Anonymous wrote:A lot of willful insanity at 19:28. Guys like the plagiarism was like removed what timeline performative white women are everywhere.

19:28. Please explain. Are you really saying that it was totally reasonable for Dorland's lawyer to threaten suit for $180K if the story -- with the plagiarism taken out as previously agreed to by Dorland -- was published? If I was friends with a writer barely selling stories and paying bills every year (I looked at Larson's list of published stories and the money she made from them -- it was less than $40K over some two or three years, including the $25K NEA grant), I would find a $180K bill pretty threatening.

Are you guys actually saying that Lawson cannot publish any version of The Kindest going forward? No matter what language it contains? I am not aware of any copyright law that would so hold, so this would be instructive.

I am a huge Dorland supporter. I think the mean girl sh!t, even the misleading facts in the NYT article, and the Grub Street lawsuit that was ignored causing Dorland to resign from there are all instances where Dorland was done dirty. I have been commenting in support of Dorland since about page 7 of this thread. But I do think some folks in here are not seeing anything of the other side here, which is funny because that's how Lawson dehumanized her in "The Kindest."

Finally, my statement (that post was me, also) about The Kindest winning all sorts of awards now given the extreme number of interpretations that can be read into the story now was partly tongue in cheek. I'm not saying it's an amazing story because Lawson intended it to be and used her writerly skills to make it so. Who is truly "The Kindest" here now has so many interpretations in spite of the author and because of the author's blind spots about Dorland, imho.

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?

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.

Naive? More like calculating, manipulative and scary.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of willful insanity at 19:28. Guys like the plagiarism was like removed what timeline performative white women are everywhere.

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here.

Anonymous wrote:Me again. I mean, take the plagiarism out of the story and it probably should win all sorts of awards now, for the triple and quadruple duty the title "The Kindest" does here and all the story behind the story.

Yeah. No.

A lot of willful insanity at 19:28. Guys like the plagiarism was like removed what timeline performative white women are everywhere.

[quote=Anonymous]Me again. I mean, take the plagiarism out of the story and it probably should win all sorts of awards now, for the triple and quadruple duty the title "The Kindest" does here and all the story behind the story.[/quote]

Did the C. Monkeys find our thread?

Me again. I mean, take the plagiarism out of the story and it probably should win all sorts of awards now, for the triple and quadruple duty the title "The Kindest" does here and all the story behind the story.

19:28 was more of a response to the various comments in 18:44 than to 19:08 immediately above, which I had not read and which I think I agree with.

I mean, "The Kindest" won the Boston One Book/One City contest. When they accepted it they sad something like "it was by far the best submission that we received."

Note that it is clearly badly researched from a kidney donation standpoint, but query whether the lit fic people judging lit fic submissions have any more of a clue about kidney donation than Larson does. But in terms of writing and effect of the story emotionally on people, I think it was effective.

I didn't think it was badly written. It's maybe easy to say it was now that Larson is on one side and we are on the other, battle lines drawn. BUT -- a story told from the perspective of a marginalized person who is supposed to be grateful for the performative but also real charity of a person who is well off certainly has something to say. If we removed the kidney and Dawn Dorland altogether from this story, I would like it. I would feel bad for the main character who is expected to perform niceness for their charitable benefactor but who has trouble with it, can't wholly bring themselves to mean it. (I remember this issue in The Bell Jar a little, with older lady and the main character.)

The whole problem with the story, for me, is that (1) the details about how the protagonist gets the kidney are off, it wholly obfuscates the normal waiting time and makes it seem easy, which I guess is what Larson wants to believe to marginalize Larson's sacrifice; and (2) the fact that the story was targeted at Dorland -- character initially titled Dawn and circulated around the CMs for lols and feedback, then even after the plagiarism was found Larson had to sign it with "kindly" as if to make clear that the character was based on Dorland (it was really to refer back to the title, she could have signed the letter "With kindness" etc) -- to take her down a notch really backfires under these facts when it does seem that Dorland was nothing but kind (wasn't being self-aggrandizing but was doing normal things kidney donors are told to do to spread the word and encourage kidney donations).

Two other notes: First, so much of this drama could have been saved if Larson had (a) either been a better "friend" to Dorland and just asked her about her kidney donation and learned the true facts behind it and behind the media that Dorland was doing about it or (b) listened to her actual friend, Chunky Monkey Calvin Hennick I think (him or Chris Castelani) who advised Lawson that before he published any story that took details from the lives of people he knew, he always ran the story with them before he published, not to give them the right to object to anything, but to give them a heads up. Larson didn't do (b) here, but if she had it would have compelled her, surely, to rewrite that damned letter because of the very obvious plagiarism that was in there that she wouldn't want Dorland to see. Showing Dorland the story up front might have made her think about Dorland in a human way before completing the draft, as well, which surely would have been a good thing in a story where she set Dorland up as such a villain.

