Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but it's obviously Do Not Engage. The "my bad legal take means I'm actually the only reasonable person on the thread and everyone else is forming a lynch mob" poster has lowered the discourse on this thread by a pretty significant factor. Aside from being wrong on several pertinent facts and shifting her narrative when proved wrong, she's combative and rude. Better to ignore.

+1

It is unfortunate.

Thank you both. At this point, DNE seems best, so I suggested it. It’s been 90 pages of interesting discussion, and it looks like @kidneygate and other accounts are introducing interesting aspects of the story, still.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but it's obviously Do Not Engage. The "my bad legal take means I'm actually the only reasonable person on the thread and everyone else is forming a lynch mob" poster has lowered the discourse on this thread by a pretty significant factor. Aside from being wrong on several pertinent facts and shifting her narrative when proved wrong, she's combative and rude. Better to ignore.

+1

It is unfortunate.

Anonymous wrote:I am not the one in here calling other living people delusional vampires with crazy obsessions, but okay, carry on.

Have I been rude, truly? I thought I met like with like, but if I overstepped, I'm sorry. I'm the only person on here arguing that Dorland's legal claims might not be as strong as the majority of folks are hoping, and it has been a bit of a pile on in opposition to what I'm saying without much real analysis as to why Dorland's legal claims are actually strong. I'll cut back on my comments but I do hope that some of the other people on here will read the legal analyses re Dorland's copyright claim AND that someone who knows how to do it will create a GOFUNDME for Dorland's legal fees and post a link here so that I can contribute, because I would like to.

Anonymous wrote:DP but it's obviously Do Not Engage. The "my bad legal take means I'm actually the only reasonable person on the thread and everyone else is forming a lynch mob" poster has lowered the discourse on this thread by a pretty significant factor. Aside from being wrong on several pertinent facts and shifting her narrative when proved wrong, she's combative and rude. Better to ignore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:11:19, I saw that too. Larson and her counsel are a mess.

I’m not practicing and never did serious copyright work (I took copyright law but didn’t we all), but I don’t know that the attorney arguing that Larson is doing well in this litigation has a great take. At all. I fundamentally disagree and I’ll leave it there.

Larson's lawyer seems terrible in that he doesn't appear to have bothered to go through any of the materials Larson submitted to produce in discovery, did not adequately protect Larson from, apparently, committing perjury in attesting that she did not copy the letter (here, too, though, I am not positive this was perjury -- Larson said she never had a copy of the letter i.e. she did not print out a copy, and says she took notes on it. She could have just taken ALOT of notes, word for word, and never actually printed a copy of the letter, in which case her affidavit might not strictly be perjury but ymmv), he has done stupid things for posturing, etc., -- but on the merits of the case in the dismissal motions, GIVEN WHAT THE LAW IS which is not a mechanism to distribute true justice to both parties but a mechanism to mete out money and punishment as the laws define -- to me he doesn't appear to be doing badly.

YOUR ALL CAPS USAGE IS DEEPLY OBNOXIOUS. Know your audience, which includes people with a similar or identical legal background. POINT ME TO THE CLAIM WHERE SOMEONE SCREAMED THAT AN ANSWER AND/OR DISCOVERY REQUESTS IN A CIVIL SUIT WERE AN EFFICIENT WAY TO OBTAIN A GREATER FORM OF JUSTICE. THANKS.

Sorry, I guess my legal mind is far inferior to yours, but I don't understand the point you are making about Answers and discovery. You seem to be saying that no one on your side is claiming that Answers and discovery are an efficient way to obtain true justice? Okay.

I'm just saying that most people in this thread are deeply offended by the treatment of Dorland and want her to receive real justice -- Larson shouldn't be permitted to use the story any further, for example (I still can't believe people are arguing this), and they are talking about what was done to her re her Grub Street resignation as though it is a part of the lawsuit she might be compensated for (though it is not). People are arguing for real justice (I want it too) but that has little to do with what is in the actual lawsuit. What is in the actual lawsuit are copyright infringement claims, not plagiarism claims, and interference with business relationship/etc. claims. I have only read one "take" on the strength of Dorland's copyright claim and that didn't come out well for Dorland. So while all of this discovery is eye opening and does demonstrate that Lawson's attorney is sh!t at discovery, please explain to me how Dorland is going to recover significant money in this lawsuit when she can't get significant damages for copyright infringement because she filed her claim second? Am I living in an alternate universe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another for the DNR list: Whitney Scharer.

Scharer, who has locked her Twitter, Whitney Scharer, sold her debut novel for over one million dollars in an auction involving fourteen publishing houses, and it was been named most anticipated book of 2019 by Oprah.com, and various other sources.

Age of Light.

Ever heard of it?

Here she is mocking Dawn's kidney donation:

https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447625881208467457/photo/1

Non-literary person with question for the pros:
How does someone get a million bucks and 14 offers for her first book?
Was she already a celebrity in some other sphere? Was there something very on-trend about her as a person or her book idea?

I'm a novelist who had an 80k advance and I was pretty proud of myself!!

The answer to your question is that some writers get an early buzz and hype which equals a big advance although it may not amount to anything in terms of sales.

Where does buzz come from? Often from connection to a celebrity, or endorsements from other powerful writers. Sometime it is just a good book that everyone gets panicky about, into a mob mentality about, FOMO on a big scale. That's where the bidding war begins. (Mine was a modest three-house bidding war)

In Scharer's case, my guess would be her MFA contacts and writing friends like Celeste Ng started buzzing about her to publishing industry insiders. There is always the hope that a writer who has connections will sell big b/c of those connections. If you have a heavy weight behind you, like Celeste Ng, then you are a good bet. These two are tight.

Another example is Chip Cheek, also a Chunky Monkey with an 800k advance. Despite his connections and a big publicity push, his book went nowhere.

