Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Celeste Ng seems to be straight up lying.

What??! This can't be right. According to her Twitter bio, she is "embarrassingly sincere." Struggling to reconcile.

Self described. No she’s … just using trends to get ahead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite Ng commercial success I take issue with here writing her themes her characters and her poor me attitude. Now the real person is revealed.

Is Ng's book like the Reese Witherspoon show? That show was so ham handed and stupid. Every single person was an over the top caricature, obvious, one dimensional and so dumb. Couldn't stand it. It watched like a cheesy soap opera.

I read LFE before it got a TV deal and felt like her prose was a cut above "grabbed it at the airport kiosk" but the plotting was very heavy-handed and predictable. I'm not surprised it got a TV deal because of the themes and soapiness, but I am surprised to learn this week that she's considered Literary Fiction and not just . . . fiction.

It must be because she has an MFA. I find her writing prosaic and clunky, at least in the excerpts I've skimmed. Not a reader of hers.

I guess I will be the dissenter. I read LFE well before it got the TV deal and really loved it. In part I think I loved it because while closer to commercial fiction in tone, it brought in a host of complicated and sometimes unlikeable female characters and gave them lots of room to be themselves. That is so, so rare in mainstream fiction. It's becoming more normal, thankfully, but I would credit LFE a bit with showing that there is a huge audience for that kind of thing and that protagonists don't always have to be charming or weak or in love. I also feel that Ng made a lot with her familiarity with both Shaker Heights, and put her intimate knowledge of that place and time to good use, especially in exploring the intersection of class and race. It's not a perfect book but I did feel it was a good one and different from much of what was out there at the time. I tried watching the TV show but agree with all the criticism above -- it just didn't capture the nuance from the book for me. I actually think the book was not as ripe for a soapy TV adaptation as, say, Big Little Lies.

A thought that has come to me now after all of this, though, is that it is interesting HOW Ng writes about class and race in Shaker Heights. Notable to me is that she chooses to place all the white characters on one side of the SES divide (rich) and all the POC on the other side. I think it works in the book specifically because there are these other themes (largely around art, ownership, and motherhood) that connect characters and create sympathies in interesting ways. But it does not reflect Ng's own background. She grew up middle to UMC in Shaker Heights as a WOC. She was the child of immigrants, but they were scientists and academics. Very unlike the AAPI immigrants in LFE, who as I recall work in a restaurant and live in poverty or close to it. Her other major novel does explore a family more similar to the one she grew up in, but it's interesting that the book that made her famous portrays all the POC as much more marginalized than what Ng has actually experienced in her life.

To be clear, I am not saying Ng has not experienced racism -- I am certain he and her parents experienced plenty of it, in many forms. Being an educated immigrant, especially if a POC, can be an easier road but it is by no means free of oppression. And I'm sure the same is true of Larsen. However, having now also read Larsen's story, something that jumps out at me that both of these women grew up as middle class, fairly assimilated POC, but both choose to write about characters who are much more othered. Ng made the POC characters in LFE extreme outsiders to the white, UMC culture of Shaker Heights. Larsen writes about a Chinese-American woman with a Chinese name and husband, while Larsen is herself mixed race and could be white passing.

Again, not trying to say these women don't have something valuable and important to say about being POC in a country that has always been and is still white supremacist. In some ways I wonder if they are writing about more marginalized, less assimilated POC characters because they know that is what many white readers expect to see, and that their own more nuanced experiences may be too complex for a predominantly white audience to understand. But after seeing these women also accuse Dorland of being a white savior and using white womens tears to oppress a WOC, I also wonder if they have a hard time reconciling with their privilege alongside their oppression. Because there is privilege in both of their backgrounds, a lot of it.

Just thinking out loud here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest to God, I'd like to pursue writing, but I just CANNOT STAND writer Twitter. And it seems like you have to have a Twitter following to get published. Have some other folks decided not to take certain career paths because of social media nonsense?

Agreed. This has been a barrier to my development and confidence as a writer, tbh. I've mostly kept away from social media for my mental health. Privacy is incredibly important to me as a survivor of violence. But my lack of social capital via a notable twitter/ig presence, or the desire to achieve one, has discouraged me from submitting my work and connecting with other writers out of fear of rejection. I'm still trying to forge my own little path but I do worry that there is no space left in this field for people who aren't Extremely Online.

This is how i feel too -- that success would require embracing Extremely Online stuff, which i just can't ever do.

I’m very sorry for this, PPs. As a visual artist I feel similarly. The cream is not rising to the top, just the IG detritus.

This is so, so true

Unfortunately this is how it is for anyone in any creative field now. If you want to be a model, writer, singer, actor, artist etc. nobody will look at your or your work without already having a social media following. If you go to audition for something or submit work you are expected to put you social media handles and number of followers on the resume you submit. There is no room for discovery or introductions anymore because there is too much media and everyone is trying to grab your attention plus the fact that at least in the entertainment world profits have plummeted and there is only room for safe guaranteed hits.

