the weird strictures of the activity, they really liked her. They also totally did right by her with respect to friends who still thought of her as a Dawn; always invited her to things, explained to everyone visiting NYC that they were good friends now, etc. I never moved to NYC so that group has never been or become my main friend set and I’ve never gotten to know her really well, but we see each other occasionally, have vacationed together with mutual friends, etc and we have a few close mutual friends in common even now (almost 20 years post college).

By all accounts, she’s great. She’s obviously become quite successful and I, personally, think she’s a fabulous writer. But, she’s still a little bit Dawn when I think of her — because that’s how I first knew her — and even though that’s very much not who she is now, I’m surprised she has so little empathy for actual Dawn. I wonder if her own version of events is totally different or if not empathizing is some sort of defense mechanism.

We often most harshly reject people who remind us of the parts of ourselves we don’t like or feel the worst about.

I would bet many of the Chunky Monkeys also see themselves as misfits and outcasts, and that’s part of what fed their dislike of Dorland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tangential, but I find Helen Rosner’s reaction to this odd. I know Helen from a college activity and Helen played more of the Dawn role there. It was a competitive oddly hierarchical activity where competitive success created social cache, but obviously lots of other factors played into one’s social standing as well; probably not unlike these writer’s cliques. Anyway, Helen wasn’t as competitively successful as she probably would have liked, wasn’t at an “in” school, wasn’t conventionally attractive and could be sort off putting (sometimes seemingly intentionally so, but then she also seemed to care what people thought and I later heard that she, in fact, had been somewhat hurt by it all). I actually felt kind of bad about it at the time, but didn’t know her that well and was sort of in a weird position vis a vis her for reasons that aren’t super relevant.

Anyway, she moved to NYC at graduation and some of the Sonyas, who moved at the same time, became really good friends of hers, because it turned out that outside of the weird strictures of the activity, they really liked her. They also totally did right by her with respect to friends who still thought of her as a Dawn; always invited her to things, explained to everyone visiting NYC that they were good friends now, etc. I never moved to NYC so that group has never been or become my main friend set and I’ve never gotten to know her really well, but we see each other occasionally, have vacationed together with mutual friends, etc and we have a few close mutual friends in common even now (almost 20 years post college).

By all accounts, she’s great. She’s obviously become quite successful and I, personally, think she’s a fabulous writer. But, she’s still a little bit Dawn when I think of her — because that’s how I first knew her — and even though that’s very much not who she is now, I’m surprised she has so little empathy for actual Dawn. I wonder if her own version of events is totally different or if not empathizing is some sort of defense mechanism.

Short answer: Twitter is a cesspool. It brings out the worst in people and in groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the line between just being terrible and plagiarizing?

Funny you ask that. I am one of the published authors who posted above and i just so happened to be turning in a MS this week and I ran this by my editor — what would you think if i included a verbatim private FB post in my book, and didn’t tell the original author? Would that be cool.

She laughed hard, and then said, “But seriously, no. Don’t do that.”

No legit author in their right mind is confused about this.

But then why are SO many writers on Twitter brushing this off or justifying it? It honestly blows my mind. I thought plagiarism was like the number one thing to NOT do, as writers?

For the purposes of this question — there are two kinds of writers. The first are “literary” writers whose heroes are Celeste Ng etc., most of whom will never publish a novel, but live off weird teaching gigs, day jobs, fellowships, and will spend their “careers” writing short stories that no one but other MFAs will read. They are a closed network, based out of few cities — Brooklyn, Boston, L.A, the Iowa writers workshop, Columbia MFA. They are a rarified bunch and very defensive about the fact that no one wants to pay money for their writing. There are so few shots at making it as an MFA writer that they are cutthroat competitive and very petty and resentful. So their currency is elitism, snobbism, classism. These are the writers in Twitter.

The second kind of writers are “commercial” writers, who get books deals, produce regularly, often collaborate with Netflix or other TV/Movie houses. The most successful of these are household names — think Lianne Moriarty or Michael Connelly — and most are not on Twitter and def.not part of this scene. They are “working” writers with deadlines and contracts and while their is much fellowship within genres, whether it is mystery, sci-if, women’s fiction, romance, thrillers . . . There is none of this clubbiness or exclusivity. In fact, in genre fiction, there are conferences where authors mix with fans, teach classes, help newbies etc. It’s a completely different vibe b/c working writers let the marketplace be the judge of a good story, while MFA writers think they are the ultimate judges.

Guess which type loves the petty toxic swampland of Twitter?

As Dennis Lehane put it, mystery writers are a great bunch who send the elevator down when they get to the top. And it’s true.

Oh this might be true but you’re forgetting about YA Twitter and Romance Twitter. If you think those two communities aren’t cliquey and prone to backstabbing and high drama, it just tells me you aren’t familiar with them.