Anonymous wrote:

shan1212 wrote:My emotional investment in this story about strangers must be telling me something, and I wish I could figure out exactly what it is. I don't want to be swept up in some kind of mob justice; I totally understand that society functions this way in order to keep errant behaviors in line, but I don't want my brief time on this planet to be spent obsessing on a feud between strangers and trying to teach a lesson to some author I barely thought of before this. On the other hand, I'm a chronically ill SAHP, so I do need something to engage my intellect, and I'm obviously not alone in my interest in this story.

It's definitely unsatisfying that so much has been discovered about Larson's lies, and yet she has continued to maintain the unconditional support of her community. People like Bridburg and Ng are doubling down in the face of obvious malfeasance. So then to me it becomes this question of psychology . . . strutting around defiantly with pointed "likes" and, in Ng's case, all these "You're willfully misrepresenting the facts and somehow not believing me that 2 + 2 = 5 even though I TOLD YOU IT WAS" responses. Now I'm not just marveling at the cruelty shown to Dawn but also the idiocy of continuing to dig at this point. My underlying feeling is one of "oh god, let that never be me."

At first I was not won over by Becky Tuch's apology, but she has continued to show she is willing to own up to her mistakes, and I so appreciate that. We all miss the mark, but we don't all consider that we might be wrong, and even fewer of us seek to repair the damage we caused. She said she left the group, but I do have to wonder . . . how can the group ever go on as before now, with or without Becky? How could anyone trust Sonya? How could anyone not have a fear of their words being leaked again in the back of their mind?

I do hope GrubStreet cleans house. You can't just CC some of the active participants on an HR inquiry, like some posts that insinuate that Dawn is mentally ill, and then handle it with a few "ethics workshops" recommendations from some firm you hired. Of course, that strutting that I referenced earlier is probably a facade to cover up your fear that you are going down for this.

I know this isn't about me, but I am thinking back on some drama that people tried to suck me into. I am an advocate for a type of racial justice that is unpopular among the NIMBYs, and a bunch of local NIMBYs have tried to "win" by baiting, harassing, slandering, and just generally annoying me. I knew that as soon as I responded back in kind, they'd try to make it about my response and not about right/wrong. So I never took the bait, as tempting as it was. I'm glad that I didn't sully myself by slinging mud. You don't need to convince everyone that you're right or show up the haters . . . but sure, it's kind of delicious when they bring it on themselves.

Still, I have always worked hard to keep those people humanized in my heart. Is this case a proxy for my schadenfreude? Oh dear, haha.

Thoughtful post, thank you. I agree with your 2nd paragraph 100%. Was the nimby stuff on your nextdoor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was puzzled by some of the blue check "we all do this in our group chats" responses in Twitter. I am by no means perfect and definitely can be snarky and unkind, but what was in all those chats was next-level cruel. I haven't had anything like it in my group chats, and I hope it isn't common.

So creepy, right?!

No — people like me do NOT have group chats like this
Yes — emotional stunted at age 12, insecure, unprofessional, competitive “creative class” head cases absolutely have chats like this and have no idea that they are outliers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson refused mediation and published several versions of her story with plagiarized material, and sued Dorland’s representative. Whatever damages or relief Dorland claims, including barring the story from further publication since it’s hung on the letter several times and Larson had years to remedy this, seems fair at least as something to bring to a court. Funny way to contextualize things - since she did get grant money, and won a city-wide contest, by including lifted material, should she not face certain damages because she didn’t do better financially with her actions? Even when she formally set in motion a litigation which could bankrupt both parties? Hm.

I hope Dorland doesn’t walk away on any level. Arthur Chu had a sensitive and thought-provoking take on the “dig two graves” take, which is somewhat implicit in 19:28’s argument, which personally doesn’t work for me at all.

Can you link the "dig two graves" post from Arthur Chu?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was puzzled by some of the blue check "we all do this in our group chats" responses in Twitter. I am by no means perfect and definitely can be snarky and unkind, but what was in all those chats was next-level cruel. I haven't had anything like it in my group chats, and I hope it isn't common.

So creepy, right?!

No — people like me do NOT have group chats like this
Yes — emotional stunted at age 12, insecure, unprofessional, competitive “creative class” head cases absolutely have chats like this and have no idea that they are outliers.

I don't have group chats like that either and I would instinctively get the eff out of any friend group that talked like that about other people.

But it must be hard to get out of it if someone as powerful as Celeste Ng is the leader and she can usher you into the literary career you crave. You start seeing this almost like a vampire story, don't you? These regular people letting Ng drink their blood for the hope of eternal life/a nice advance.

Anonymous wrote:19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.

