Bad Art Friend
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Celeste Ng seems to be straight up lying. |
Anonymous
You are welcome. I feel the same way you do. I went through a journey with this, where now I don't trust authors (multiple authors!) and institutions I previously would have, if not exactly trusted, given the benefit of the doubt to. What do I do about the NYT now, for instance? They happily sold me a narrative that turned out to be deceptive. How do I value the NYT now? Dawn was of course the only real victim, but I am left feeling somewhat gaslit myself. |
Anonymous
Yeah, and it's crazy to read reactions to her Oct 6 tweets - just person after person saying "well this settles it" or "Celeste with the facts" or "Let's just believe Celeste Ng." This is what she knew would happen, and she threw her celebrity and platform into furthering the lie and trying to paint DD as an obsessed stalker with no talent (whose name she had never heard!). What a POS. |
Anonymous
Does anyone have a source for this?
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
I mean -- he's not NOT saying that Dawn didn't pitch it to him or reach out to him. And, Dawn and Sonya both could have pitched it -- that does happen. And, the Boston Globe had already run something -- the NYT follows on stories in regional media all day, every day. So, Celeste seems like a major liar and bully and bad person, but a lot of things could be true about how the story got in the NYT. |
Anonymous
| Celeste is absolutely lying about not hearing DD's name before; man, Ng is a real piece of work. It's narcissism not unlike Trump's TBH; telling a lie and being caught in a proven lie are just totally irrelevant to people like that. |
Anonymous
|
Has anyone read the OTR story with Kolker? Apparently you need a $99 subscription. I'm curious what all it says.
|
Anonymous
He is the one saying that he doesn’t like that version: that Dawn simply pitched it. She’s a writer who should understand nuance, so I don’t see a reason to give her the benefit of doubt here, especially since the rest of a tweet is a lie. Besides, she stated that as a pure takedown and lots and lots of people tweeted how ridiculous it was for Dawn to pitch the story. It’s the intellectual dishonesty that is so troubling. |
Anonymous
| Isn't Celeste a Harvard grad? How is she so dumb. Lmfao like literally, I'm so confused she comes off dumb as rocks. |
Anonymous
Celeste is after all the person who came up with “DFD” moniker. Why would she do that for someone she didn’t know? |
Anonymous
What is DFD a reference to? |
Anonymous
Dawn f’in dorland |
Anonymous
|
How would Celeste even know who pitched it? I think she was just spouting off about things she didn’t really know in a misguided defense of Sonya. I also think she may have meant her group wasn’t friends with dawn before the short story but I bet she didn’t know that Sonya attended the family’s funeral. , etc. Sonya probably didn’t admit the extent of the friendship to Celeste because it makes her look bad to be trashing someone she treats as a friend. The fact that Celeste assumes and broadcasts so much about Sonya and dawn without asking some basic questions is just laziness and arrogance.
I also wonder if Kolker is cashing in with a cut of those $90 subscriptions which just feels gross like the perverted mc of a girl fight. Although I’m sure there’s a reality show producer out there throwing around offers… |
Anonymous
|
So much of the weirdness around this story now feels like it's due to Celeste Ng flipping out when those chats were disclosed on the record in the court case, realizing that her name was attached to some really nasty stuff that is contrary to her public image, and trying to do damage control.
I'm at the point where I now kind of wonder if it was Ng who pitched the story to Kolker in order to try and get ahead of the story. One of the mysteries of this whole thing is why on earth the Times Mag devoted 5,000 words to what is, at base, a dispute and miscommunication between two former friends, neither of whom is famous or notorious enough to merit that level of interest/scrutiny. When I read it, I found it jaw dropping but was also like "why are all these people talking about this on the record, why is this a story, this is an insane story I could imagine happening in my social circle but why is it in the NYT?" But Ng is kind of the peg here. Without her name recognition, does any of this merit NYT attention? Most people outside of Boston/certain literary circles would not even know about Grub Street. The Chunky Monkeys have gotten media attention in the past, but again -- mostly because of Celeste's involvement. There are a million such writing groups in the US (literally, I'm one person and I've been in a half dozen over the course of 15 years or so). I think she was freaked out by the court case, and worried that DD's determination to get her pound of flesh could ultimately jeopardize Ng's ability to land stuff like her Hulu deal for Little Fires Everywhere (which for the record, I think is a terrific work of fiction). Anyway, I increasingly think the only reason any of us know anything about this story at all is Celeste Ng. Whether she pitched the story somehow or maybe people at the NYT saw her involvement and it tipped the scales in favor of doing the piece. Without her, I don't think Bad Art Friend would even exist. No one would care enough, frankly. |