I looked at the picture of the two of them again. Larson has kind of a beady eyed b**** stare despite her relaxed pose.
Dorland has the more inscrutable look but it’s still unflattering. She looks sad to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

+1 especially your the bolded

Reading that timeline from Summer Brennan, that’s what jumps out at me. Dorland’s reaction to Larson’s behavior (and it is Larson who initiates this conflict, unquestionably) is, if anything, restrained. She is experiencing a personal attack. She tries to resolve it person to person, and fails because Larson has zero interest in resolving it. She tries to ignore it (for two years!) and fails, both because Larson pushes to get this story more and more exposure AND because Dorland learns Larson has essentially copied her private letter into the story. She attempt to resolve it using minimal legal intervention (asking for the story to be published with acknowledgement, with the letter remove, or alongside a response from Dorland) and fails, because Larson sues. And then she attempts to settle and/or mediate and fails, because Larson will not accept a compromise.

The miracle here is that Dorland is NOT nuts. That she has held onto her dignity and sense of self despite this situation.

Another thing that jumps out from the timeline is that Larson and several CMs actually acknowledge that it’s reasonable for Dorland to be hurt. But they expect her to simply live with that hurt and not respond. This is fascinating to me. They feel Larson’s actions in using the letter and appropriating Dawn fit the story are okay, because it’s an artistic choice. But Dorland’s decision to fight back is somehow not, because it’s a personal human choice, not cloaked in “art”. Why?

Agree with all of this.

Summer Brennan's work is meticulous and paints an entirely different story.

Kolker is not actually a reporter. My guess is he never bothered to do the work of constructing a timeline. He just pulled a few juicy parts out and then hand-waves about “mystery” and “narratives.”

He self-describes as an investigative journalist. Though why anyone would trust anything he writes again is beyond me.

he does “explorations” and “long form” journalism. All about creating a “narrative” himself - not about actually documenting a complex set of facts.

(and BTW - a riffing “exploration” or musing on what it means to be a “bad art friend” may be a perfectly legitimate form of writing. But it is NOT an objective account of chronological facts. My sense is this is Kolker schtick - and he believes he has the authority to shape the narrative the way he believes it goes, subjectively.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

+1 especially your the bolded

Reading that timeline from Summer Brennan, that’s what jumps out at me. Dorland’s reaction to Larson’s behavior (and it is Larson who initiates this conflict, unquestionably) is, if anything, restrained. She is experiencing a personal attack. She tries to resolve it person to person, and fails because Larson has zero interest in resolving it. She tries to ignore it (for two years!) and fails, both because Larson pushes to get this story more and more exposure AND because Dorland learns Larson has essentially copied her private letter into the story. She attempt to resolve it using minimal legal intervention (asking for the story to be published with acknowledgement, with the letter remove, or alongside a response from Dorland) and fails, because Larson sues. And then she attempts to settle and/or mediate and fails, because Larson will not accept a compromise.

The miracle here is that Dorland is NOT nuts. That she has held onto her dignity and sense of self despite this situation.

Another thing that jumps out from the timeline is that Larson and several CMs actually acknowledge that it’s reasonable for Dorland to be hurt. But they expect her to simply live with that hurt and not respond. This is fascinating to me. They feel Larson’s actions in using the letter and appropriating Dawn fit the story are okay, because it’s an artistic choice. But Dorland’s decision to fight back is somehow not, because it’s a personal human choice, not cloaked in “art”. Why?

Agree with all of this.

Summer Brennan's work is meticulous and paints an entirely different story.

Kolker is not actually a reporter. My guess is he never bothered to do the work of constructing a timeline. He just pulled a few juicy parts out and then hand-waves about “mystery” and “narratives.”

