Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I really used to respect Roxane but I'm incredibly disappointed. How privileged, holier-than-thou, and clueless can one be?

Yeah, that tweet you quoted is nothing compared to how awful she can get on Twitter. She is a master of snap judgments, disingenuous misinterpretations, and spite: she regularly mobilizes her tens of thousands of followers to harass nobodies with ten followers and an opinion she dislikes.

I used to really love her writing. Then I discovered her on Twitter. She is the first writer whom I can no longer read because her behavior on social media has irrevocably overshadowed all her work. It used to make me sad. Now I just wonder how she still has so many fans on Twitter, because she really does embrace the role of “queen mean girl in the seventh grade lunchroom.”

It’s really the same dynamic that Larson had, on a larger scale. I unfollowed her and Weiner over this. I have my eye out for others

Anonymous wrote:

I really used to respect Roxane but I'm incredibly disappointed. How privileged, holier-than-thou, and clueless can one be?

Yeah, that tweet you quoted is nothing compared to how awful she can get on Twitter. She is a master of snap judgments, disingenuous misinterpretations, and spite: she regularly mobilizes her tens of thousands of followers to harass nobodies with ten followers and an opinion she dislikes.

I used to really love her writing. Then I discovered her on Twitter. She is the first writer whom I can no longer read because her behavior on social media has irrevocably overshadowed all her work. It used to make me sad. Now I just wonder how she still has so many fans on Twitter, because she really does embrace the role of “queen mean girl in the seventh grade lunchroom.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Wow wow wow.

Maybe she shouldn't be quoting Helen Rosner, who tweeted about Dawn Dorland "This woman is a monster."

FFS, this literary incestuousness is revolting.

No, she didn’t tweet that Dorland was a monster. She left it ambiguous to play on the Rohrschach test aspect of the story, naming neither woman and leaving it for the audience to interpret which woman “this woman” was supposed to mean, then followed up saying she was leaning pro Larson. But in her thread it was clear she was being funny by letting the reader decide which woman “this woman” was supposed to mean.

No; that's what I had initially thought (and hoped) at first, but it was very clear in her replies in the thread that she very clearly meant to say Dawn was the monster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Wow wow wow.

Maybe she shouldn't be quoting Helen Rosner, who tweeted about Dawn Dorland "This woman is a monster."

FFS, this literary incestuousness is revolting.

No, she didn’t tweet that Dorland was a monster. She left it ambiguous to play on the Rohrschach test aspect of the story, naming neither woman and leaving it for the audience to interpret which woman “this woman” was supposed to mean, then followed up saying she was leaning pro Larson. But in her thread it was clear she was being funny by letting the reader decide which woman “this woman” was supposed to mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Wow wow wow.

Maybe she shouldn't be quoting Helen Rosner, who tweeted about Dawn Dorland "This woman is a monster."

FFS, this literary incestuousness is revolting.

No, she didn’t tweet that Dorland was a monster. She left it ambiguous to play on the Rohrschach test aspect of the story, naming neither woman and leaving it for the audience to interpret which woman “this woman” was supposed to mean, then followed up saying she was leaning pro Larson. But in her thread it was clear she was being funny by letting the reader decide which woman “this woman” was supposed to mean.

Curious about 2 things. 1) have any of the chunky monkey (gad that name) writers come across as decent in the group texts? Any of them distance themselves or express regret at piling on?

Next - has anybody who knows them in real life spoken up about anything? I guess Dawn Dorland corrected the Gawker article, has she written anything else?

I think I need to stop thinking about this story. I don’t know why it’s bothering me so much or why I kept looking at it but after tonight I’m gonna do what SL should have done when she realized reading DD Facebook page was making her feel bad, and realize this isn’t great to keep reading if it makes me so mad / sad / etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Wow wow wow.

Maybe she shouldn't be quoting Helen Rosner, who tweeted about Dawn Dorland "This woman is a monster."

FFS, this literary incestuousness is revolting.

Rosner, who I normally like, was how I first heard about this story and was introduced to it. I went into the NYT mag piece assuming I'd agree with her because her take was so definitive and aggressively anti-Dorland.

So I was honestly confused when I read it because I just couldn't agree? I mean, it's a complicated story so I was not surprised that people might differ in their interpretation. But Rosner and others were arguing that Dorland was a racist sociopath. That's a weird reaction and I think has to be influenced by Ng's involvement in the story. Writers are a clubby bunch and Ng has a lot of cache. I like her writing (I'm not going to pretend I don't) but I hope her standing in the lit world ultimately takes a hit after this because it should. What she's doing isn't helping Larson. It's making them both look worse.

Some of these folks have been very cruel in the past. Example posted prior where a several of these same authors basically tweeted hate at a college student who criticized a YA author in like a community newspaper. Resulted in the girls being harassed and stalked and threatened. Crazy. Wonder who that student thinks is the bad art friend?

https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/famous-authors-drag-student-in-ya-twitter-controversy.html

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Wow wow wow.

Maybe she shouldn't be quoting Helen Rosner, who tweeted about Dawn Dorland "This woman is a monster."

FFS, this literary incestuousness is revolting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. It’s not good, and I think Waldman’s review was terribly indulgent towards Larson.

Agreed. It's clear that she went really easy on Larson and in her depiction of the whole saga, perhaps because she runs in those same literary circles that have mobilized to protect Larson and shun Dorland (she even mentions Helen Rosner in the piece).

I'd love to see a high-profile writer in a high-profile publication do an even-handed takedown of the whole situation, siding with Dawn.

Yup. And went out of her way to read another story by Larson to praise it.

That said, Walkman’s critique is damning because her whole point is that the story offers due to Larson’s lack of empathy and interest in the donor character based on Dorland. And this is something that some of the emails among the writing group about the story hint at too— that the story doesn’t stand on its own because it leans on a shared understanding that Dawn sucks. It’s written for a small audience of like minded friends. If you don’t know Dorland, you are left wondering why both Larson and her protagonist have do little interest in this woman who made a fascinating choice. That’s just bad writing.

Anonymous wrote:I read the story. It’s not good, and I think Waldman’s review was terribly indulgent towards Larson.

Agreed. It's clear that she went really easy on Larson and in her depiction of the whole saga, perhaps because she runs in those same literary circles that have mobilized to protect Larson and shun Dorland (she even mentions Helen Rosner in the piece).

I'd love to see a high-profile writer in a high-profile publication do an even-handed takedown of the whole situation, siding with Dawn.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Yea I read the story and was disappointed.

I read the story. It’s not good, and I think Waldman’s review was terribly indulgent towards Larson.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-story-at-the-center-of-the-bad-art-friend-saga

This is probably not how Sonya hoped to appear in the New Yorker.

Anonymous wrote:Here is an email from Dawn to Sonya, and at the end she says anyone who has been medically-cleared deserves a kidney and then she cites a New Yorker piece that the Twitterverse is saying Sonya also ripped off for the title. She even gives her an out: ""I was giving you space to not endorse my choice if you didn't want to (I did get some strange reactions)." Dawn may have been needy, but look at how she ends the email: "Thanks again for the correspondence, Sonya. Let me know if you'd like to talk on the phone. Otherwise, I wish you well in your work." Why so much hate?

https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1446292364956471296/photo/1

Dawn was extremely decent as far as I can tell. Ffs, she's a hero.