Can you all please stop circulating this myth, at least as it pertains to fiction writers? It just does harm to people who want to write, who are mostly introverted. You need zero social media presence to be a novelist. ZERO.

I had none when I signed my two-book deal. My publisher asked if I would be willing to create any accounts to help promote them first book and I said yes. I have a minimal presence now, I check my IG and FB once a week.

I could list many, many novelists who have little or minimal social media presence. And you certainly won't need it to get published.

I actually know someone from a major publishing house who quit over this policy and became an independent editor. While you may get published it will probably be by a smaller or independent publishing house. Self publishing has also become popular.

I am not the writer you're responding to - but you are responding to a writer who (is saying she) has a two book deal. That means with a traditional publishing house. She's telling you that you don't NEED a social media presence to get published by a traditional publisher.

And self publishing really only works if you either have a giant enough platform on your own that you don't NEED a traditional publisher or else if you don't care if anyone but your mom buys your book. In either case, that's not really an answer to the question of "how do I navigate publishing if I hate twitter."

Independent and small presses are awesome, by the way. And even with them they prefer you to be able to help market your books through your platform. Everyone wants that. It's just that you don't NEED it to be a writer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest to God, I'd like to pursue writing, but I just CANNOT STAND writer Twitter. And it seems like you have to have a Twitter following to get published. Have some other folks decided not to take certain career paths because of social media nonsense?

Agreed. This has been a barrier to my development and confidence as a writer, tbh. I've mostly kept away from social media for my mental health. Privacy is incredibly important to me as a survivor of violence. But my lack of social capital via a notable twitter/ig presence, or the desire to achieve one, has discouraged me from submitting my work and connecting with other writers out of fear of rejection. I'm still trying to forge my own little path but I do worry that there is no space left in this field for people who aren't Extremely Online.

This is how i feel too -- that success would require embracing Extremely Online stuff, which i just can't ever do.

I’m very sorry for this, PPs. As a visual artist I feel similarly. The cream is not rising to the top, just the IG detritus.

This is so, so true

Unfortunately this is how it is for anyone in any creative field now. If you want to be a model, writer, singer, actor, artist etc. nobody will look at your or your work without already having a social media following. If you go to audition for something or submit work you are expected to put you social media handles and number of followers on the resume you submit. There is no room for discovery or introductions anymore because there is too much media and everyone is trying to grab your attention plus the fact that at least in the entertainment world profits have plummeted and there is only room for safe guaranteed hits.

Can you all please stop circulating this myth, at least as it pertains to fiction writers? It just does harm to people who want to write, who are mostly introverted. You need zero social media presence to be a novelist. ZERO.

I had none when I signed my two-book deal. My publisher asked if I would be willing to create any accounts to help promote them first book and I said yes. I have a minimal presence now, I check my IG and FB once a week.

I could list many, many novelists who have little or minimal social media presence. And you certainly won't need it to get published.

I actually know someone from a major publishing house who quit over this policy and became an independent editor. While you may get published it will probably be by a smaller or independent publishing house. Self publishing has also become popular.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things they fault Dawn for was doing an altruistic act for selfish motives (self-aggrandizement, cringey FB posts, tone-deafness). Look at Celeste now. Burying her feed in good deeds for Afghan refugees and lying that she never even knew Dawn.

I'm the neurodivergent PP and this is exactly what I mean about unspoken rules. Celeste Ng's feed right now is full of good deeds for Afghan refugees which is okay? Not too extra? Within acceptable social rules? But Dawn Dorland donated a kidney and talked about it as instructed by kidney donation places and that violates those same rules? It's confusing and honestly I can't figure it out.

I am the PP writer who was encouraging you to write (this is one time I wish we did have recognizable usernames!). I think what you're experiencing here - the confusion, the stress, being unsure how to behave, being unsure what will make these mean girls turn on you - is exactly what so many people experience when dealing with cruel people like this - which is why they mimic the cruel people,

because they think it shields them from the cruelty. it's not just you. we all feel it when we are not the queen b who is taking control of the social scene and deciding who is in and who is out - how do you either get to sit at the cool kids table and be invited to the parties, or how do you remain invisible off to the side so that they won't decide that it's your turn to be beaten to a pulp.

and i should not even say "they" - i think it's "we." i think it is a completely normal reaction to this abnormal but common social dynamic, to try to protect yourself.

that said these are gd effing adults and i am astonished that among them there wasn't a single person who stood up for dawn in this group. usually there is someone willing to be the voice of conscience. at least i would hope.

PP here. Yes, I think you are right. There is a cognitive dissonance here for a lot of people. Thank you for writing this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

God, is this saga going to be never-ending?

But this entire thread is excellent.

That was excellent, and should be an essay in its own right. I'd like to see the NYT to publish it as a letter to the editor.

It was really excellent but I wish it was getting more traction from Twitter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest to God, I'd like to pursue writing, but I just CANNOT STAND writer Twitter. And it seems like you have to have a Twitter following to get published. Have some other folks decided not to take certain career paths because of social media nonsense?

