Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was appalled when I heard about this story and sided with Dawn, but damn when I read her posts about her donation my eyes roll back so far in my head it hurts.

I would have had a very hard time not being sarcastic to her. Maybe my problem is I know too many women who do charity for attention. One message she sent to Sonya she talked about attending a charity function with Jayne Seymore and being so proud that the doctor who took her kidney mentioned her kidney "just gushing urine". Ugh.

I would have stopped talking to her and avoided her but I know I would have made comments to a mutual friend about her. In any group I've been in there would be at least one adult who would shut the nastiness down so we would only go on so long.

No one in that group admitted that they were the ones doing the stalking. What an empty echo chamber they were.

For what it's worth, I had a similar initial reaction. But when I read the events in chronological order and observed the time gaps, I lost any sense of neediness from Dawn. One of the great errors of the NYT article is that it ignores the timing of all the messages and takes them very out of context. Read in chronological order, those needy-seeming messages start to sound instead like the thought process of someone who can tell, somehow, that she's being gaslit, but doesn't know quite how.

I actually think that the NYT presentation is really problematic, because it constructs a narrative that doesn't match the real world timing.

+1 The NY Times absolutely painted dawn waaay differently than she comes off in her real time comms.

Yes. I think Kolker did that to provide balance to the article but to the extent there was a thumb on the scale, it only worked in Sonya's favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Found this on Twitter. Looks like GrubStreet is finally, actually responding to its community, privately.

It is about time.

[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 think their disdain for Dawn comes from ableism. Some groups of people are just mean and enjoy being mean. The fact that in all of this, not one of them can point to or share anything concrete that Dawn did to draw their vitriol is most telling. Who remembers the b*%#& eating crackers some e card thing from back when memes were getting started? Dawn clearly was the B eating crackers for this group of people, and every single thing she did (or didn't do) became fodder for them to ridicule her more. I think their dislike of Dawn is grounded in classism and a need to keep people in their place, and Dawn was clearly not aware that this group was still playing those mean girl games.

To add to this, the character of Rose in the story eats Ritz crackers throughout the story. Larsen literally had her eating crackers.

The other tidbit is that Dorland apparently spoke openly about being inspired by a 2009 New Yorker story titled The Kindest Cut. The title of Larsen's short story is a direct hit at Dorland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was appalled when I heard about this story and sided with Dawn, but damn when I read her posts about her donation my eyes roll back so far in my head it hurts.

I would have had a very hard time not being sarcastic to her. Maybe my problem is I know too many women who do charity for attention. One message she sent to Sonya she talked about attending a charity function with Jayne Seymore and being so proud that the doctor who took her kidney mentioned her kidney "just gushing urine". Ugh.

I would have stopped talking to her and avoided her but I know I would have made comments to a mutual friend about her. In any group I've been in there would be at least one adult who would shut the nastiness down so we would only go on so long.

No one in that group admitted that they were the ones doing the stalking. What an empty echo chamber they were.

For what it's worth, I had a similar initial reaction. But when I read the events in chronological order and observed the time gaps, I lost any sense of neediness from Dawn. One of the great errors of the NYT article is that it ignores the timing of all the messages and takes them very out of context. Read in chronological order, those needy-seeming messages start to sound instead like the thought process of someone who can tell, somehow, that she's being gaslit, but doesn't know quite how.

I actually think that the NYT presentation is really problematic, because it constructs a narrative that doesn't match the real world timing.

+1 The NY Times absolutely painted dawn waaay differently than she comes off in her real time comms.

+2

And two details left out of the NYT piece that really changed my perspective in Dawn — organ donors are encouraged to set up groups like this (Dawn just erred in including people who were not actually her friend), and perhaps more importantly, Dawn was spurred to reach out to Sonja because she could see Sonja was lurking in the group, reading every single post. And so when she saw Sonja and others at a conference and they said nothing about this thing she’d been talking about in FB, and she knew they had seen, it made her wonder if there was a problem. Which there was!

The two most cringeworthy things I thought Dawn had done… she didn’t do. She didn’t reach out to Sonja out if the blue to ask why she hadn’t like her kidney posts. The communication was 100% prompted by an in person interaction that had rightfully made Dawn wonder if Sonja was not actually a supportive friend regarding her organ donation, and this not the right person to be in her support group. It was Sonja’s weird and boundary crossing behavior that prompted this conversation, NOT Dawn’s. Sonja could have simply chosen not to participate in the FB group.

With these interactions as background, Sonja’s choice to plagiarize Dawn’s letter, and the CM’s choice to back it up unquestioningly, is really egregious. They knew what they were doing. Dawn was not actually asking for anything once she realized they weren’t interested in the donation support group.

