Anonymous
10/16/2021 00:19
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Not a lawyer but could Dawn have a slander case with the Times and Kolker?
Anonymous
10/15/2021 22:51
Subject: Re:Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Ok, so some key details from the court filings that provide a lot more context around why Dawn originally reached out to Sonya. The NYT article makes it sound like she literally emailed to ask why Sonya hadn't been liking her Facebook posts. Which I agree would be deranged. That's not what happened. Here it is:
- Dawn starts FB group, posts stuff there
- Dawn donates kidney
- Sonya and several other Grubstreet "friends" look at every post in the group (which Dawn can see she is doing as admin of the private group) but does not interact with them. But Dawn says nothing.
- Dawn attends a writing conference with Sonya and several other people from Grubstreet (Sonya was actually running the conference). Dawn has known these folks for years, and several of them are in that private FB group, and she knows they have been looking at the posts because she has seen it. Including Sonya, who has looked at all of them. Keep in mind, Dawn donated the kidney not that long before the conference (less than a year). But as Dawn interacts with people at the conference, no one says anything about the kidney donation even though she knows they've read her posts about it. She gets a weird vibe from this.
- A mutual friend posts on Facebook that Sonya read a short story at a reading that was about kidney donation and tags both Dawn and Sonya in it. Dawn is surprised.
- Dawn emails Sonya to follow up on seeing her at the Muse conference and includes one sentence where she says that she heard Sonya had written a story about kidney donation, thinks that's cool, and asks if she could read it. She says nothing about the FB group in this email.
- Sonya replies (lies) that the story isn't ready yet (the story has already been recorded for release on Audible at this point) and that it was merely inspired by Dawn's donation but not based on it (also a lie -- at this point the story includes Dawn's letter verbatim and Sonya has only recently changed the characters name from "Dawn" to "Rose)
- THEN Dawn replies with an email noting that she was surprised to hear about Sonya's story because she had noticed that Sonya had been reading but not interacting with Dawn's posts about her own kidney donation, and that Dawn had wondered if maybe Sonya didn't approve of the donation. At no point does Dawn say Sonya should have been liking or commenting on the posts -- she simply notes that since Sonya had not interacted with the posts, it was surprising to Dawn that Sonya was interested enough in the topic of organ donation to write a story about it.
Sorry for the detail but this is all right there in the court filing, including texts of these emails. When you read it, Dawn's actions come off as incredibly reasonable! She does not seem needy at all. If anything, it seems like she's just trying to figure out if she should remove Sonya from the private FB group (which is the opposite of needy -- she is trying to observe someone else's boundaries). She does seem a bit miffed that Sonya has not acknowledged her kidney donation in any way, but... this seems reasonable when you read Sonya's emails, which are very friendly and familiar.
The description of these events in the NYT is frankly bizarre, and fully buys into Sonya's (false) version of events that Dawn emailed her out of the blue to ask why she wasn't liking her kidney posts. But if you read the emails, this never happened. The fact that Kolker describes it that way in the article is just plain false.
+1
I have read the discovery as well (God help me), and this timeline is correct by my reading.
Kolker's sexist catfight fantasy should never have seen the light of day. It is appalling in the face of the actual facts.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 22:42
Subject: Re:Bad Art Friend
Ok, so some key details from the court filings that provide a lot more context around why Dawn originally reached out to Sonya. The NYT article makes it sound like she literally emailed to ask why Sonya hadn't been liking her Facebook posts. Which I agree would be deranged. That's not what happened. Here it is:
- Dawn starts FB group, posts stuff there
- Dawn donates kidney
- Sonya and several other Grubstreet "friends" look at every post in the group (which Dawn can see she is doing as admin of the private group) but does not interact with them. But Dawn says nothing.
- Dawn attends a writing conference with Sonya and several other people from Grubstreet (Sonya was actually running the conference). Dawn has known these folks for years, and several of them are in that private FB group, and she knows they have been looking at the posts because she has seen it. Including Sonya, who has looked at all of them. Keep in mind, Dawn donated the kidney not that long before the conference (less than a year). But as Dawn interacts with people at the conference, no one says anything about the kidney donation even though she knows they've read her posts about it. She gets a weird vibe from this.
- A mutual friend posts on Facebook that Sonya read a short story at a reading that was about kidney donation and tags both Dawn and Sonya in it. Dawn is surprised.
- Dawn emails Sonya to follow up on seeing her at the Muse conference and includes one sentence where she says that she heard Sonya had written a story about kidney donation, thinks that's cool, and asks if she could read it. She says nothing about the FB group in this email.
- Sonya replies (lies) that the story isn't ready yet (the story has already been recorded for release on Audible at this point) and that it was merely inspired by Dawn's donation but not based on it (also a lie -- at this point the story includes Dawn's letter verbatim and Sonya has only recently changed the characters name from "Dawn" to "Rose)
- THEN Dawn replies with an email noting that she was surprised to hear about Sonya's story because she had noticed that Sonya had been reading but not interacting with Dawn's posts about her own kidney donation, and that Dawn had wondered if maybe Sonya didn't approve of the donation. At no point does Dawn say Sonya should have been liking or commenting on the posts -- she simply notes that since Sonya had not interacted with the posts, it was surprising to Dawn that Sonya was interested enough in the topic of organ donation to write a story about it.
Sorry for the detail but this is all right there in the court filing, including texts of these emails. When you read it, Dawn's actions come off as incredibly reasonable! She does not seem needy at all. If anything, it seems like she's just trying to figure out if she should remove Sonya from the private FB group (which is the opposite of needy -- she is trying to observe someone else's boundaries). She does seem a bit miffed that Sonya has not acknowledged her kidney donation in any way, but... this seems reasonable when you read Sonya's emails, which are very friendly and familiar.
The description of these events in the NYT is frankly bizarre, and fully buys into Sonya's (false) version of events that Dawn emailed her out of the blue to ask why she wasn't liking her kidney posts. But if you read the emails, this never happened. The fact that Kolker describes it that way in the article is just plain false.
- Dawn starts FB group, posts stuff there
- Dawn donates kidney
- Sonya and several other Grubstreet "friends" look at every post in the group (which Dawn can see she is doing as admin of the private group) but does not interact with them. But Dawn says nothing.
- Dawn attends a writing conference with Sonya and several other people from Grubstreet (Sonya was actually running the conference). Dawn has known these folks for years, and several of them are in that private FB group, and she knows they have been looking at the posts because she has seen it. Including Sonya, who has looked at all of them. Keep in mind, Dawn donated the kidney not that long before the conference (less than a year). But as Dawn interacts with people at the conference, no one says anything about the kidney donation even though she knows they've read her posts about it. She gets a weird vibe from this.
- A mutual friend posts on Facebook that Sonya read a short story at a reading that was about kidney donation and tags both Dawn and Sonya in it. Dawn is surprised.
- Dawn emails Sonya to follow up on seeing her at the Muse conference and includes one sentence where she says that she heard Sonya had written a story about kidney donation, thinks that's cool, and asks if she could read it. She says nothing about the FB group in this email.
- Sonya replies (lies) that the story isn't ready yet (the story has already been recorded for release on Audible at this point) and that it was merely inspired by Dawn's donation but not based on it (also a lie -- at this point the story includes Dawn's letter verbatim and Sonya has only recently changed the characters name from "Dawn" to "Rose)
- THEN Dawn replies with an email noting that she was surprised to hear about Sonya's story because she had noticed that Sonya had been reading but not interacting with Dawn's posts about her own kidney donation, and that Dawn had wondered if maybe Sonya didn't approve of the donation. At no point does Dawn say Sonya should have been liking or commenting on the posts -- she simply notes that since Sonya had not interacted with the posts, it was surprising to Dawn that Sonya was interested enough in the topic of organ donation to write a story about it.
Sorry for the detail but this is all right there in the court filing, including texts of these emails. When you read it, Dawn's actions come off as incredibly reasonable! She does not seem needy at all. If anything, it seems like she's just trying to figure out if she should remove Sonya from the private FB group (which is the opposite of needy -- she is trying to observe someone else's boundaries). She does seem a bit miffed that Sonya has not acknowledged her kidney donation in any way, but... this seems reasonable when you read Sonya's emails, which are very friendly and familiar.
