Wow - I flipped to the end of the video but I could see having an interesting convo with her. She was very self-aware and thoughtful about place, belonging, race/class.

She was also wearing a big hat, so I wonder if this appearance is what Celeste Ng was mocking. It was in one of the texts.

I'm going to be so bummed when the long weekend is over and I don't have time to obsess about this anymore.

I’m overly invested too, PP. I really enjoyed the parts of the video I skimmed through, and I love that artist communities like Surel’s place exist. She did seem more socially savvy than I was expecting from the stories, and definitely comes across as warm and friendly. Kind of funny to me that she was dragged for being a narcissist as most writers I’ve met fall at least somewhat in that camp and all the “Chunky Monkey” (shudder) group clearly do.

This is an excerpt of a longer comment but I think it's worth reading
"Larson also signed more than one contract where she knew she was lying. She KNEW that someone else did have a copyright claim in her piece (as evidenced by the e-mails where she admits clearly to lifting Dorland's letter that occurred chronologically before signing contracts claiming she had not -- this is true of both early and later contracts); and she KNEW (for some of the later contracts) that there was a legal dispute over copyright (sometimes after she filed her lawsuit!), and signed contracts saying there was not. These are not legally legitimate contracts, because she lied during their formation, and induced the opposite party to rely on assurances that she knew were not true. Honestly virtually every place that published her piece, or considered publishing it, has a cause of action against her for breach of contract. Some of them have a further cause of action against her for exposing them to liability through her knowingly false assurances; some of them have in the contracts that they can recover considerable costs from her. She is lucky that, so far, she has not been sued by publishers.

This is not a minor breach. This is a major breach, that invalidates every contract Larson signed relating to this story. She knowingly defrauded every publisher that published or wanted to publish this story. And even after she knew that Dorland was contesting her copyright, even after she knew that her group chats and texts had been entered as evidence in a lawsuit THAT SHE FILED, she continued to lie about those facts and about the timeline."

From https://www.metafilter.com/192846/Do-writers-not-care-about-my-kidney-donation#8158275
(Also this was interesting to me because I recognize the poster from many years ago as a frequent commenter on Consumerist, so I know she's a real lawyer)

I'm ashamed that I'm here yet again, invested as I as the day before.

I found this video with Dawn Dorland that I found so insightful. She does a reading of the book she's working on (I sort of skimmed that part), but there's an interview at the end, particularly from 50:54 to the end that I found really interesting, where she talks about being an outcast growing up. Actually hearing her voice, I'm further of the belief that her NYT characterization does a huge disservice to her. Yes, I can see and hear why people might think she's overly earnest, overly sunny, but nothing to write home about? I honestly would be like, "Oh, what a really sincere person. Maybe a bit intense, but nice." And then honestly, just move on. Seriously. I meet people who are plenty more annoying or more obnoxious on the daily. Of course, this is just a tiny tidbit, but she comes off more socially capable and emotionally intelligent than I would have initially guessed.

Yeah, the story is bad. All that nastiness and cruelty for the pablum that was the Kindest? Ridiculous.

I've been fascinated by this case and discovered many interesting tidbits by reading this thread. It's nice to find an old-school forum like there used to be "back in the day."

I can relate to Dawn in her earnestness. I know that my life is marked by privilege in many ways, and I try not to rub it in people's faces, but I assume that the few good friends I have are happy for me and not stewing in jealousy or resentment. No one is forcing you to be my friend, after all.

I have a friend/acquaintance that I suspect is very much like Dawn. We run a chapter doing activism together, and I can't put my finger on why we have never become closer friends. We are literally the two people doing the most for our chosen cause in our community and yet . . . we are just out of sync. I have friends who have disparaged her. One said, "She's so cute that I think she gets away with a lot." OK, but still so very vague, right? I think there's just something about her earnestness, even for me, a self-identified earnest person, that grates. But this is not a fatal flaw, and when I complain about her, it's only about how she always forgets to include me on communications and then is befuddled when I don't know what is going on. I tell people, "She's a wonderful person; we just don't mesh for some reason."

What strikes me about this case is how many people seem to think that lying and plagiarizing is OK if you don't like the person. If I have a friend complaining that they can't meet any decent people, I point out that you get to choose the kind of people you let into your life. There are so many good people out there . . . just think about where they are going to be found. They'll be donating their time, spreading awareness, building community, working on self-actualization.