And second, I think that the people who are still friends with Larson are moved by the fact that Dorland's attorney effectively prevented the already-printed story from winning and being used/talked about in the One Book/One City fair, prevented Larson from printing or using the story in any way going forward for fear of further legal issues, and prevented an author of color from benefitting from a story that was about this issue of white women taking over the voices of non-white women and using their power to wring out feelings and compromises from women of color that they didn't want to give. That's THEIR side of the story -- and to be fair from this perspective they are not talking nonsense. Are they? Clearly for us the other, more persuasive side is OBVIOUS PLAGIARISM which even women of color shouldn't be able to benefit from, surely, WTF? But at this point in the printing history, the plagiarism by most fair readings has been removed, and Dorland still wanted to insert something about that or kidney donation or etc. into the story. She probably doesn't get to do that, and that DOES totally play into Larson's narrative about a white woman usurping Larson's/ her character's narrative. Larson should get to go on and use this story (if she dares, ha!) for other literary or contest submissions or whatever. Right? Does she get to recover her potential lost profits, even? I don't know.

I really wish someone would set up a GoFundMe for Dorland's legal expenses -- I would totally contribute!

Thinking today about the main reason this story has really gotten under my skin. It’s the way Larson & Friends were so duplicitous. The other stuff (the plagiarism, Ng digging in deeper on Twitter, the pile on from Gay and others, even the court case the slanted NYT Mag piece) are frustrating but they would not, on their own, capture my attention in this way.

What struck me and has stayed with me is the degree to which Larson and others courted Dawn’s friendship while privately loathing her. Two-faced is the right word but it doesn’t cover how weird, lazy, selfish, and hurtful this behavior is. I feel it must have a psychological description, or should.

It is not hard to avoid this. I have been in many situations where someone wanted to be my friend or wanted to be a closer friend, and I didn’t. It’s never caused a problem for me and I am still on good terms with all of these people, even what some might describe as a Stage 5 Clinger. You just stay polite and friendly but noncommittal. You don’t lead them on, just as you wouldn’t lead on a romantic interest. Eventually people find friends better suited to their personalities and interests. I never hate these folks or have strong feelings about them, I just see they are not a good friend for and keep them at arms length.

So why didn’t Larson & others do this. FYI I have taught classes at an org similar to Grubstreet and know this is often a source of these one sided friendships. But that’s why, ethically as a teacher, you maintain professional boundaries. So why didn’t these people?

I think it’s because they fed off the adulation and the position of power. I think they liked knowing Dawn and other aspiring writers like her looked up to them, courted their favor and friendship, and were so thrilled to receive it. I think in some level they encourages these infatuations (for instance by joining a private FB group, posting friendly/intimate messages on their wall, etc.). Knowing they could trash her later, portray her as an ignorant racist in their fiction, and get away with it.

It’s an abuse of power. Mostly social power, but professional too. It’s so revolting to me. Human cruelty at work. They did it because they could.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, good. She’s a bad writer, unintelligent, lazy, and unethical. No one is going to miss her “art.”

+1 I read her short story "The Kindest". It was poorly written and edited for someone who seems so devoted to the literary craft. Some of the things written don't make logical sense. The protagonist describes absurd things like having an IV placed in her elbow or champagne being brought into a hospital room to celebrate right after a kidney transplant. I think she was going for a story that was thought provoking and open to discussion but failed at it. I think she wanted people to debate who was in the wrong and to see that both the donor and recipient were flawed individuals but you really just end up hating the donor. She comes off as a terrible whiny human. Life imitating bad art.

**end up hating the kidney recipient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, good. She’s a bad writer, unintelligent, lazy, and unethical. No one is going to miss her “art.”

+1 I read her short story "The Kindest". It was poorly written and edited for someone who seems so devoted to the literary craft. Some of the things written don't make logical sense. The protagonist describes absurd things like having an IV placed in her elbow or champagne being brought into a hospital room to celebrate right after a kidney transplant. I think she was going for a story that was thought provoking and open to discussion but failed at it. I think she wanted people to debate who was in the wrong and to see that both the donor and recipient were flawed individuals but you really just end up hating the donor. She comes off as a terrible whiny human. Life imitating bad art.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, good. She’s a bad writer, unintelligent, lazy, and unethical. No one is going to miss her “art.”

Anonymous wrote:While I don’t disagree that Dawn is needy and an lacks appropriate social skills, I think an awful lot of people don’t fully comprehend kidney donation, especially for a stranger. That is no small thing (coming from someone who considered it for a family member and was all too happy to back out when a better candidate came forward).

Honestly I cannot imagine anymore giving away their kidney to a stranger for purely altruistic reasons, and I suspect people who believe it is common for someone to do so have zero clue what it involves.

Dawn is very awkward and her lack understanding social cues actually made me wonder if she is on the spectrum.

Larson is cruel. She lied, gaslight and engaged in pretty clear plagiarism. As noted, she chose her victim carefully - someone she already new would garner little support and is easy to trash.

I think she more likely has an attachment disorder from ‘not forming normal attachments to her family of origin’. Larson probably was cool to her or made faces at times, but Dawn doesn’t recognize it when Larson’s actions (like being friends on FB and then a smaller FB group) contradict what she might get from her in person. Larson is entitled, nosey, and like so many have said a mean girl. Ng’s actions are surprising because she’s said she met Dawn once and not for long and it’s obvious Larson has not been forthright and Ng doubles down on her contempt for what is essentially a stranger. Add the class issues and here we are.

Here is the thread about the status conference.