The description of these events in the NYT is frankly bizarre, and fully buys into Sonya's (false) version of events that Dawn emailed her out of the blue to ask why she wasn't liking her kidney posts. But if you read the emails, this never happened. The fact that Kolker describes it that way in the article is just plain false.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 22:40
Subject: Re:Bad Art Friend
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:53
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Personally, I agree with this take -
To my mind “The Bad Art Friend” is a clear case of Larson being kind of a jerk who didn’t do her due diligence in adapting reality to fiction, and Dorland being a narcissistic nightmare.
https://www.gawker.com/culture/great-artists-steal
Whether Dawn IS or IS NOT a narcissistic nightmare has no bearing on the legal case: Sonya lifted a letter verbatim and there is clear evidence from her texts (released per SONYA's claim against Dawn) that Sonya did use it without permission. So, it's a very bad take in the article because her facts are plain wrong. It's not a legal breach to steal the details of someone's life, even though it may be morally reprehensible. That is the difference between the two cases she presents. If Sonya took that language out of her story, the case would be over.
The Gawker take is wildly out of date now
It came out yesterday. Sloppy.
It is sloppy and looks behind the times.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:51
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Personally, I agree with this take -
To my mind “The Bad Art Friend” is a clear case of Larson being kind of a jerk who didn’t do her due diligence in adapting reality to fiction, and Dorland being a narcissistic nightmare.
https://www.gawker.com/culture/great-artists-steal
Whether Dawn IS or IS NOT a narcissistic nightmare has no bearing on the legal case: Sonya lifted a letter verbatim and there is clear evidence from her texts (released per SONYA's claim against Dawn) that Sonya did use it without permission. So, it's a very bad take in the article because her facts are plain wrong. It's not a legal breach to steal the details of someone's life, even though it may be morally reprehensible. That is the difference between the two cases she presents. If Sonya took that language out of her story, the case would be over.
The Gawker take is wildly out of date now
It came out yesterday. Sloppy.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:50
Subject: Bad Art Friend
The final person in the chain.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:49
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Personally, I agree with this take -
To my mind “The Bad Art Friend” is a clear case of Larson being kind of a jerk who didn’t do her due diligence in adapting reality to fiction, and Dorland being a narcissistic nightmare.
https://www.gawker.com/culture/great-artists-steal
Whether Dawn IS or IS NOT a narcissistic nightmare has no bearing on the legal case: Sonya lifted a letter verbatim and there is clear evidence from her texts (released per SONYA's claim against Dawn) that Sonya did use it without permission. So, it's a very bad take in the article because her facts are plain wrong. It's not a legal breach to steal the details of someone's life, even though it may be morally reprehensible. That is the difference between the two cases she presents. If Sonya took that language out of her story, the case would be over.
The Gawker take is wildly out of date now
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:48
Subject: Re:Bad Art Friend
Was Dawn the first person in the chain? It struck me that she might be because she never mentioned someone close to her getting a kidney. Also, I find this so sad that people who need a kidney may not ever accept one from an altruistic donor. This tweet suggesting that may have been the reason behind Dawn's letter - to reassure the person they were deserving and that it was meant for them.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:48
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the HR and employment aspects of the this aren't getting more traction.
Me neither. I’m not in Boston, but if I were a big shot at Grub Street I wouldn’t keep the members who did this on. Grub Street is large enough it seems that you could easily just give teaching opportunities to others. In a sane world, this is brand-ruining behavior, no?
It seems insane to me as well. Here you have an institution that is dedicated to fostering growing artists, and yet staff members, including their Director, did not properly handle an HR complaint, encouraged plagiarism, and repeatedly disparaged a student member, including in that process a beyond-inappropriate email from their Director. In a world where consequences mattered, there would be significant ones, but Grub Street seems to be collectively shrugging. I honestly don't know how people can trust their classes at this point. What would happen in the event of a sexual harassment claim? A race discrimination claim? How could you trust their process?
