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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If the court documents were public, how/why did Kolker miss what really happened?[/quote]

I have wondered the same thing myself. Perhaps he was part of the same literary scene and so took Larson's description as fact, and did not fact check? But then again, I don't think anything he said was overtly untrue, it's just laid out in a way that significantly distorts the truth. I don't know, in other words. But I have wondered.[/quote]

LOL I thought this board was full of lawyers, not writers. Lawyers of all people should know that court records are fascinating and helpful, but they are never a whole story, and they do not capture emotion, nuance or context. And plenty of court filings are, by design, meant to distort. [/quote]

Dawn did not communicate with SL for years, even as SL remained focused on her. SL's text exchanges with her bullying clique speak for themselves. They aren't even artful or nuance, just mean as hell. [/quote]

My impression is that Dawn was reaching out to SL's employers, schools, publishers, etc during some of that period... Isn't that why she's coming up on the text exchanges?[/quote]

I mean, this conflict occurred over many years. I think this is the rough timeline relevant to your comment:

Dorland donates kidney (and Larsen et al talk about it endlessly in their group chat, clearly interested)

Around the same time -- Larsen writes first draft of her kidney story AND Dorland reaches out to ask if she wants to be removed from FB group due to recent odd behavior (looking at FB posts but not acknowledging or pretending like she didn't know about the kidney donation). There's some back and forth that ends with Dorland removing her from the group and the part on okayish terms.

- 2 years pass with zero contact from either party during which Larsen sells the story, uses it to obtain an NEA grant, and submits and is selected for Once City One Story -

Dorland reads the story after it's published for free online and discovers it lifts her donor chain letter with very little alteration, at which point she hires a lawyer and starts contacting publishers and others about the issue.

But Dorland was a frequent topic of conversation in the text exchanges waaaaay before she started pursuing legal recourse against Larsen. What is amazing is that while Dorland was being pretty aggressive in trying to go after Larsen, Larsen is the one who sued first, and that lawsuit (filed by Larsen) is what led to discovery of the group chats that reveal Larsen's clearly unhealthy obsession (yes, obsession) with Dorland dating back to the kidney donation and before she even wrote the short story. It's also what winds up clearly showing Larsen based the story on Dorland, that early drafts included Dorland's letter unedited, that even details like changing the sign off to "Kindly" were intended to provoke Dorland.

Once you read the group chats and see how they match up with the dates, I feel like it's virtually impossible to view Larsen as a victim because it's obvious she knew from the very beginning that what she was doing was questionable (especially the plagiarizing) but she admits she's doing it in large part based on her very strong negative feelings about Dorland. Before that, Larsen was claiming that the story was only tangentially inspired by Dorland and stuck with a narrative that Dorland was the one who was stalking/obsessed. The chats make it clear that the opposite was true.[/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