Anonymous wrote:Anyone see the op-ed piece in the Post today?

It was supposedly about the evils of FB but was another hit job on Dawn, mistakingly reporting that when the story became a "breakout hit" (cough cough) "Dorland, hurt, sues."

This is in the WaPo. Didn't bother to do the reporting, copy desk didn't bother checking. Another hit to Dawn's character.

I am a former newspaper reporter. I've been chastised and busted for saying Elm St. instead of Elm Ave. and this sh*t gets thru???

I read it and was disappointed. I generally like Christine Emba and felt like she started out with a more nuanced take, but unfortunately she based her opinion on her initial read of the Times Magazine story which means that she, like many of us, misunderstood some key facts that make Dawn look worse than she is and Sonya look better.

Newspapers, even very high profile ones, really seems to let fact checking slide in op-eds because it's not "reporting" per se. It's frustrating because in the digital age where stories go viral, op-eds are often all anyone reads about an issue. They should really hold them to higher journalistic standards. But then, they also should have been more responsible in the reporting of the story originally in the Times Mag. So many of the bad takes out there hinge on people having read this incredibly long story and assuming they have a good understanding of the situation, which is totally on the author and the Times -- they had the space to tell the story more accurately, but they wanted to tell it in the most click-bait-y way possible. Plus I think they were dancing around Celest Ng's involvement and just to "both sides" it specifically because they didn't want to pick a fight with her (note: she shouldn't even be in the argument! she doesn't even know Dawn, by her own admission! the court discovery demonstrates that she's unbelievably and weirdly biased about it! but anyway).

So in this Jezebel article mentioned by pp, Emily Flamm can be friends with women with whom she's in competition for jobs, mentorships, attention. and men, and even describes one to rising to Cold War proportions before resolving, but she just doesn't like Dorland? And, just like Larson she wrote a story about Dorland! She says women just can't be direct, yet if you read Dorland's FB texts, she was direct in every single one. What are women doing to each other? I'm beginning to wonder if there's a self-loathing coming up because it appears that Dorland continued to be nice even when women despised her. She must embody something missing for these women, and rather than engage some self-exploration they went on the attack, Flamm piling on, sure to align herself with the writers.

So sad, indeed.

https://jezebel.com/for-the-love-of-bad-art-friends-1847828213

Anyone see the op-ed piece in the Post today?

It was supposedly about the evils of FB but was another hit job on Dawn, mistakingly reporting that when the story became a "breakout hit" (cough cough) "Dorland, hurt, sues."

This is in the WaPo. Didn't bother to do the reporting, copy desk didn't bother checking. Another hit to Dawn's character.

I am a former newspaper reporter. I've been chastised and busted for saying Elm St. instead of Elm Ave. and this sh*t gets thru???

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.

Michael Hobbes isn’t quite as high-profile and this was published on his personal site - not Bloomberg, where he works - but it’s by far the most fair, thorough, and relatively concise take I’ve seen out there. He actually goes through the primary sources, for a start.

https://rottenindenmark.org/2021/10/10/identifying-the-bad-art-friend-is-easy/

Anonymous wrote: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.

I haven't seen a single shred of decency among the Chunky Monkey writers. Not one expressing remorse, not one acting like a normal empathetic decent person in the emails or texts that have come out. My theory is that Celeste Ng was the epicenter of the group, and she set the tone - and everyone else there was just trying to match her behavior and writing style in order to stay in her favor and remain part of the in group. I think she's actually the biggest monster in this whole episode. You can see multiple instances where Sonya - who is clearly not a nice person, or a very prolific writer - is asking Ng, are you sure this is ok? Shouldn't I change the wording more, or something to make it less recognizable? And Ng keeps urging her on.

Imagine if just one of the people in that group had said: Hey, for a bunch of reasons you should change the wording of the letter. We know you really like this particular wording but I bet if we brainstorm we can get you something even better.

You know all these well-established writers are going to claim they are being harassed by Dorland-supporters on Twitter just because people are arguing with them about this situation, right? They are going to claim that they are being attacked (even though all most people are doing is simply politely disagreeing and sometimes posting receipts that directly contradict many of their conclusions that Dawn is a stalker or that Larson is somehow innocent in this). They will lock down their accounts for short periods of time and then come back and say "See, this is what I have to put up with as a woman on Twitter/WOC on Twitter."

It's cool to reach a point where any criticism of you or disagreement with your opinions can be painted as sexist/racist harassment even when it comes from women and POC who are simply disagreeing with you. Perfect! Now you never have to accept any criticism or be held accountable for being dangerously wrong at times! Sweet gig.

Anonymous wrote:God, Celeste Ng might very well be a terrible human being.

Tangential, but this whole thread is worth the read. Especially in light of the intentional weaponization of race in this entire situation.

I don't know, reading Joshua Luna's twitter thread, it seems like he's using the issues around the kidney story to bolster his own unrelated beef with Ng. Clearly, the fb posts are gossipy and even meanspirited. I would be horrified to have this type of comments by or about me out in public, but being a jerk is not a crime. I only know about the case, because the NYtimes saw fit to publish it in the magazine and I don't think that was a good choice. This is just more of the petty cr*p we distract ourselves with in the social media age.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Emily Hughes’ Twitter is also now locked. How bout that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Celeste Ng is terrible.

How does she have so much vitriol for someone she claims to have only met once. I think there's a possibility she's more messed up in Larson.

*than not in

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Celeste Ng is terrible.

How does she have so much vitriol for someone she claims to have only met once. I think there's a possibility she's more messed up in Larson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/rafiazakaria/status/1446942572677672960?s=20

Apparently this write Rafia Zakaria has completely new "evidence" (or tea) that involves both parties...

Ooh thanks for this (hint of) tea. She’s posting it only if people pay to subscribe later tonight and suggests it paints SL in a negative light. We’ll see!

Anyone subscribe and see what Zakaria has to say? Weird that she is charging. She could probably go viral and get advertising for her books if she made it free and the story is as juicy as she says.

Anonymous wrote:Wow. Celeste Ng is terrible.

I regret buying a book written by her from a Walmart best seller shelf on the way to boarding a plane. It was an enjoyable read for the plane but nothing earth shattering. It’s on my bookshelf now and I’m considering tossing it although I hate to toss anything.

Wow. Celeste Ng is terrible.

God, Celeste Ng might very well be a terrible human being.

Tangential, but this whole thread is worth the read. Especially in light of the intentional weaponization of race in this entire situation.

Roxane’s tweets on this are very disappointing, agreed.