Reply to Bad Art Friend

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bad Art Friend"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Meh, I suspect most people would come off badly if a court publicized your inner friend or work chats. I just read the NYT article & timeline, and don’t have patience for the prior 20 pages, so this might be repetitive. Dorkand is clearly a thirst trap. True altruism would be anonymously donating, not publicizing it. She’s also a wannabe, not a real writer, which probably doubles down on the annoyance factor, but I think most writers in the “serious fiction/writers workshop” genre probably are “inspired” by people like her. It definitely smacks of mean girls, but frankly, a lot of life is like that. It definitely seems like if Dorland had let it go, Larson wouldn’t have sued; it became a race to the courthouse bc she’s slightly obsessed.

From a big picture view, while the group texts were mean, I would guess they were also a response to the legal attack. It reminds me of the lawsuits in music, where people sue for money based on 2-3 notes. There’s a fuzzy line between artistic inspiration and plagiarism; Larson definitely landed on the wrong side in the beginning but I also wonder if you post on social media, do you lose an expectation of privacy? The question being, if she changed the text, why does it matter? Dorland is obviously hurt bc she thought Larson was a friend (clearly not), she didn’t realize she wasn’t a particularly good writer, and she wanted accolades for her “generous” donation. Personally, I felt like the writer Twitter attack of the college student was more repugnant because they were punching under their weight. If Dorland hadn’t been so litigious, she never would have seen private conversations - it’s like opening Pandora’s box.[/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