Sorry, but regardless of how annoying Dawn might be IRL, this problem was one of Sonja Larson’s creation. She gets what she deserves at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was appalled when I heard about this story and sided with Dawn, but damn when I read her posts about her donation my eyes roll back so far in my head it hurts.

I would have had a very hard time not being sarcastic to her. Maybe my problem is I know too many women who do charity for attention. One message she sent to Sonya she talked about attending a charity function with Jayne Seymore and being so proud that the doctor who took her kidney mentioned her kidney "just gushing urine". Ugh.

I would have stopped talking to her and avoided her but I know I would have made comments to a mutual friend about her. In any group I've been in there would be at least one adult who would shut the nastiness down so we would only go on so long.

No one in that group admitted that they were the ones doing the stalking. What an empty echo chamber they were.

For what it's worth, I had a similar initial reaction. But when I read the events in chronological order and observed the time gaps, I lost any sense of neediness from Dawn. One of the great errors of the NYT article is that it ignores the timing of all the messages and takes them very out of context. Read in chronological order, those needy-seeming messages start to sound instead like the thought process of someone who can tell, somehow, that she's being gaslit, but doesn't know quite how.

I actually think that the NYT presentation is really problematic, because it constructs a narrative that doesn't match the real world timing.

+1 The NY Times absolutely painted dawn waaay differently than she comes off in her real time comms.

+2

And two details left out of the NYT piece that really changed my perspective in Dawn — organ donors are encouraged to set up groups like this (Dawn just erred in including people who were not actually her friend), and perhaps more importantly, Dawn was spurred to reach out to Sonja because she could see Sonja was lurking in the group, reading every single post. And so when she saw Sonja and others at a conference and they said nothing about this thing she’d been talking about in FB, and she knew they had seen, it made her wonder if there was a problem. Which there was!

The two most cringeworthy things I thought Dawn had done… she didn’t do. She didn’t reach out to Sonja out if the blue to ask why she hadn’t like her kidney posts. The communication was 100% prompted by an in person interaction that had rightfully made Dawn wonder if Sonja was not actually a supportive friend regarding her organ donation, and this not the right person to be in her support group. It was Sonja’s weird and boundary crossing behavior that prompted this conversation, NOT Dawn’s. Sonja could have simply chosen not to participate in the FB group.

With these interactions as background, Sonja’s choice to plagiarize Dawn’s letter, and the CM’s choice to back it up unquestioningly, is really egregious. They knew what they were doing. Dawn was not actually asking for anything once she realized they weren’t interested in the donation support group.

Sorry, but regardless of how annoying Dawn might be IRL, this problem was one of Sonja Larson’s creation. She gets what she deserves at this point.

I completely agree. I feel a little haunted because I recognize that it’s unlikely that the CM’s, Larson, Grub Street, Ng, Gay, and Wortham will suffer any blowback, let alone consequences, for their behavior.

I’m convinced that the idea of the Karen, contrasted with the idea that virtually all WOC do unrecognized emotional labor for all non-POC in this country, led to this. And it’s bullshit. Wortham could’ve taken her shitty, snitty “I am shooketh, I know DD and I have tea!!” tweet to Gay and made it a DM or texted her or whatever. But no, it had to be public, so that “Allies” could sigh about how horrible whiten women are and please Jenna please tell the world how awful DD is while you’re on sabbatical with the NYT. Gay could’ve sat this one out, or shared that she has an affinity with the Grubs because they just gave her an award in September. But nope, not possible to do that; she HAD to double and treble down because my GOD so many white women have too much gucking TIME on their hands and LIVE to harm POC, right? (Excuse you who has time to read a pleading when you’re the emotional wet nurse to all of your needy literary babies??)

Whatever comes to those who pulled this shit is earned. But I’m pretty certain nothing will happen.

[Anonymous]

Here's a refreshing blue check opinion by a journalist. Read the entire thread.

[Anonymous]

Cancel Sonya Larson. Cancel Roxane Gay. This had to do with writers being clicky insecure a holes and a person (who happens to be white) not wanting to be plagiarized and have her life publicly made a mockery of which is what the group was doing privately behind her back. This isn’t about a white women trying to take credit for a women of colors written work or terrorize a woman of color.

[Anonymous]

The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

+1 Dorland went two YEARS at one point without mentioning it. Meanwhile Larson says something to the effect of “I know I sound obsessed with this” in one of her emails

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else finds it ironic that R.Gay writes a work advice column in NYTimes? I can practically see a letter:

Dear Work Friend, there is a woman in my work place that doesn't quite fit in. Is it OK I and my real work friends gang up on her? I promise, it's going to be really funny, we can even let you join in. What do you say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

Exactly. This is so irresponsible and makes me livid just thinking about it. I know this sound obsessive - ha, yes I get the irony - but I feel so much for Dawn. I’m this close to writing her an email just to express my sympathy, but I don’t think she has one publicly available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

so -- while I get what you are saying -- I do think this is where you have to accept that no media outlet, no reporter, etc is perfect, and that every bit of reporting you read is imperfect and to some degree biased.

i'm a reporter and i would have done this article differently, but fwiw, i'm the same poster who upthread said we need to remember that kolker is a dude, and by being a dude, simply cannot have the same level of true understanding of what mean girl bullyfests involve and look like, or perhaps even the ability to recognize the mean girl bullyfest as arguably the most compelling part of this story. My bias means seeing the mean girl story.

Kolker's bias in this case, as not just as a man but as a bestselling author, is favoring the larger concepts of who owns an idea; who owns a story; what is and isn't literary license/theft. And I get why he has his biases and I have mine, we both come by them honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

+1 Dorland went two YEARS at one point without mentioning it. Meanwhile Larson says something to the effect of “I know I sound obsessed with this” in one of her emails

+2 Dorland even says in a late email that she mentioned it "discretely" to a few friends to get a read on it. That summed up their differences to me. Dorland never mentioned names, or gossiped, literally the opposite of Larson's MO.

BTW Ng sure is silent. Wondering if she's working with a publicist now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

so -- while I get what you are saying -- I do think this is where you have to accept that no media outlet, no reporter, etc is perfect, and that every bit of reporting you read is imperfect and to some degree biased.

i'm a reporter and i would have done this article differently, but fwiw, i'm the same poster who upthread said we need to remember that kolker is a dude, and by being a dude, simply cannot have the same level of true understanding of what mean girl bullyfests involve and look like, or perhaps even the ability to recognize the mean girl bullyfest as arguably the most compelling part of this story. My bias means seeing the mean girl story.

Kolker's bias in this case, as not just as a man but as a bestselling author, is favoring the larger concepts of who owns an idea; who owns a story; what is and isn't literary license/theft. And I get why he has his biases and I have mine, we both come by them honestly.

But, he's a writer and he understands plagiarism. So, was it wise to bury the lede? You can make many arguments about it, but it sure feels like Larson's story. It was so late in the game that I'm sure many people stopped reading by then, and/or felt it was justified given Dawn's "obsessive" behavior that he'd built to a crescendo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that gets me in all of this is how irresponsible the NYT author (Kolker) was in the retelling. What if this entire issue had been handled in arbitration (which Larsen refused, Dorland was okay with), meaning there would be no public documents? We would just have had the NYT timeline and framing, not the original source documents, which tell a wildly different story than what the NYT published.

It is bothering me how divergent the actual evidence is from the NYT narrative. In the NYT, Dawn sounds crazy, clinging, annoying, etc. Problematic in many ways. But when you read the actual evidence -- produced by Larsen herself in litigation! -- suddenly that largely falls away. You end up with a vulnerable woman who painfully starts to piece together, over years of time, how she's been maltreated and gaslit, someone who doesn't look anything like what Kolker portrayed.

If the hard evidence hadn't been there for us to assess on our own, how destroyed would Dorland have been by the NYT article? How complicit is the NYT in this entire affair?

so -- while I get what you are saying -- I do think this is where you have to accept that no media outlet, no reporter, etc is perfect, and that every bit of reporting you read is imperfect and to some degree biased.

i'm a reporter and i would have done this article differently, but fwiw, i'm the same poster who upthread said we need to remember that kolker is a dude, and by being a dude, simply cannot have the same level of true understanding of what mean girl bullyfests involve and look like, or perhaps even the ability to recognize the mean girl bullyfest as arguably the most compelling part of this story. My bias means seeing the mean girl story.

Kolker's bias in this case, as not just as a man but as a bestselling author, is favoring the larger concepts of who owns an idea; who owns a story; what is and isn't literary license/theft. And I get why he has his biases and I have mine, we both come by them honestly.

But, he's a writer and he understands plagiarism. So, was it wise to bury the lede? You can make many arguments about it, but it sure feels like Larson's story. It was so late in the game that I'm sure many people stopped reading by then, and/or felt it was justified given Dawn's "obsessive" behavior that he'd built to a crescendo.

+1 - long time NY Times subscriber. He blew it and kinda blew up Dorlands life with his work.