Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Helen Rosner is back on Twitter and wow does she sound whiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are probably right. Good insight. It explains some of the weirdness.

[Anonymous]

Helen Rosner literally calls Dawn Dorland a monster and then a few days later after the truth of the matter emerges, she writes this.

[Anonymous]

I would love to know what Reese thinks of this situation - she’s the ultimate loyal friend who goes out of her way to bring women up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what Reese thinks of this situation - she’s the ultimate loyal friend who goes out of her way to bring women up.

Reese Witherspoon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what Reese thinks of this situation - she’s the ultimate loyal friend who goes out of her way to bring women up.

Reese Witherspoon?

Makes sense, Reese needs to not pick any of these authors for her book club.

[Anonymous]

Roxane Gay is getting defensive and it is the fault of everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Lol this story has so many phases.

Phase 1: NYT Mag story comes out, bunch of blue checkmarks on Twitter are like "Wow, Dawn is a B, Team Larsen" unprompted. Lots of people like/agree with these posts.
Phase 2: Something smells off to some folks, they dig around, those chat transcripts get widely circulated, suddenly a lot of people who liked/agreed with the blue checkmarks are like "Oh."
Phase 3: Some people get way over-obsessed and start harassing not only the blue checkmarks but even some of the people who were pointing out issues with the original story in Phase 2. So now even some defenders of DD are like "whoa, stop -- ya'll are crazy."

It's too much! Yes, it's a more nuanced story than the NYT's article original represented. Yes, Celeste Ng seems like a real B at this point. Yes, Dorland got done dirty by Grub Street, Larsen, Kolker, and those damn blue checkmarks. But also.... people need to dial it down. Yelling at people online and treating this as some kind of showdown between a saint and a villain is not the way. Everyone in this story is flawed, including Dorland. There is no clear "winner" here and trying to anoint one was the whole problem with the initial reaction to the story.

I say this as someone who think Larsen was the instigator here, but can relate to aspects of both Larsen's and Dorland's experiences. I've been bullied/ostracized by a group of people who thought they were too good for me. But I've also had someone go after me beyond any reasonable measure simply because they were Big Mad and I know how helpless Larsen probably felt as Dorland was calling all her employers and publications and demanding they destroy Larsen. Like, it's all not great. I still think Larsen to some extent brought this on herself (with the help of the CMs who look worse and worse every day) and should have just written a better story about the same subject but less obviously based on Dorland. But she didn't murder someone! People need to take the intensity down from 11 to like a 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what Reese thinks of this situation - she’s the ultimate loyal friend who goes out of her way to bring women up.

Reese Witherspoon?

Makes sense, Reese needs to not pick any of these authors for her book club.

Reese seems like someone with a lot of integrity. And I think it’s part of her brand to be nice and uplifting to women. I bet she picks a book next based on illness or disability for her book club but doesn’t comment on the discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roxane Gay is getting defensive and it is the fault of everyone else.

Look at them all Charles barkely "I'm not a role model" You have a check, your words have power, use them carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roxane Gay is getting defensive and it is the fault of everyone else.

Look at them all Charles barkely "I'm not a role model" You have a check, your words have power, use them carefully.

They just really enjoy the hostility of using “white women’s tears” while they themselves crybaby all over their Twitter feeds.

They did that because they get off on attacking people and are too weak in all respects to show grace when they’re wrong and joined in a pile-on. In that respect, sure, it wasn’t about Sonya Larson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol this story has so many phases.

Phase 1: NYT Mag story comes out, bunch of blue checkmarks on Twitter are like "Wow, Dawn is a B, Team Larsen" unprompted. Lots of people like/agree with these posts.
Phase 2: Something smells off to some folks, they dig around, those chat transcripts get widely circulated, suddenly a lot of people who liked/agreed with the blue checkmarks are like "Oh."
Phase 3: Some people get way over-obsessed and start harassing not only the blue checkmarks but even some of the people who were pointing out issues with the original story in Phase 2. So now even some defenders of DD are like "whoa, stop -- ya'll are crazy."