I mean, are you aware that while the judge dismissed Dorland's emotional distress damages claims, most of Lawson's claims remain (the judge dismissed Lawson's intentional interference with contract claims but allowed them to be replead in an amended complaint as intentional interference with advantageous business relationship claims, which she then refused to dismiss)? The claims against Dorland's original lawyer also remain and were not dismissed despite the lawyer moving for that, and the judge denied the lawyer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. What I'm saying is that while 1C1S may have taken a defensive posture for not wanting to risk being subject to the massively threatening $180K lawsuit, what is actually going on in the litigation is that Lawson is doing pretty well.

I'm not sure exactly what 1C1S lawyer doc you are referring to (I don't recall reading any discovery directly from their lawyer), but I did see that the 1C1S people took one tone with Lawson when trying to get her and de Leon to stop bothering them about shutting down the conference (i.e., you should never have submitted a story that was plagiarized, it violated the document you signed when you submitted it) and quite another tone when initially informing Lawson about their decision to shut it down (something like, even though this is wrong, we cannot appease Dorland's lawyers so unfortunately we must shut down 1C1S).

Finally, I don't know copyright, but surely we can all agree that there is some version of the story that exists with a non-plagiarized letter in it (different structure, if needed) that Lawson can still publish and seek to benefit from? Anything that she openly took from Dorland has got to go, but the inspiration of the story, however wrongheaded, is something writers do, and are allowed to do, all the time, and Lawson is similarly allowed to do that, even if it now reflects badly on her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.

I mean, are you aware that while the judge dismissed Dorland's emotional distress damages claims, most of Lawson's claims remain (the judge dismissed Lawson's intentional interference with contract claims but allowed them to be replead in an amended complaint as intentional interference with advantageous business relationship claims, which she then refused to dismiss)? The claims against Dorland's original lawyer also remain and were not dismissed despite the lawyer moving for that, and the judge denied the lawyer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. What I'm saying is that while 1C1S may have taken a defensive posture for not wanting to risk being subject to the massively threatening $180K lawsuit, what is actually going on in the litigation is that Lawson is doing pretty well.

I'm not sure exactly what 1C1S lawyer doc you are referring to (I don't recall reading any discovery directly from their lawyer), but I did see that the 1C1S people took one tone with Lawson when trying to get her and de Leon to stop bothering them about shutting down the conference (i.e., you should never have submitted a story that was plagiarized, it violated the document you signed when you submitted it) and quite another tone when initially informing Lawson about their decision to shut it down (something like, even though this is wrong, we cannot appease Dorland's lawyers so unfortunately we must shut down 1C1S).

Finally, I don't know copyright, but surely we can all agree that there is some version of the story that exists with a non-plagiarized letter in it (different structure, if needed) that Lawson can still publish and seek to benefit from? Anything that she openly took from Dorland has got to go, but the inspiration of the story, however wrongheaded, is something writers do, and are allowed to do, all the time, and Lawson is similarly allowed to do that, even if it now reflects badly on her.

What I mean is, I feel like people are sympathizing so much with Dorland and against the mean girl dynamic of the Chunky Monkeys that we have lost a little bit of perspective on what the law actually allows. I think what the law actually allows is pretty dangerous for Dorland (and why I keep wishing that someone who knows how would start a GoFundMe for her legal bills).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson refused mediation and published several versions of her story with plagiarized material, and sued Dorland’s representative. Whatever damages or relief Dorland claims, including barring the story from further publication since it’s hung on the letter several times and Larson had years to remedy this, seems fair at least as something to bring to a court. Funny way to contextualize things - since she did get grant money, and won a city-wide contest, by including lifted material, should she not face certain damages because she didn’t do better financially with her actions? Even when she formally set in motion a litigation which could bankrupt both parties? Hm.

I hope Dorland doesn’t walk away on any level. Arthur Chu had a sensitive and thought-provoking take on the “dig two graves” take, which is somewhat implicit in 19:28’s argument, which personally doesn’t work for me at all.

Can you link the "dig two graves" post from Arthur Chu?

It’s threaded in here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/1448820952142286854

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.

I mean, are you aware that while the judge dismissed Dorland's emotional distress damages claims, most of Lawson's claims remain (the judge dismissed Lawson's intentional interference with contract claims but allowed them to be replead in an amended complaint as intentional interference with advantageous business relationship claims, which she then refused to dismiss)? The claims against Dorland's original lawyer also remain and were not dismissed despite the lawyer moving for that, and the judge denied the lawyer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. What I'm saying is that while 1C1S may have taken a defensive posture for not wanting to risk being subject to the massively threatening $180K lawsuit, what is actually going on in the litigation is that Lawson is doing pretty well.

I'm not sure exactly what 1C1S lawyer doc you are referring to (I don't recall reading any discovery directly from their lawyer), but I did see that the 1C1S people took one tone with Lawson when trying to get her and de Leon to stop bothering them about shutting down the conference (i.e., you should never have submitted a story that was plagiarized, it violated the document you signed when you submitted it) and quite another tone when initially informing Lawson about their decision to shut it down (something like, even though this is wrong, we cannot appease Dorland's lawyers so unfortunately we must shut down 1C1S).