He self-describes as an investigative journalist. Though why anyone would trust anything he writes again is beyond me.

he does “explorations” and “long form” journalism. All about creating a “narrative” himself - not about actually documenting a complex set of facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

+1 especially your the bolded

Reading that timeline from Summer Brennan, that’s what jumps out at me. Dorland’s reaction to Larson’s behavior (and it is Larson who initiates this conflict, unquestionably) is, if anything, restrained. She is experiencing a personal attack. She tries to resolve it person to person, and fails because Larson has zero interest in resolving it. She tries to ignore it (for two years!) and fails, both because Larson pushes to get this story more and more exposure AND because Dorland learns Larson has essentially copied her private letter into the story. She attempt to resolve it using minimal legal intervention (asking for the story to be published with acknowledgement, with the letter remove, or alongside a response from Dorland) and fails, because Larson sues. And then she attempts to settle and/or mediate and fails, because Larson will not accept a compromise.

The miracle here is that Dorland is NOT nuts. That she has held onto her dignity and sense of self despite this situation.

Another thing that jumps out from the timeline is that Larson and several CMs actually acknowledge that it’s reasonable for Dorland to be hurt. But they expect her to simply live with that hurt and not respond. This is fascinating to me. They feel Larson’s actions in using the letter and appropriating Dawn fit the story are okay, because it’s an artistic choice. But Dorland’s decision to fight back is somehow not, because it’s a personal human choice, not cloaked in “art”. Why?

Agree with all of this.

Summer Brennan's work is meticulous and paints an entirely different story.

Kolker is not actually a reporter. My guess is he never bothered to do the work of constructing a timeline. He just pulled a few juicy parts out and then hand-waves about “mystery” and “narratives.”

He self-describes as an investigative journalist. Though why anyone would trust anything he writes again is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

+1 especially your the bolded

Reading that timeline from Summer Brennan, that’s what jumps out at me. Dorland’s reaction to Larson’s behavior (and it is Larson who initiates this conflict, unquestionably) is, if anything, restrained. She is experiencing a personal attack. She tries to resolve it person to person, and fails because Larson has zero interest in resolving it. She tries to ignore it (for two years!) and fails, both because Larson pushes to get this story more and more exposure AND because Dorland learns Larson has essentially copied her private letter into the story. She attempt to resolve it using minimal legal intervention (asking for the story to be published with acknowledgement, with the letter remove, or alongside a response from Dorland) and fails, because Larson sues. And then she attempts to settle and/or mediate and fails, because Larson will not accept a compromise.

The miracle here is that Dorland is NOT nuts. That she has held onto her dignity and sense of self despite this situation.

Another thing that jumps out from the timeline is that Larson and several CMs actually acknowledge that it’s reasonable for Dorland to be hurt. But they expect her to simply live with that hurt and not respond. This is fascinating to me. They feel Larson’s actions in using the letter and appropriating Dawn fit the story are okay, because it’s an artistic choice. But Dorland’s decision to fight back is somehow not, because it’s a personal human choice, not cloaked in “art”. Why?

Agree with all of this.

Summer Brennan's work is meticulous and paints an entirely different story.

Kolker is not actually a reporter. My guess is he never bothered to do the work of constructing a timeline. He just pulled a few juicy parts out and then hand-waves about “mystery” and “narratives.”

Anonymous wrote:Book agents aren’t stupid — I would bet cold hard money one has already signed Dawn, and that in due time, we will hear about a book of hers coming out. Maybe memoir, maybe fiction, who knows, but I will be buying, and I know others in here will be too.

I hope.so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

+1 especially your the bolded

Reading that timeline from Summer Brennan, that’s what jumps out at me. Dorland’s reaction to Larson’s behavior (and it is Larson who initiates this conflict, unquestionably) is, if anything, restrained. She is experiencing a personal attack. She tries to resolve it person to person, and fails because Larson has zero interest in resolving it. She tries to ignore it (for two years!) and fails, both because Larson pushes to get this story more and more exposure AND because Dorland learns Larson has essentially copied her private letter into the story. She attempt to resolve it using minimal legal intervention (asking for the story to be published with acknowledgement, with the letter remove, or alongside a response from Dorland) and fails, because Larson sues. And then she attempts to settle and/or mediate and fails, because Larson will not accept a compromise.

The miracle here is that Dorland is NOT nuts. That she has held onto her dignity and sense of self despite this situation.

