I’m bothered by Grub Street’s statement saying the controversy referenced race. That’s only the case because people desperate to defend Larson wedged it in when it didn’t apply to the conflict, the plagiarism, or the bullying. God!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny that this thread and the Chrissy Teigen thread can exist on the same board. She pummeled kids online, has not directly apologized to them (and lied that she had), and to bring it back to the BAF analogue, she’s got another bestselling cookbook on her hands.

It’s very Castellani — I hate to share bummer news, but he wrote and sold a book that got great reviews, was a bestseller, and is being adapted into a series or movie. He’s too successful to care. He’s a vile human being. PP pointing out they can’t apologize to Dawn Dorland - of course not. They don’t seem to see her as fully human. (Which was part of the dysfunction of Teigen’s somehow pardonable cyber bullying- her own misfortune in miscarrying somehow wipes her slate clean. Sometimes success wipes a slate clean too, obviously.)

Agreed. This thread has been amazing because overwhelmingly people seem to actually care about who got hurt and how they got hurt and aren't just rushing to defend the more powerful, successful bullies because it's easier for them. That's what you see in the Teigen thread. A lot of people don't care about suffering if they don't like the person who is suffering. That's why bullies like Teigen or Larson choose unpopular, unsuccessful people to pick on -- the definition of "easy target". That this behavior is vile and abusive is overlooked because people don't identify with the people targeted.

But I think a lot of people wound up identifying with Dawn, and that's the difference. She wasn't the easy target Larson assumed.

Teigen did publicly apologize and admitted wrongdoing. The chunky monkeys will not.

I don't follow Teigen and haven't followed the Teigen thread, but I have to agree. These are two very different situations. I don't think they're synonymous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny that this thread and the Chrissy Teigen thread can exist on the same board. She pummeled kids online, has not directly apologized to them (and lied that she had), and to bring it back to the BAF analogue, she’s got another bestselling cookbook on her hands.

It’s very Castellani — I hate to share bummer news, but he wrote and sold a book that got great reviews, was a bestseller, and is being adapted into a series or movie. He’s too successful to care. He’s a vile human being. PP pointing out they can’t apologize to Dawn Dorland - of course not. They don’t seem to see her as fully human. (Which was part of the dysfunction of Teigen’s somehow pardonable cyber bullying- her own misfortune in miscarrying somehow wipes her slate clean. Sometimes success wipes a slate clean too, obviously.)

Agreed. This thread has been amazing because overwhelmingly people seem to actually care about who got hurt and how they got hurt and aren't just rushing to defend the more powerful, successful bullies because it's easier for them. That's what you see in the Teigen thread. A lot of people don't care about suffering if they don't like the person who is suffering. That's why bullies like Teigen or Larson choose unpopular, unsuccessful people to pick on -- the definition of "easy target". That this behavior is vile and abusive is overlooked because people don't identify with the people targeted.

But I think a lot of people wound up identifying with Dawn, and that's the difference. She wasn't the easy target Larson assumed.

Teigen did publicly apologize and admitted wrongdoing. The chunky monkeys will not.

She did not apologize directly to those she attacked, end of. One of her bigger targets proved it- she’d been blocked by Teigen, well after Teigen claimed she’d used the medium for an apology. She’s a liar.

Becky Tuch is the only person of all discussed in these dozens and dozens of pages who has apparently apologized. Of course, she’s not a CM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny that this thread and the Chrissy Teigen thread can exist on the same board. She pummeled kids online, has not directly apologized to them (and lied that she had), and to bring it back to the BAF analogue, she’s got another bestselling cookbook on her hands.

It’s very Castellani — I hate to share bummer news, but he wrote and sold a book that got great reviews, was a bestseller, and is being adapted into a series or movie. He’s too successful to care. He’s a vile human being. PP pointing out they can’t apologize to Dawn Dorland - of course not. They don’t seem to see her as fully human. (Which was part of the dysfunction of Teigen’s somehow pardonable cyber bullying- her own misfortune in miscarrying somehow wipes her slate clean. Sometimes success wipes a slate clean too, obviously.)

Agreed. This thread has been amazing because overwhelmingly people seem to actually care about who got hurt and how they got hurt and aren't just rushing to defend the more powerful, successful bullies because it's easier for them. That's what you see in the Teigen thread. A lot of people don't care about suffering if they don't like the person who is suffering. That's why bullies like Teigen or Larson choose unpopular, unsuccessful people to pick on -- the definition of "easy target". That this behavior is vile and abusive is overlooked because people don't identify with the people targeted.

