Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

One of the other thought-provoking aspects to all of this is just how ableist Larson and the Chunky Monkeys are. This intertwines through all of this: how they talk about Dorland, Dorland's struggles to fit in, the kidney donation itself, the mental health issues at play, Dorland's vulnerability. There are some good discussions on Twitter, for instance this thread:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

+1

I am definitely on the Dawn side of the spectrum, and find it interesting that people seem to be worried about their own skeletons. I know there is zero chance of me having some email/chat/text history where I proudly said the things they did about anyone, let alone where they person being discussed was just doing cringe-inducing needy stuff. The way they all loved to engage on the topic -- contrary to what they are saying now about how they barely knew she existed -- is so striking, and foreign to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

True. Some of Larsen's ardent defenders are clearly at the top of literary society, though (Ng, Gay, Rosner, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

True. Some of Larsen's ardent defenders are clearly at the top of literary society, though (Ng, Gay, Rosner, etc.).

Helen Rosner is at the top of literary society? She hasn't even written a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

True. Some of Larsen's ardent defenders are clearly at the top of literary society, though (Ng, Gay, Rosner, etc.).

Helen Rosner is at the top of literary society? She hasn't even written a book.

The New Yorker is a good gig. I think it's hard to argue that she isn't in a position of influence in literary society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

True. Some of Larsen's ardent defenders are clearly at the top of literary society, though (Ng, Gay, Rosner, etc.).

Helen Rosner is at the top of literary society? She hasn't even written a book.

The New Yorker is a good gig. I think it's hard to argue that she isn't in a position of influence in literary society.

She does have a great gig (and is good at it), but Tweeting profusely is not literature -- I guess that's what I find so grating. Like, do your work, don't Tweet and make yourself part of a story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

True. Some of Larsen's ardent defenders are clearly at the top of literary society, though (Ng, Gay, Rosner, etc.).

Helen Rosner is at the top of literary society? She hasn't even written a book.

The New Yorker is a good gig. I think it's hard to argue that she isn't in a position of influence in literary society.

She does have a great gig (and is good at it), but Tweeting profusely is not literature -- I guess that's what I find so grating. Like, do your work, don't Tweet and make yourself part of a story.

Yes, fair enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason so many prominent people have publicly and strongly sided with Larson, and the support for Dorland has been slower to emerge and often veiled in anonymity (as here) is that powerful people identify with Larsen and the writing group. They identify with the idea of people they don’t like wanting to be friends with them, and with the idea of being polite to their face while trashing them privately because that is something they have done in the past.

The people who identified with Dorland are, by definition, people who have been traumatized by in/out group dynamics and may carry a lot of shame and grief. I have been obsessed with this story since in came out but there is no trace that I’ve even read it on Twitter or elsewhere. I have only talked about it here and in, yes, a group chat with people who know my connection to the story. I am afraid any public discussion about this story would draw the attention of the people who used to stalk my social media expressly to make fun of me while smiling to me face. I always police my public activity for this reason, but something like this feels especially risky.

This reminds me of those studies/social science theories where increases in wealth are associated with a decrease in empathy. Maybe in order to function in those circles, you have to lose your humanity. Perhaps that is the price of admission to exclusive literary society, but because it has happened to all of them, they don't see the loss.

Grub Street isn't an exclusive lit society at all -- that's the funniest part. I know many very well-regarded writers who aren't a part of it (and I live near Cambridge).

But that’s how these organizations work. Their facade is “we welcome everyone!” But the way they hook people is with an internal hierarchy that people will try to climb. Often it appears formalized (instructor trainings, for instance) but it usually just an informal hierarchy so that a select group of insiders can pull income and power from the org. Sometimes it’s based on talent, but then you’ll see well-connected people with middling talent getting plum part time jobs or being included in higher level decision making and events, simply because of their proximity to the right people.

You see it in some writing orgs, yoga studios, and other arts non-profits. There is little money or prestige involved, so they are ripe for people to work out their weird social aggressions.

[Anonymous]

The way in which people like Roxane Gay think it is ok to pile on this woman who was dragged in The NY Times and is being dragged nationally is appalling. It literally makes me sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous]

More observations on disability. I think this is a good point. I have never been able to figure out why they despised Dorland so much except that she didn't communicate somehow "correctly," which seems code for possible ableism. For instance, in the awful encounter described by Chip Cheeks, Dorland seemed to do everything technically right (welcomed him, gave him advice, etc.) but he still mocked her mercilessly behind her back. The savaging of the group seems beyond normal dislike, and I do wonder if there is some virulent ableism underneath it all (probably also classism).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More observations on disability. I think this is a good point. I have never been able to figure out why they despised Dorland so much except that she didn't communicate somehow "correctly," which seems code for possible ableism. For instance, in the awful encounter described by Chip Cheeks, Dorland seemed to do everything technically right (welcomed him, gave him advice, etc.) but he still mocked her mercilessly behind her back. The savaging of the group seems beyond normal dislike, and I do wonder if there is some virulent ableism underneath it all (probably also classism).

I don’t think it is that high a level of thought. It is petty, insecure people picking out the weakest in the group to make themselves feel better. I’m sure if you look at their histories they were not well liked in high school. I’ll eat my hat if one of them had a prom date who wasn’t their cousin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The way in which people like Roxane Gay think it is ok to pile on this woman who was dragged in The NY Times and is being dragged nationally is appalling. It literally makes me sick to my stomach.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More observations on disability. I think this is a good point. I have never been able to figure out why they despised Dorland so much except that she didn't communicate somehow "correctly," which seems code for possible ableism. For instance, in the awful encounter described by Chip Cheeks, Dorland seemed to do everything technically right (welcomed him, gave him advice, etc.) but he still mocked her mercilessly behind her back. The savaging of the group seems beyond normal dislike, and I do wonder if there is some virulent ableism underneath it all (probably also classism).

I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not really feeling the “ableist” angle, though I get the point people are trying to make.

I just feel like…does someone really need to be a member of a protected class in order for people to stand up and say “this is wrong”? It feels like people are reaching for a way to trump the “WOC” card, when really it just comes down to one person being horrible to and plagiarizing another person. Regardless of their cultural identities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More observations on disability. I think this is a good point. I have never been able to figure out why they despised Dorland so much except that she didn't communicate somehow "correctly," which seems code for possible ableism. For instance, in the awful encounter described by Chip Cheeks, Dorland seemed to do everything technically right (welcomed him, gave him advice, etc.) but he still mocked her mercilessly behind her back. The savaging of the group seems beyond normal dislike, and I do wonder if there is some virulent ableism underneath it all (probably also classism).

I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not really feeling the “ableist” angle, though I get the point people are trying to make.

I just feel like…does someone really need to be a member of a protected class in order for people to stand up and say “this is wrong”? It feels like people are reaching for a way to trump the “WOC” card, when really it just comes down to one person being horrible to and plagiarizing another person. Regardless of their cultural identities.

The fact that Sonya has played the race card when it appears not applicable is repulsive and the willingness of people to stand behind her on that is gross and does nothing to help and may actually harm the causes that POC and WOC support.