Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Bad Art Friend"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]Hi 19:28, I think that the only way that the pro-Larson narrative you described works is if the plagiarism [I]and[/I] the unethical actions by Grub Street employees that led to the inclusion of the plagiarized copy are magically forgotten. (Remember, this isn't just the plagiarism, it is also about the institutional failures of Grub Street.) And that's the imaginary world that the CMs inhabited. If you invent a world where the unethical behavior and the plagiarism didn't occur, then suddenly you can create this fantasy narrative where a demanding white woman is trying to hurt the career of an innocent writer of color. But that fantasy narrative [I] only [/I]works if both the institutional failures of GrubStreet and the actual plagiarism are swept under the rug. And, honestly, I have a hard time constructing a reasonable narrative where that happens. I can't see a reasonable interpretation where Larson's actions are defensible, based on all the evidence that has come out. In other words, you asked if anyone could see their point of view, and I think that while I can see how they get there (by ignoring or engaging in unethical behavior and plagiarism), it isn't a reasonable point of view. It requires ethical contortions, and unreasonable entitlement by Dorland. I can't see a reasonable, just path to that world view, in other words. And the question of what to do with the story now is a good one. It is irrecoverably tainted now, but if she rewrites the letter part entirely, can she still profit off it? Sell it to colleges? I don't think there is a legal reason why not, barring a settlement agreement between Larson and Dorland that bars publication. And I can't see why Larson would agree to that at this point; she seems to be getting terribly bad legal advice from her lawyer with the aol.com email address.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics