Anonymous wrote:Idk if it is any good, but the link below is an analysis from a lawyer on Metafilter. I didn't realize that Larson sued Dorland's lawyer for representing Dorland. That is CRAZY. I haven't seen that filing and boy would I like to read that. But if true, that is another next-level insanity from Larson.

https://www.metafilter.com/192846/Do-writers-not-care-about-my-kidney-donation#8158275

Yeah, Larson appears to be without a moral compass. And also makes legally bad decisions. Hmm.... Sadly, I don't think the last weeks' events will help her see the error of her ways. I think she'll spend the rest of her life in obscurity complaining about DFD to anyone who will listen.

Idk if it is any good, but the link below is an analysis from a lawyer on Metafilter. I didn't realize that Larson sued Dorland's lawyer for representing Dorland. That is CRAZY. I haven't seen that filing and boy would I like to read that. But if true, that is another next-level insanity from Larson.

https://www.metafilter.com/192846/Do-writers-not-care-about-my-kidney-donation#8158275

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at the phase of litigation, discovery is closed, correct?

Ng had said repeatedly that Dorland harassed Larson. Well, we saw the texts and emails. Is there any evidence that what Ng claimed actually happened?

The reason I hope this doesn’t die down is because I think Grub Street, the Chunky Monkeys and Ng are going to brazen it out on a vague notion of Larson being targeted or maligned because she is not totally white. They can no longer say that directly, but they also can no longer say she didn’t potentially plagiarize, since Larson violated the published Grub Street guidance on IP/copyright/plagiarism - which was in the discovery materials. While I agree that the institutions that should be held accountable are the NYT and Grub, the Times is never going to retract anything nor issue any apology. They didn’t apologize for being a mouthpiece in the run up to the war in Iraq, so we need to collectively give up that fantasy.

The case just had a status conference. I saw some reporter on Twitter who attended it (apparently Larson is pushing hard for mediation now, which is interesting because she was opposed before). Idk if discovery has closed but I imagine a new request could be sent.

I'm not a lawyer, and I only scanned about 1/1000th of the filings available, but wouldn't settling be the most intelligent thing Larson can do at this point? My impression was that Larson has been withholding documents suspected to be in her possession from discovery. If she proceeds with the case, won't she be compelled to eventually bring those documents to light? I also had the impression that her contacts (Chunkey Monkeys, etc.) were being told to hand over relevant communications. If the case proceeds, won't they have to do so or risk being caught lying to the court? It sounds like Sonya and Co. could get in all kinds of trouble. I doubt the withheld communications and documents are at all favorable to her.

Maybe my understanding as a layperson is too limited, but I think Sonya Larson was very, very foolish to bring this case. She seems to think she's not compelled to comply with discovery or to be truthful. And she's involved so many of her contacts in this act of plagiarism: her employer, her writing group, her publishers. Any one of them might hand over communications with her that will be yet more damning.

So, yeah, I think she ought to settle.

Anonymous wrote:So at the phase of litigation, discovery is closed, correct?

Ng had said repeatedly that Dorland harassed Larson. Well, we saw the texts and emails. Is there any evidence that what Ng claimed actually happened?

The reason I hope this doesn’t die down is because I think Grub Street, the Chunky Monkeys and Ng are going to brazen it out on a vague notion of Larson being targeted or maligned because she is not totally white. They can no longer say that directly, but they also can no longer say she didn’t potentially plagiarize, since Larson violated the published Grub Street guidance on IP/copyright/plagiarism - which was in the discovery materials. While I agree that the institutions that should be held accountable are the NYT and Grub, the Times is never going to retract anything nor issue any apology. They didn’t apologize for being a mouthpiece in the run up to the war in Iraq, so we need to collectively give up that fantasy.

The case just had a status conference. I saw some reporter on Twitter who attended it (apparently Larson is pushing hard for mediation now, which is interesting because she was opposed before). Idk if discovery has closed but I imagine a new request could be sent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in Celeste Ng is astounding. How is she this unaware?

Well, she is human and flawed.

And yet she makes no room for Dorland to also be human and flawed. I'm guessing Ng thinks Dorland's choice to contact OCOS about Larson's story and the plagiarism issue is an unforgiveable action. Which is amazing, because regardless of what you think of Dorland, she had a valid legal claim. And Ng think Dorland posting on FB about her kidney donation is also unforgiveable.

Yet I'm supposed to sit here and look at the vitriol, bullying, and straight up lying from a bestselling author who has the means and clout to be magnanimous, and say "oh she's human and flawed"?

Uh-uh. What comes around goes around and I'm happy to write of Celeste Ng for being a giant jerk in exactly the way she wrote of Dawn Dorland for.... what exactly? Being needy? I mean, it makes no sense. There are lots of talented writers and lots of amazing books in the world and I don't need to give another penny to Celest Ng every again.

I'm PP, and to be clear I stand, I am the PP who wrote my detailed list of my new DNR entries out above. I am not buying Celeste Ng's work again. But no matter how awful Ng has acted, she is still human and flawed. I do not want to dehumanize Ng the way that Ng herself dehumanized Dorland.

I don’t think that’s what dehumanize means. I think there’s a huge difference between being wrong and being callow. I’m the one who said maybe she’s irredeemable. Maybe that was dehumanizing but what I mean is that at this moment of time, she’s looking at her own behavior and refusing to see it through any other lens but the willfully, erroneously self righteous. It’s startling to me; I think it’s truly….bad. Any apology at all would be reassuring at this point. I mean she needs to do more than “obviously not at my finest” but could we at least have that?

Anonymous wrote:No one is seeking mob justice. People don’t need to frame this in such ugly ways - those supporting Larson are supporting wild-assed lies, lies about racism and animus regarding the same, lies about power and abuse and on some level, organizational corruption, and of course lies about artistic freedom as a wholesale justification for plagiarism.

You don’t have to quasi-apologize for being in a non-existent mob to people who won’t read this, but arguing they do, would just lie to you anyway.

Yes, reading and reacting to documents produced in a litigation doesn't seem like a mob to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in Celeste Ng is astounding. How is she this unaware?

Well, she is human and flawed.

And yet she makes no room for Dorland to also be human and flawed. I'm guessing Ng thinks Dorland's choice to contact OCOS about Larson's story and the plagiarism issue is an unforgiveable action. Which is amazing, because regardless of what you think of Dorland, she had a valid legal claim. And Ng think Dorland posting on FB about her kidney donation is also unforgiveable.

Yet I'm supposed to sit here and look at the vitriol, bullying, and straight up lying from a bestselling author who has the means and clout to be magnanimous, and say "oh she's human and flawed"?

Uh-uh. What comes around goes around and I'm happy to write of Celeste Ng for being a giant jerk in exactly the way she wrote of Dawn Dorland for.... what exactly? Being needy? I mean, it makes no sense. There are lots of talented writers and lots of amazing books in the world and I don't need to give another penny to Celest Ng every again.

I'm PP, and to be clear I stand, I am the PP who wrote my detailed list of my new DNR entries out above. I am not buying Celeste Ng's work again. But no matter how awful Ng has acted, she is still human and flawed. I do not want to dehumanize Ng the way that Ng herself dehumanized Dorland.

I can tell you why I am still here -- because I am completely creeped out by Celeste Ng and want to figure out how to avoid such people in my life as much as possible. What were the red flags?

No one is seeking mob justice. People don’t need to frame this in such ugly ways - those supporting Larson are supporting wild-assed lies, lies about racism and animus regarding the same, lies about power and abuse and on some level, organizational corruption, and of course lies about artistic freedom as a wholesale justification for plagiarism.

You don’t have to quasi-apologize for being in a non-existent mob to people who won’t read this, but arguing they do, would just lie to you anyway.

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.

So at the phase of litigation, discovery is closed, correct?

Ng had said repeatedly that Dorland harassed Larson. Well, we saw the texts and emails. Is there any evidence that what Ng claimed actually happened?

The reason I hope this doesn’t die down is because I think Grub Street, the Chunky Monkeys and Ng are going to brazen it out on a vague notion of Larson being targeted or maligned because she is not totally white. They can no longer say that directly, but they also can no longer say she didn’t potentially plagiarize, since Larson violated the published Grub Street guidance on IP/copyright/plagiarism - which was in the discovery materials. While I agree that the institutions that should be held accountable are the NYT and Grub, the Times is never going to retract anything nor issue any apology. They didn’t apologize for being a mouthpiece in the run up to the war in Iraq, so we need to collectively give up that fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in Celeste Ng is astounding. How is she this unaware?

Well, she is human and flawed.

And yet she makes no room for Dorland to also be human and flawed. I'm guessing Ng thinks Dorland's choice to contact OCOS about Larson's story and the plagiarism issue is an unforgiveable action. Which is amazing, because regardless of what you think of Dorland, she had a valid legal claim. And Ng think Dorland posting on FB about her kidney donation is also unforgiveable.

Yet I'm supposed to sit here and look at the vitriol, bullying, and straight up lying from a bestselling author who has the means and clout to be magnanimous, and say "oh she's human and flawed"?

Uh-uh. What comes around goes around and I'm happy to write of Celeste Ng for being a giant jerk in exactly the way she wrote of Dawn Dorland for.... what exactly? Being needy? I mean, it makes no sense. There are lots of talented writers and lots of amazing books in the world and I don't need to give another penny to Celest Ng every again.

+1. Celeste is permanently on my DNR list and I'll be actively telling those in my circles who are avid readers and also have a conscience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in Celeste Ng is astounding. How is she this unaware?

Well, she is human and flawed.

And yet she makes no room for Dorland to also be human and flawed. I'm guessing Ng thinks Dorland's choice to contact OCOS about Larson's story and the plagiarism issue is an unforgiveable action. Which is amazing, because regardless of what you think of Dorland, she had a valid legal claim. And Ng think Dorland posting on FB about her kidney donation is also unforgiveable.

Yet I'm supposed to sit here and look at the vitriol, bullying, and straight up lying from a bestselling author who has the means and clout to be magnanimous, and say "oh she's human and flawed"?

Uh-uh. What comes around goes around and I'm happy to write of Celeste Ng for being a giant jerk in exactly the way she wrote of Dawn Dorland for.... what exactly? Being needy? I mean, it makes no sense. There are lots of talented writers and lots of amazing books in the world and I don't need to give another penny to Celest Ng every again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in Celeste Ng is astounding. How is she this unaware?

This from the NYT piece:

One of those writing-group members, Celeste Ng, who wrote “Little Fires Everywhere,” told me that she admires Larson’s ability to create “characters who have these big blind spots.” While they think they’re presenting themselves one way, they actually come across as something else entirely.

The irony is too rich.

Exactly! She comes off as deeply unintelligent and naive in this entire mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of Ng and performative behavior, she posted this Twitter thread in April of 2018, just a few months after she compared Dorland to Donald Trump for appearing on the Jumbotron at a Lakers game. Dorland had been invited to promote kidney donation.

I don't have a problem with Ng posting it. In fact I am glad she did. She did a good thing and people should think about helping. But in posting, she is literally doing something more performative than what Dorland did at the Lakers game. Dorland was invited for the purpose of kidney donation promotion. Ng was just sharing a story about how she helped someone.

That thread features this gem too:

Uggggggghhhhh, this drives me crazy. I have known so many people like this. People who are ultra performatove about their “good work” but extremely judgmental of others. In general but also specifically for doing the same stuff.

If I were Ng’s therapist I’d probably ask her if her loathing for Dawn was an act of recognition, of seeing in someone else the same desperate need for a specific kind of validation (that you are a “good person” and not a “bad person”) and thus just a way to externalize her own self loathing, to make it easier to carry.

So incredibly gross and PHONY of Ng, ugh, this whole incident is reason to never be on twitter, ever.