But I think a lot of people wound up identifying with Dawn, and that's the difference. She wasn't the easy target Larson assumed.

Dawn is a fighter, and a survivor, and is a tough person. I dropped in links to Datalounge a while ago, and it was there that I read a couple of posters describe that Dawn’s history alone (suffering from bad parenting, itinerant lifestyle, full scholarship to a Claremont college, divinity school, and choosing to be a living donor) would suggest to any observant person that she wasn’t one to give up easily nor let things go. It’s the fundamental lack of analytical skills, along with the abhorrent character of many at Grub/CMs, that amuses me. They effed around and a couple found out. It’s not satisfying, but - here we are. At minimum, it is beyond appropriate that Larson and Murphy were let go. It’s not enough, of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny that this thread and the Chrissy Teigen thread can exist on the same board. She pummeled kids online, has not directly apologized to them (and lied that she had), and to bring it back to the BAF analogue, she’s got another bestselling cookbook on her hands.

It’s very Castellani — I hate to share bummer news, but he wrote and sold a book that got great reviews, was a bestseller, and is being adapted into a series or movie. He’s too successful to care. He’s a vile human being. PP pointing out they can’t apologize to Dawn Dorland - of course not. They don’t seem to see her as fully human. (Which was part of the dysfunction of Teigen’s somehow pardonable cyber bullying- her own misfortune in miscarrying somehow wipes her slate clean. Sometimes success wipes a slate clean too, obviously.)

Agreed. This thread has been amazing because overwhelmingly people seem to actually care about who got hurt and how they got hurt and aren't just rushing to defend the more powerful, successful bullies because it's easier for them. That's what you see in the Teigen thread. A lot of people don't care about suffering if they don't like the person who is suffering. That's why bullies like Teigen or Larson choose unpopular, unsuccessful people to pick on -- the definition of "easy target". That this behavior is vile and abusive is overlooked because people don't identify with the people targeted.

But I think a lot of people wound up identifying with Dawn, and that's the difference. She wasn't the easy target Larson assumed.

Teigen did publicly apologize and admitted wrongdoing. The chunky monkeys will not.

Anonymous wrote:It’s so funny that this thread and the Chrissy Teigen thread can exist on the same board. She pummeled kids online, has not directly apologized to them (and lied that she had), and to bring it back to the BAF analogue, she’s got another bestselling cookbook on her hands.

It’s very Castellani — I hate to share bummer news, but he wrote and sold a book that got great reviews, was a bestseller, and is being adapted into a series or movie. He’s too successful to care. He’s a vile human being. PP pointing out they can’t apologize to Dawn Dorland - of course not. They don’t seem to see her as fully human. (Which was part of the dysfunction of Teigen’s somehow pardonable cyber bullying- her own misfortune in miscarrying somehow wipes her slate clean. Sometimes success wipes a slate clean too, obviously.)

Agreed. This thread has been amazing because overwhelmingly people seem to actually care about who got hurt and how they got hurt and aren't just rushing to defend the more powerful, successful bullies because it's easier for them. That's what you see in the Teigen thread. A lot of people don't care about suffering if they don't like the person who is suffering. That's why bullies like Teigen or Larson choose unpopular, unsuccessful people to pick on -- the definition of "easy target". That this behavior is vile and abusive is overlooked because people don't identify with the people targeted.

But I think a lot of people wound up identifying with Dawn, and that's the difference. She wasn't the easy target Larson assumed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want them to flat out APOLOGIZE TO DAWN DORLAND. How is that so difficult to do? The messaging here is so clearly self-serving, and it's very obvious that the organization + Chris are much, much more "sorry" to have gotten caught being shitty than actually being sorry to the person they villainized and harmed. Not to mention the really irresponsible ableism that they perpetuated.

I'm 14:52 and this will never happen. She's not even a person to them now. She's an idea, and obstacle, something terrible they went through together (a bonding agent for them to simply become closer and more loyal to one another).

The only wild card is Becky Tuch. That I haven't seen before. It's so rare for someone in that position to even be capable of seeing the situation with any clarity, much less to vocally criticize her friends and defend the person on the other side. She must have an incredibly strong sense of herself and her value to be able to do that, to not fear the guilt and reprobation she will almost certainly get from all the other CMs and others in her writing circle. I'm so impressed by her.