But if you none of your friends do that stuff, then I suppose you think it's normal just to sh*t talk people for trying to make the world better and to lie when the heat is on you. Still, I don't get why people would look at Sonya's web of lies and think, but she was triggered by this annoying lady! So that makes it OK to keep digging and digging and digging? I agree with the assessment that perhaps Celeste Ng, with her cachet, made Sonya feel emboldened. I felt there was something sniveling about the way Sonya kept pretending in her texts to feel bad just so that her friends would say, "No! She deserves it! F*** DFD!"

As a woman, I do want to be careful that I'm not holding women to a higher standard than men. A lot of artists live unconventional lives, right? It kind of goes with the territory. Were people in the 50s saying, "But is Hemingway NICE?" That said, I've read one and a half of Ng's books. Didn't love the first and couldn't finish the second. So I'm not going to be running out to buy whatever comes out next. Same with Larson; I read The Kindest linked here and, indeed, the prose is bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High-profile writers savaging a less-successful and vulnerable writer reminded me of the Isabel Fall tragedy:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter

I'm never going to buy another book by Celeste Ng or Roxane Gay (or NK Jemisin for that matter). Or anything from Chip Cheek, not that he is anywhere near them as far as success (I'd never heard of him).

Going with that there was this case too:

https://quillette.com/2018/08/18/the-forgotten-story-of-how-punching-up-harmed-the-science-fiction-fantasy-world/

I don't think they're the same--Isabel Fall did nothing wrong--but there is the question: is there a point where the literary community right be right to silence a voice? Or a point where bad behavior should have consequences? Dorland isn't even in the same league as an "annoying person."

Having read everything and particularly the timelines involved, I don't think Dorland did anything wrong either. She wasn't the thirsty person the NYT made her out to be. She was being gaslit, and reacted like a normal person being gaslit would.

Essentially these are stories of a powerful small group destroying vulnerable people, and it is nauseating.

Anonymous wrote:High-profile writers savaging a less-successful and vulnerable writer reminded me of the Isabel Fall tragedy:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter

I'm never going to buy another book by Celeste Ng or Roxane Gay (or NK Jemisin for that matter). Or anything from Chip Cheek, not that he is anywhere near them as far as success (I'd never heard of him).

Going with that there was this case too:

https://quillette.com/2018/08/18/the-forgotten-story-of-how-punching-up-harmed-the-science-fiction-fantasy-world/

I don't think they're the same--Isabel Fall did nothing wrong--but there is the question: is there a point where the literary community right be right to silence a voice? Or a point where bad behavior should have consequences? Dorland isn't even in the same league as an "annoying person."

The best thing out of all of this for me is that I have discovered Joshua Luna. His work is powerful. Wish I had known about him earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Joshua Luna's twitter thread is tl;dr.

Has anyone read any of Dorland's stories? I might look up later to see if any are available online for free. I did read Larson's "Kindness," not impressed. In the catty group texts, I think someone wrote that Larson was an "infinitely more talented writer" than Dorland, and I'm wondering how much of that was blowing up Larson's a$$ and whether Dorland actually has talent. Like, if Larson is so much better, than why did the comparison even need to be made?

Anonymous wrote: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

As someone who I think might have a personality similar to Dorland's in some ways, I think there is something to this.

I think when someone like Dorland is direct to people like this, it feels like being called out. It's not, she's just trying to get a straight answer, to have some control over her own life and social circle. This has happened to me as well. I have said to people things like "It's okay if you don't like me -- sometimes people don't like each other. But let's just be honest with each other to save each other time and energy." I see now that this is enraging to people who gain a lot of their power by being dishonest to people like me and then making fun of me in private to gain currency with people with more social status. That's the whole game. They are in it for the likes and followers, so they don't want to be honest with me because then I wouldn't stay in their audience. But they also won't be loyal to me because that would cost them an opportunity to show how clever and interesting they are.

So in a way it is a call out, because my directness highlights how two-faced and... not direct these other people are being. And the whole point of the game is to never, ever point this out. It's to pretend someone like Ng is "such an amazing person" because she's nice to you, personally, even though of course you know she's a catty, gossipy b because, ahem, you have met her. But you're never actually supposed to say that!

Anonymous wrote:

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).

The OpEd post feels old, like it was written before more analysis came to light. I agree it's not well done.

High-profile writers savaging a less-successful and vulnerable writer reminded me of the Isabel Fall tragedy:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/22543858/isabel-fall-attack-helicopter

I'm never going to buy another book by Celeste Ng or Roxane Gay (or NK Jemisin for that matter). Or anything from Chip Cheek, not that he is anywhere near them as far as success (I'd never heard of him).