It's too much! Yes, it's a more nuanced story than the NYT's article original represented. Yes, Celeste Ng seems like a real B at this point. Yes, Dorland got done dirty by Grub Street, Larsen, Kolker, and those damn blue checkmarks. But also.... people need to dial it down. Yelling at people online and treating this as some kind of showdown between a saint and a villain is not the way. Everyone in this story is flawed, including Dorland. There is no clear "winner" here and trying to anoint one was the whole problem with the initial reaction to the story.

I say this as someone who think Larsen was the instigator here, but can relate to aspects of both Larsen's and Dorland's experiences. I've been bullied/ostracized by a group of people who thought they were too good for me. But I've also had someone go after me beyond any reasonable measure simply because they were Big Mad and I know how helpless Larsen probably felt as Dorland was calling all her employers and publications and demanding they destroy Larsen. Like, it's all not great. I still think Larsen to some extent brought this on herself (with the help of the CMs who look worse and worse every day) and should have just written a better story about the same subject but less obviously based on Dorland. But she didn't murder someone! People need to take the intensity down from 11 to like a 4.

Aside from a couple clearly unhinged Twitter accounts, I don't think there is a lot of people truly in Phase 3, but I do think a lot of the blue checks who jumped in at Phase 1 are trying very hard to claim that people in your Phase 2 are actually in your Phase 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this story has so many phases.

Phase 1: NYT Mag story comes out, bunch of blue checkmarks on Twitter are like "Wow, Dawn is a B, Team Larsen" unprompted. Lots of people like/agree with these posts.
Phase 2: Something smells off to some folks, they dig around, those chat transcripts get widely circulated, suddenly a lot of people who liked/agreed with the blue checkmarks are like "Oh."
Phase 3: Some people get way over-obsessed and start harassing not only the blue checkmarks but even some of the people who were pointing out issues with the original story in Phase 2. So now even some defenders of DD are like "whoa, stop -- ya'll are crazy."

It's too much! Yes, it's a more nuanced story than the NYT's article original represented. Yes, Celeste Ng seems like a real B at this point. Yes, Dorland got done dirty by Grub Street, Larsen, Kolker, and those damn blue checkmarks. But also.... people need to dial it down. Yelling at people online and treating this as some kind of showdown between a saint and a villain is not the way. Everyone in this story is flawed, including Dorland. There is no clear "winner" here and trying to anoint one was the whole problem with the initial reaction to the story.

I say this as someone who think Larsen was the instigator here, but can relate to aspects of both Larsen's and Dorland's experiences. I've been bullied/ostracized by a group of people who thought they were too good for me. But I've also had someone go after me beyond any reasonable measure simply because they were Big Mad and I know how helpless Larsen probably felt as Dorland was calling all her employers and publications and demanding they destroy Larsen. Like, it's all not great. I still think Larsen to some extent brought this on herself (with the help of the CMs who look worse and worse every day) and should have just written a better story about the same subject but less obviously based on Dorland. But she didn't murder someone! People need to take the intensity down from 11 to like a 4.

Aside from a couple clearly unhinged Twitter accounts, I don't think there is a lot of people truly in Phase 3, but I do think a lot of the blue checks who jumped in at Phase 1 are trying very hard to claim that people in your Phase 2 are actually in your Phase 3.

This is what made me realize we are in Phase 3:

Dan Nguyen is one of the people who started Phase 2 and was like "hey hold up guys, the NYT article distorts some stuff here and Dorland is actually not the villain." Like he was very helpful in clarifying these things and defending Dorland. But if people are DMing him about how the CMs are like Nazis (much the way someone in this thread compared SL to Harvey Weinstein, which was way over the line) then, yes, people are taking it too far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/rafiazakaria/status/1446942572677672960?s=20

Apparently this write Rafia Zakaria has completely new "evidence" (or tea) that involves both parties...

Ooh thanks for this (hint of) tea. She’s posting it only if people pay to subscribe later tonight and suggests it paints SL in a negative light. We’ll see!

Hard to imagine what else could come out that paints Sonya in an even worse light...