Really good points, really expressed well.

It’s so funny that this thread and the Chrissy Teigen thread can exist on the same board. She pummeled kids online, has not directly apologized to them (and lied that she had), and to bring it back to the BAF analogue, she’s got another bestselling cookbook on her hands.

It’s very Castellani — I hate to share bummer news, but he wrote and sold a book that got great reviews, was a bestseller, and is being adapted into a series or movie. He’s too successful to care. He’s a vile human being. PP pointing out they can’t apologize to Dawn Dorland - of course not. They don’t seem to see her as fully human. (Which was part of the dysfunction of Teigen’s somehow pardonable cyber bullying- her own misfortune in miscarrying somehow wipes her slate clean. Sometimes success wipes a slate clean too, obviously.)

Anonymous wrote:I want them to flat out APOLOGIZE TO DAWN DORLAND. How is that so difficult to do? The messaging here is so clearly self-serving, and it's very obvious that the organization + Chris are much, much more "sorry" to have gotten caught being shitty than actually being sorry to the person they villainized and harmed. Not to mention the really irresponsible ableism that they perpetuated.

I'm 14:52 and this will never happen. She's not even a person to them now. She's an idea, and obstacle, something terrible they went through together (a bonding agent for them to simply become closer and more loyal to one another).

The only wild card is Becky Tuch. That I haven't seen before. It's so rare for someone in that position to even be capable of seeing the situation with any clarity, much less to vocally criticize her friends and defend the person on the other side. She must have an incredibly strong sense of herself and her value to be able to do that, to not fear the guilt and reprobation she will almost certainly get from all the other CMs and others in her writing circle. I'm so impressed by her.

And this is why, even though I'm totally on Dawn's side and think she was treated terribly, in the same situation I would have chosen to just move on, remove myself from that "community" and see if I could put it behind me.

I say this as someone who went through something similar with an organization like Grubstreet (not in writing/publishing). The problem with an org like that is that it's many things all at once. It's a clique-y cult of friends who use their positions in the organization to exclude people they don't like. BUT it's also a legitimate source of community for many members despite that. The longer the org is around the more true this is. There are almost certainly students and writers and teachers who met their spouse's, best friends, agents, writing partners, etc. through Grubstreet and for whom it's a kind of permanent fixture in their life. Many of these people have nothing to do with what happened to Dawn. They will defend the organization and remain loyal. Most will not bother to learn enough about this situation to see the problems. And on a deep level, they have likely bought into those ingroup/outgroup dynamics of that clique-y cult.

Here is the worst part. Many of those people will simply blame Dawn for all of it, including the fact that a group of women have now had to step down from their previous positions in the organization. They will blame her for awkwardness in the organizations and any changes that result in what they view as a loss of what they liked about the place before (even if those changes are merited). Certainly Dawn will never feel welcome there again.

Ask me how I know.

I want them to flat out APOLOGIZE TO DAWN DORLAND. How is that so difficult to do? The messaging here is so clearly self-serving, and it's very obvious that the organization + Chris are much, much more "sorry" to have gotten caught being shitty than actually being sorry to the person they villainized and harmed. Not to mention the really irresponsible ableism that they perpetuated.

Anonymous wrote:No consequences for Castellani. He just posted this pile of self-serving, annoyed-sounding whining:

https://grubstreet.org/blog/message-from-christopher-castellani/

He clearly doesn't have any regrets other than being caught.

NP here. Blech. That is a truly obnoxious statement.

One thing that jumped out to me: GrubStreet doesn't have a code of conduct! They take in millions of dollars, some from public grants, and yet they have no code of conduct. And their executive leadership is staying intact, because apparently they have no problem with that.

I'm honestly appalled at their board.

I hope so too, but nothing else will happen IMO.

Anonymous wrote:I guess Steve Almond was right in the end.

I wish Johny Lorde had included the whole quote because it is a stunner.

"Locke Lord completed a comprehensive review of this matter over the past two weeks and has determined GrubStreet’s handling of the claim to be entirely professional and thorough. Further, Locke Lord found no issue with GrubStreet’s resolution of the HR complaint. "

Vile stuff at every turn.

I hope they never get a cent from anyone again.