Another thing that jumps out from the timeline is that Larson and several CMs actually acknowledge that it’s reasonable for Dorland to be hurt. But they expect her to simply live with that hurt and not respond. This is fascinating to me. They feel Larson’s actions in using the letter and appropriating Dawn fit the story are okay, because it’s an artistic choice. But Dorland’s decision to fight back is somehow not, because it’s a personal human choice, not cloaked in “art”. Why?

Agree with all of this.

Summer Brennan's work is meticulous and paints an entirely different story.

Book agents aren’t stupid — I would bet cold hard money one has already signed Dawn, and that in due time, we will hear about a book of hers coming out. Maybe memoir, maybe fiction, who knows, but I will be buying, and I know others in here will be too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

+1 especially your the bolded

Reading that timeline from Summer Brennan, that’s what jumps out at me. Dorland’s reaction to Larson’s behavior (and it is Larson who initiates this conflict, unquestionably) is, if anything, restrained. She is experiencing a personal attack. She tries to resolve it person to person, and fails because Larson has zero interest in resolving it. She tries to ignore it (for two years!) and fails, both because Larson pushes to get this story more and more exposure AND because Dorland learns Larson has essentially copied her private letter into the story. She attempt to resolve it using minimal legal intervention (asking for the story to be published with acknowledgement, with the letter remove, or alongside a response from Dorland) and fails, because Larson sues. And then she attempts to settle and/or mediate and fails, because Larson will not accept a compromise.

The miracle here is that Dorland is NOT nuts. That she has held onto her dignity and sense of self despite this situation.

Another thing that jumps out from the timeline is that Larson and several CMs actually acknowledge that it’s reasonable for Dorland to be hurt. But they expect her to simply live with that hurt and not respond. This is fascinating to me. They feel Larson’s actions in using the letter and appropriating Dawn fit the story are okay, because it’s an artistic choice. But Dorland’s decision to fight back is somehow not, because it’s a personal human choice, not cloaked in “art”. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

DP. If you read the Summer Brennan links above, which explain the experience in chronological order, Dawn sounds very different. She doesn't sound like a nut at all, not at all like the misogynist portrayal on Kolker's piece. Instead she sounds a bit like the character in a horror movie who is starting to realize that the world she trusted and believed in is in fact twisted and dark. She sounded strong to me, in that reading. And in comparison, the GrubStreet executive management seems derelict and corrupt, and the individual Chunky Monkeys sound borderline psychopathic.

Dawn is not remotely a nut case. Kolker is just a misogynist, and so wrote her that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Larson was wrong to rip off Darmond’s letter, but at this point Darmond is a clueless attention seeker trying to destroy Larson’s career. SHE requested the subpoena for the mean texts. She pitched the story to the NYT! All because Larson and her community didn’t properly acknowledge her navel-gazing Facebook posts about her kidney donation. I don’t have sympathy for Larson, she dug her own grave, but Darmond is a nut case. I’m shocked she passed the psychological test to donate an organ, honestly.

That Darmond is a nut case is not in doubt. She seems, however to have some kind of a moral compass.

Whether or not Larson and her friends do is debatable.

How is Dawn the “nut case”? She seems earnest and awkward, but also vulnerable and sincere. She wasn’t a cool kid and was mocked relentlessly for it - well before discovering her “friend” lifted very personal Facebook posts for literary inspiration, publishing some verbatim.

Dawn reacted as I believe many of us would - she was hurt, angry, and sought some sort of acknowledgement - first from Larson and then from publishers, etc - that she’d been wronged.

I feel for Dawn and find the continually description of her as a “nut” or “crazy” so misogynistic and loaded with the same toxicity that led to her being bullied to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:I was on Larson’s side until the revelation of the word-for-word lifting of the letter and the vicious back stabbing emails. Both of these women are terrible.

I disagree. Whatever Dorland’s flaws and failings, she isn’t cruel. Larson not only was deceptive and acted questionably as related to the writing and origin of “The Kindest”, but she and her friends mocked, bullied, and iced out Dorland in the most terribly cruel way. Well before Dorland took issue with Larson’s writing and all while Larson pretended to be Dorland’s friend.