Uncool that this lady (Rafia) is trying to profit off this. Looks really tacky.

Anyone pay for this? I am dying to know because I went too far down this rabbit hole but I draw the line at paying to read more.

It doesn't seem to be behind a paywall anymore. It's about the writer Celeste Ng. It looks like she was initially heavily inspired by a real Chinese woman's life for the plot of Little Fires Everywhere.

"Bei Bei Chow’s story, framed in Ng’s gripping fiction, is close to an actual one that took place in Indiana, a few hours’ drive away from Cleveland and Shaker Heights. In that case, a young Chinese immigrant, Bei Bei Shuai, was charged with murdering her newborn baby in March 2011. Shuai, who had fallen in love with a Chinese man who left her when she became pregnant, had tried to kill herself by ingesting rat poison. While Shuai survived, the baby died two days after it was born. Shuai became the first woman to be prosecuted for a suicide attempt, under Indiana’s feticide statute, originally enacted to protect women and their children from third parties such as abusive boyfriends and husbands."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this story has so many phases.

Phase 1: NYT Mag story comes out, bunch of blue checkmarks on Twitter are like "Wow, Dawn is a B, Team Larsen" unprompted. Lots of people like/agree with these posts.
Phase 2: Something smells off to some folks, they dig around, those chat transcripts get widely circulated, suddenly a lot of people who liked/agreed with the blue checkmarks are like "Oh."
Phase 3: Some people get way over-obsessed and start harassing not only the blue checkmarks but even some of the people who were pointing out issues with the original story in Phase 2. So now even some defenders of DD are like "whoa, stop -- ya'll are crazy."

It's too much! Yes, it's a more nuanced story than the NYT's article original represented. Yes, Celeste Ng seems like a real B at this point. Yes, Dorland got done dirty by Grub Street, Larsen, Kolker, and those damn blue checkmarks. But also.... people need to dial it down. Yelling at people online and treating this as some kind of showdown between a saint and a villain is not the way. Everyone in this story is flawed, including Dorland. There is no clear "winner" here and trying to anoint one was the whole problem with the initial reaction to the story.

I say this as someone who think Larsen was the instigator here, but can relate to aspects of both Larsen's and Dorland's experiences. I've been bullied/ostracized by a group of people who thought they were too good for me. But I've also had someone go after me beyond any reasonable measure simply because they were Big Mad and I know how helpless Larsen probably felt as Dorland was calling all her employers and publications and demanding they destroy Larsen. Like, it's all not great. I still think Larsen to some extent brought this on herself (with the help of the CMs who look worse and worse every day) and should have just written a better story about the same subject but less obviously based on Dorland. But she didn't murder someone! People need to take the intensity down from 11 to like a 4.

Aside from a couple clearly unhinged Twitter accounts, I don't think there is a lot of people truly in Phase 3, but I do think a lot of the blue checks who jumped in at Phase 1 are trying very hard to claim that people in your Phase 2 are actually in your Phase 3.

This is what made me realize we are in Phase 3:

Dan Nguyen is one of the people who started Phase 2 and was like "hey hold up guys, the NYT article distorts some stuff here and Dorland is actually not the villain." Like he was very helpful in clarifying these things and defending Dorland. But if people are DMing him about how the CMs are like Nazis (much the way someone in this thread compared SL to Harvey Weinstein, which was way over the line) then, yes, people are taking it too far.

No argument there, but that seems much more unusual than the tweets from the blue checks trying to minimize things. There will always be unhinged people (they were there in Phases 1 and 2 also), and the presence of a few of them doesn't take away from the attempts to make people in Phase 2 sound like Phase 3.

All in all I think it is disturbing how much some blue checks have circled and continue to circle the wagons here. Do I think Dorland did everything right? Absolutely not. She seems like a flawed person with real issues. But this isn't a "both sides" thing either. As it turns out (for instance) Kolker has written a lot about sexual harassment in the past. Can we still trust that reporting? Is there a conversation to be had about men depicting women as crazy? But I see on Twitter a sort of "well, they are all crazy so let's stop talking" approach and I think that is just an attempt to stifle conversation.