See: Cynthia D'Aprix Sweeney who wrote a good book The Nest, and recieved this kind of treatment by dint of her close friendship with Amy Poehler.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me what money Dorland will achieve in the lawsuit (as opposed to "in the court of public opinion") from a failed defamation claim by Sonya Larson. (Hint: zero dollars.)

Why do you think this is about money? Larson filed suit against Dorland, and Dorland filed counterclaims. She's the defendant. The case is not some big money grab on DD's part.

I feel like the initial misinformation about this whole story pops up, zombified, every 10 pages on this thread.

+1

This is not about money. Now, Dorland doesn't have endless money, but I think she is probably just wanting to clear her name. She doesn't want cash. She wants her reputation back.

Dorland said in the story I think (or somewhere) that they spent their last $2500 to retain a lawyer to protect her letter, and would not settle the case for less than her attorneys fees, so I am pretty sure that she would at least like to recover the amount of money that she has spent on the case in attorneys so far, which is in the thousands and probably in the tens of thousands of dollars by now. I too want her to win the infringement claim because of what is "right" in this case and it's nice to think of that happening. Note, though, that the first party to talk about suing for tens of thousands of dollars in this case was Dorland's attorney threatening to sue -- I think? -- 1C1S for $150,000 or more if they published the story (which is a very high price tag, I hope you agree), so I'm not sure if you're strictly correct that Dorland was the first to make this about money. Larson's attorney sued first, but Dorland's attorney threatened to sue -- and with a very high price tag on it -- well before Larson actually did.

I am on Dorland's side! But I think some folks have drank so much Kool Aid at this point that they cannot see the other side, which is exactly how Dorland got ostracized from the Chunky Monkeys to begin with. While I certainly don't like or sympathize with Ng and will certainly never buy one of her books, I am uncomfortable with some of the comments being made about her in this thread.

Disagreeing on a legal analysis of the case is not remotely similar to what the CMs did to Dorland. You are saying here that if someone doesn't agree on your legal take, they are "drinking Kool Aid" and "cannot see the other side" and engaging in ostracization similar to what the CMs did. That is a flatly absurd statement, so much so that it makes me seriously question the logic behind your legal analysis.

People can rationally disagree on the merits of the case. If you look around, you'll see different takes. My take is that Larson doesn't appear to have very good counsel. Furthermore, I think the legal posture of the case has changed significantly based on the events of the past two weeks, so any analysis predicated on prior filings is likely to be off base.

It is irrational to assume that someone who doesn't agree with your specific legal analysis is simply too biased to understand the truth. It is entirely possible for somebody to just think you are wrong.

"You start seeing this almost like a vampire story, don't you? These regular people letting Ng drink their blood for the hope of eternal life/a nice advance."

"Celeste is literally delusional."

Claiming that Larson's lawsuit is "harassment" of Dorland.

Saying that Larson's keeping the letter in the story "indicates a kind of crazy obsession and desperation."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another for the DNR list: Whitney Scharer.

Scharer, who has locked her Twitter, Whitney Scharer, sold her debut novel for over one million dollars in an auction involving fourteen publishing houses, and it was been named most anticipated book of 2019 by Oprah.com, and various other sources.

Age of Light.

Ever heard of it?

Here she is mocking Dawn's kidney donation:

https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447625881208467457/photo/1

Non-literary person with question for the pros:
How does someone get a million bucks and 14 offers for her first book?
Was she already a celebrity in some other sphere? Was there something very on-trend about her as a person or her book idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another for the DNR list: Whitney Scharer.

Scharer, who has locked her Twitter, Whitney Scharer, sold her debut novel for over one million dollars in an auction involving fourteen publishing houses, and it was been named most anticipated book of 2019 by Oprah.com, and various other sources.

Age of Light.

Ever heard of it?

Here she is mocking Dawn's kidney donation:

https://twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1447625881208467457/photo/1

Non-literary person with question for the pros:
How does someone get a million bucks and 14 offers for her first book?
Was she already a celebrity in some other sphere? Was there something very on-trend about her as a person or her book idea?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain to me what money Dorland will achieve in the lawsuit (as opposed to "in the court of public opinion") from a failed defamation claim by Sonya Larson. (Hint: zero dollars.)

Why do you think this is about money? Larson filed suit against Dorland, and Dorland filed counterclaims. She's the defendant. The case is not some big money grab on DD's part.

I feel like the initial misinformation about this whole story pops up, zombified, every 10 pages on this thread.

+1

This is not about money. Now, Dorland doesn't have endless money, but I think she is probably just wanting to clear her name. She doesn't want cash. She wants her reputation back.

Dorland said in the story I think (or somewhere) that they spent their last $2500 to retain a lawyer to protect her letter, and would not settle the case for less than her attorneys fees, so I am pretty sure that she would at least like to recover the amount of money that she has spent on the case in attorneys so far, which is in the thousands and probably in the tens of thousands of dollars by now. I too want her to win the infringement claim because of what is "right" in this case and it's nice to think of that happening. Note, though, that the first party to talk about suing for tens of thousands of dollars in this case was Dorland's attorney threatening to sue -- I think? -- 1C1S for $150,000 or more if they published the story (which is a very high price tag, I hope you agree), so I'm not sure if you're strictly correct that Dorland was the first to make this about money. Larson's attorney sued first, but Dorland's attorney threatened to sue -- and with a very high price tag on it -- well before Larson actually did.

I am on Dorland's side! But I think some folks have drank so much Kool Aid at this point that they cannot see the other side, which is exactly how Dorland got ostracized from the Chunky Monkeys to begin with. While I certainly don't like or sympathize with Ng and will certainly never buy one of her books, I am uncomfortable with some of the comments being made about her in this thread.