It’s okay not to like someone. It’s not okay to band together in relentless mocking and bullying and deception. What a horrible human.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i never looked at the nyt the same way again after their reporting in 2016 pointed toward hillary winning.

and yes, the fatal flaw there was also class and the NYT reporters' own privilege bubble.

i live in a flyover state in the south. it was so clear here, even in the spring of 2016, that trump was going to win. and anyone who spent a lot of time really looking around -- not at the rednecks, but at the regular middle class folk who work at banks and middling fortune 500 companies -- would have seen it too. but the NYT simply refused to see it or believe it, or couldn't see it; they literally weren't capable.

Hmmm… the NYT reporting didn’t point to Hillary Clinton winning, numerous reputable polls did. The Times, like virtually every single major news outlet tool those polls at face value. In retrospect a mistake but hardly a reflection of some deep failing by the Times.

This. And even when you listen to the polls explained, they didn't have Trump as a definite loser, they were looking at possible paths to victory and there always was one, it was just not as likely. He struck gold there which was always reflected in the polls as a possible outcome. His own team was astounded they won and did NOT think it was at all obvious, as evidenced by Melania melting down and that perp walk of an acceptance. He beat the odds, but that doesn't mean the polls were wrong.

Anonymous wrote:i never looked at the nyt the same way again after their reporting in 2016 pointed toward hillary winning.

and yes, the fatal flaw there was also class and the NYT reporters' own privilege bubble.

i live in a flyover state in the south. it was so clear here, even in the spring of 2016, that trump was going to win. and anyone who spent a lot of time really looking around -- not at the rednecks, but at the regular middle class folk who work at banks and middling fortune 500 companies -- would have seen it too. but the NYT simply refused to see it or believe it, or couldn't see it; they literally weren't capable.

Hmmm… the NYT reporting didn’t point to Hillary Clinton winning, numerous reputable polls did. The Times, like virtually every single major news outlet tool those polls at face value. In retrospect a mistake but hardly a reflection of some deep failing by the Times.

Anonymous wrote:I really need to find a way to get away from this story. It’s triggering memories of being iced out by gossipy colleagues and ostracized for having a different personality/background. I’ve personalized this story so much and am experiencing a return of those old feelings of powerlessness and worthlessness. I actually think I might need to go back to therapy over this.

People are cruel.

PP I’ve also had an experience like this. I was very poor in a middle class high school and the kids mocked me, iced me out and treated me so badly. I remember once my grandmother dropped me off to pick up something at a fast food restaurant and she was outside waiting in the car. I said hi to them ans was so nice and they were nice enough back, but I knew I didn’t fit in with them and was just trying to go along to get along. I always wanted to be included so when they were nice to me I ate it up. But they must have said some terrible things because my grandma said who were those girls? And I said “just some friends from high school” and she said, “those girls aren’t your friends.” She wouldn’t elaborate. I have always wondered exactly what it was that they did that she, sitting in a car, could have been so sure was about me? I had facial tics back then and I’ve always guessed they probably were making fun of them in a way that was recognizable. Pretty crushing. Another time I dated someone whose family disliked me because I was too poor. They were big time donors of an administration I was trying to work for and one was an Agency head. They deliberately took me to a restaurant where I’d be uncomfortable ans made a big deal out of my not knowing how to use chopsticks. There were other things that I’ve forgotten now. Not knowing how to play the game was so hard when I came to DC. I’m decently successful now but have never forgotten how it felt to be demeaned because I wasn’t classy enough for someone’s son, or because I wore the same outfits too often. Yes. People are cruel. But there have been so many countless more people who are not cruel. I read some stupid Facebook meme somewhere that said most people aren’t assholes, but they are strategically placed so you meet one every day. Always think about that in a positive way - yeah we find the assholes because they stand out. They might bot be punished. But most people are not assholes.

Pp, just wanted to say I care about you, stranger. Don’t let the assholes block the light.