Finally, I don't know copyright, but surely we can all agree that there is some version of the story that exists with a non-plagiarized letter in it (different structure, if needed) that Lawson can still publish and seek to benefit from? Anything that she openly took from Dorland has got to go, but the inspiration of the story, however wrongheaded, is something writers do, and are allowed to do, all the time, and Lawson is similarly allowed to do that, even if it now reflects badly on her.

What I mean is, I feel like people are sympathizing so much with Dorland and against the mean girl dynamic of the Chunky Monkeys that we have lost a little bit of perspective on what the law actually allows. I think what the law actually allows is pretty dangerous for Dorland (and why I keep wishing that someone who knows how would start a GoFundMe for her legal bills).

Tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer. NP and I thought the PP upthread calling you a CM was a bit harsh, but this is . . . wrong. Really wrong and just a misunderstanding of how claims in pleadings work on a basic level. Not getting a judgment on the pleadings is not a failure. Having some claims dismissed doesn't mean what you think it does. And the law isn't interested in "allowing" some not-yet-written non-plagiarized version of the story. It's interested in judging whether the version she already submitted for publication and awards was, in fact, plagiarized.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, Celeste.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:28 - are you aware the the lawyer for 1C1S found that the revamped version of the letter still contained to many phrases/structure from the original letter and than 1C1S believed even the revamped story would open them up to litigation.

The problem is the Larsen was wedded to keeping that letter in the story, probably because it continued hint at the stories origins. Honestly it’s mystifying that she did just remove the letter completely.

I mean, are you aware that while the judge dismissed Dorland's emotional distress damages claims, most of Lawson's claims remain (the judge dismissed Lawson's intentional interference with contract claims but allowed them to be replead in an amended complaint as intentional interference with advantageous business relationship claims, which she then refused to dismiss)? The claims against Dorland's original lawyer also remain and were not dismissed despite the lawyer moving for that, and the judge denied the lawyer's motion for judgment on the pleadings. What I'm saying is that while 1C1S may have taken a defensive posture for not wanting to risk being subject to the massively threatening $180K lawsuit, what is actually going on in the litigation is that Lawson is doing pretty well.

I'm not sure exactly what 1C1S lawyer doc you are referring to (I don't recall reading any discovery directly from their lawyer), but I did see that the 1C1S people took one tone with Lawson when trying to get her and de Leon to stop bothering them about shutting down the conference (i.e., you should never have submitted a story that was plagiarized, it violated the document you signed when you submitted it) and quite another tone when initially informing Lawson about their decision to shut it down (something like, even though this is wrong, we cannot appease Dorland's lawyers so unfortunately we must shut down 1C1S).

Finally, I don't know copyright, but surely we can all agree that there is some version of the story that exists with a non-plagiarized letter in it (different structure, if needed) that Lawson can still publish and seek to benefit from? Anything that she openly took from Dorland has got to go, but the inspiration of the story, however wrongheaded, is something writers do, and are allowed to do, all the time, and Lawson is similarly allowed to do that, even if it now reflects badly on her.

What I mean is, I feel like people are sympathizing so much with Dorland and against the mean girl dynamic of the Chunky Monkeys that we have lost a little bit of perspective on what the law actually allows. I think what the law actually allows is pretty dangerous for Dorland (and why I keep wishing that someone who knows how would start a GoFundMe for her legal bills).

Tell me you're not a lawyer without telling me you're not a lawyer. NP and I thought the PP upthread calling you a CM was a bit harsh, but this is . . . wrong. Really wrong and just a misunderstanding of how claims in pleadings work on a basic level. Not getting a judgment on the pleadings is not a failure. Having some claims dismissed doesn't mean what you think it does. And the law isn't interested in "allowing" some not-yet-written non-plagiarized version of the story. It's interested in judging whether the version she already submitted for publication and awards was, in fact, plagiarized.

Joke's on you (or is it actually on me? I guess we shall see) because I am actually a lawyer. Of course it is a good sign if a judge dismisses your opponent's claims on a MTD. Am I living in some alternate reality? Our law firm celebrates winning motions to dismiss all the time. I also don't think the court is interested in plagiarism -- it is interested strictly in whether Larson's story infringed Dorland's copyright (which btw Dorland can't collect significant damages on because Larson filed for copyright before Dorland did, another thing that will get in the way of Dorland collecting damages for what was done to her in this case). Dorland has not brought any kind of claim that would compensate her for getting squeezed out of Grub Street by the Chunky Monkeys. So it looks like right now Dorland is only going to benefit mostly from money that was already paid to Larson for the story, whereas if she is successful Larson may benefit from her contractual interference claims which seems, to me, to potentially involve more money.