shan1212 wrote:I'm really not about anybody being "cancelled" -- I think their just desserts are having their actions exposed. I do think they've caused harm to the disabled community with their dismissal of life-saving organ donation, and they should work hard to remedy that.

One thing that really drew me to this story was how I relate to Dawn's trying to repair her fractured relationship with Sonya. I once had a situation where I was obviously the aggrieved party, where a stranger really did me dirty, but most people would have advised not to contact the person who hurt me so as not to "give her any power." But to me, asking for a small, concrete act by this person to help put things right really meant a lot to me, and they were grateful for the chance to do so. If they weren't willing, or were too buried in shame, I would have had to accept that. It's not getting away with it just because you don't lose every single thing in your life over your bad choice. You have to wrestle with that and find a way to look yourself in the mirror again.

I would not be surprised if these has been some of the hardest days of Sonya Larson's life. She was so deeply invested in the narrative of her being the aggrieved party, and she leaned on friends to bolster that POV whenever she felt it slipping. Now the rug has been pulled and they've all been exposed. She's branded a bully and a plagiarist, and her safe space of her BFF writing group is falling apart. I'm not saying she's the victim, but it's possible (and I think important for my humanity) to keep the humanity of people in mind at all times. That's something Dawn continued to do even she was gaslit and bullied, and that's why there's so much sympathy for her. She never fought fire with fire.

shan1212 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An ironic end would be Sonya Larson, depressed and desperate for penance and public rehabilitation ... decides to donate a kidney!

Hahahahaha.

That may be the only thing she could do to right this ship at this point! I would laugh, but I would also clap for the person getting their new kidney!

Anonymous wrote:

No writing group is being lost. They are okay with this behavior, and they've squarely got Larsen's back.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

shan1212 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An ironic end would be Sonya Larson, depressed and desperate for penance and public rehabilitation ... decides to donate a kidney!

Hahahahaha.

That may be the only thing she could do to right this ship at this point! I would laugh, but I would also clap for the person getting their new kidney!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Certainly seems true of the Chip Cheek guy. As noted above, his desperate need to share his anecdote about how he ran into Dorland at a parent/kid class and was terrified she was stalking him (when he’d just moved to her neighborhood in LA) reeks of this need to get approval from the cool kids. And she had the audacity to be her usual charming, sunny self and offer advice and connections he admits they dearly needed to boot! The Calvin Hennick guy was also interesting. It was clear to me from some of the group texts that he knew what Larson was doing was absolutely wrong (“assy”) and hurtful to Dorland, but he simply had to rationalize it for the sake of the group dynamic (circle-jerk).

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:More blue check takes.

Anonymous wrote:Let's see. You encounter someone who grew up low income and seems kind of clueless socially, needy too, and maybe some mental issues thrown in. Wouldn't it be hilarious to mess with their brain a bit and invite all your sophisticated friends to join? Such a hoot, haven't had that much fun since middle school.

Oh, and when caught red handed, invoke the race card. Go all progressive on them and ask your friends to do the same. What a poor hick to do against a woman of color.

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.