I actually don't understand why the NYT isn't doing an internal investigation as well, for that matter.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:21
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Personally, I agree with this take -
To my mind “The Bad Art Friend” is a clear case of Larson being kind of a jerk who didn’t do her due diligence in adapting reality to fiction, and Dorland being a narcissistic nightmare.
https://www.gawker.com/culture/great-artists-steal
Whether Dawn IS or IS NOT a narcissistic nightmare has no bearing on the legal case: Sonya lifted a letter verbatim and there is clear evidence from her texts (released per SONYA's claim against Dawn) that Sonya did use it without permission. So, it's a very bad take in the article because her facts are plain wrong. It's not a legal breach to steal the details of someone's life, even though it may be morally reprehensible. That is the difference between the two cases she presents. If Sonya took that language out of her story, the case would be over.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:21
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I just got around to reading the article, and while I feel for Dawn and everything she's been through... I could not stop thinking about the fact that she reached out to the people in the Facebook group she created (to praise her kidney donation) to ask them why they weren't liking her posts more?
Yeah, so that was needy and showed poor boundaries and is not great social media behavior.
But that’s also all it was: Socially awkward.
It was not bullying, it was not wholesale lying, it was not plagiarism.
- Dawn defender
Not sure of it is as weird as people make it out to be.
It was a small private FB group that Dawn was the moderator of-- so she could who visited, lurked, posted etc. -- and she saw that SL was on their all the time yet did not comment. So she asked her about it. Maybe a little extra, but can you really not relate? It's a small group that she said very clearly there was no pressure to join, only if you are interested. So her "friend" joins and visits all the time and never likes or posts.
I really can't relate. I see friends do weird stuff on Instagram, acquaintances do weird stuff on facebook, and coworkers do weird stuff on linkedin -- and I delete, block, remove, unfollow, mute them.
DP. You would relate if you were beginning to get the sense that people you thought were friends were conspiring against you, which is what happened here.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 21:05
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I just got around to reading the article, and while I feel for Dawn and everything she's been through... I could not stop thinking about the fact that she reached out to the people in the Facebook group she created (to praise her kidney donation) to ask them why they weren't liking her posts more?
Yeah, so that was needy and showed poor boundaries and is not great social media behavior.
But that’s also all it was: Socially awkward.
It was not bullying, it was not wholesale lying, it was not plagiarism.
- Dawn defender
Not sure of it is as weird as people make it out to be.
It was a small private FB group that Dawn was the moderator of-- so she could who visited, lurked, posted etc. -- and she saw that SL was on their all the time yet did not comment. So she asked her about it. Maybe a little extra, but can you really not relate? It's a small group that she said very clearly there was no pressure to join, only if you are interested. So her "friend" joins and visits all the time and never likes or posts.
I really can't relate. I see friends do weird stuff on Instagram, acquaintances do weird stuff on facebook, and coworkers do weird stuff on linkedin -- and I delete, block, remove, unfollow, mute them.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 20:56
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I just got around to reading the article, and while I feel for Dawn and everything she's been through... I could not stop thinking about the fact that she reached out to the people in the Facebook group she created (to praise her kidney donation) to ask them why they weren't liking her posts more?
Yeah, so that was needy and showed poor boundaries and is not great social media behavior.
But that’s also all it was: Socially awkward.
It was not bullying, it was not wholesale lying, it was not plagiarism.
- Dawn defender
Not sure of it is as weird as people make it out to be.
It was a small private FB group that Dawn was the moderator of-- so she could who visited, lurked, posted etc. -- and she saw that SL was on their all the time yet did not comment. So she asked her about it. Maybe a little extra, but can you really not relate? It's a small group that she said very clearly there was no pressure to join, only if you are interested. So her "friend" joins and visits all the time and never likes or posts.
Read everything, copied a letter verbatim while also misinterpreting the intended recipient, downloading all of this to the people Larson wanted to impress, while lying all the way, and publishing a story with the verbatim letter. She also copyrighted, she initiated actual litigation, and she and her doofus lawyer have about how Sonya had a baby and give her a break etc etc when Dawn had a toddler at home.
I meant, Larson and her lawyer asked for extra time on a suit she started because Larson is a mom to a young child. So is Dawn, but that obviously doesn’t matter. Honestly the stuff Larson and her rep have pulled seems extra bananas to me.
Anonymous
10/15/2021 20:54
Subject: Bad Art Friend
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the HR and employment aspects of the this aren't getting more traction.
Me neither. I’m not in Boston, but if I were a big shot at Grub Street I wouldn’t keep the members who did this on. Grub Street is large enough it seems that you could easily just give teaching opportunities to others. In a sane world, this is brand-ruining behavior, no?