Agreed. This has been a barrier to my development and confidence as a writer, tbh. I've mostly kept away from social media for my mental health. Privacy is incredibly important to me as a survivor of violence. But my lack of social capital via a notable twitter/ig presence, or the desire to achieve one, has discouraged me from submitting my work and connecting with other writers out of fear of rejection. I'm still trying to forge my own little path but I do worry that there is no space left in this field for people who aren't Extremely Online.

This is how i feel too -- that success would require embracing Extremely Online stuff, which i just can't ever do.

I’m very sorry for this, PPs. As a visual artist I feel similarly. The cream is not rising to the top, just the IG detritus.

This is so, so true

Unfortunately this is how it is for anyone in any creative field now. If you want to be a model, writer, singer, actor, artist etc. nobody will look at your or your work without already having a social media following. If you go to audition for something or submit work you are expected to put you social media handles and number of followers on the resume you submit. There is no room for discovery or introductions anymore because there is too much media and everyone is trying to grab your attention plus the fact that at least in the entertainment world profits have plummeted and there is only room for safe guaranteed hits.

Can you all please stop circulating this myth, at least as it pertains to fiction writers? It just does harm to people who want to write, who are mostly introverted. You need zero social media presence to be a novelist. ZERO.

I had none when I signed my two-book deal. My publisher asked if I would be willing to create any accounts to help promote them first book and I said yes. I have a minimal presence now, I check my IG and FB once a week.

I could list many, many novelists who have little or minimal social media presence. And you certainly won't need it to get published.

Anonymous wrote:

God, is this saga going to be never-ending?

But this entire thread is excellent.

That was excellent, and should be an essay in its own right. I'd like to see the NYT to publish it as a letter to the editor.

I am really appreciating the thoughtful posts from the published authors on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things they fault Dawn for was doing an altruistic act for selfish motives (self-aggrandizement, cringey FB posts, tone-deafness). Look at Celeste now. Burying her feed in good deeds for Afghan refugees and lying that she never even knew Dawn.

I'm the neurodivergent PP and this is exactly what I mean about unspoken rules. Celeste Ng's feed right now is full of good deeds for Afghan refugees which is okay? Not too extra? Within acceptable social rules? But Dawn Dorland donated a kidney and talked about it as instructed by kidney donation places and that violates those same rules? It's confusing and honestly I can't figure it out.

I am the PP writer who was encouraging you to write (this is one time I wish we did have recognizable usernames!). I think what you're experiencing here - the confusion, the stress, being unsure how to behave, being unsure what will make these mean girls turn on you - is exactly what so many people experience when dealing with cruel people like this - which is why they mimic the cruel people,

because they think it shields them from the cruelty. it's not just you. we all feel it when we are not the queen b who is taking control of the social scene and deciding who is in and who is out - how do you either get to sit at the cool kids table and be invited to the parties, or how do you remain invisible off to the side so that they won't decide that it's your turn to be beaten to a pulp.

and i should not even say "they" - i think it's "we." i think it is a completely normal reaction to this abnormal but common social dynamic, to try to protect yourself.

that said these are gd effing adults and i am astonished that among them there wasn't a single person who stood up for dawn in this group. usually there is someone willing to be the voice of conscience. at least i would hope.

Just because they’re adults doesn’t mean they graduated from middle school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest to God, I'd like to pursue writing, but I just CANNOT STAND writer Twitter. And it seems like you have to have a Twitter following to get published. Have some other folks decided not to take certain career paths because of social media nonsense?

Agreed. This has been a barrier to my development and confidence as a writer, tbh. I've mostly kept away from social media for my mental health. Privacy is incredibly important to me as a survivor of violence. But my lack of social capital via a notable twitter/ig presence, or the desire to achieve one, has discouraged me from submitting my work and connecting with other writers out of fear of rejection. I'm still trying to forge my own little path but I do worry that there is no space left in this field for people who aren't Extremely Online.

This is how i feel too -- that success would require embracing Extremely Online stuff, which i just can't ever do.

I’m very sorry for this, PPs. As a visual artist I feel similarly. The cream is not rising to the top, just the IG detritus.

This is so, so true

Unfortunately this is how it is for anyone in any creative field now. If you want to be a model, writer, singer, actor, artist etc. nobody will look at your or your work without already having a social media following. If you go to audition for something or submit work you are expected to put you social media handles and number of followers on the resume you submit. There is no room for discovery or introductions anymore because there is too much media and everyone is trying to grab your attention plus the fact that at least in the entertainment world profits have plummeted and there is only room for safe guaranteed hits.

I don't think that's quite true. At least not in writing. It helps to have a twitter following - it helps to have any kind of platform. But that is not the only way to get published. As a writer you will almost certainly have to play a big role in marketing your own work - but getting published won't hinge on already being famous. It's just that already-famous people (on twitter, youtube, or whatever) have an easier time getting published.

There are all kinds of reasons not to want to be a writer. Trust me I wish I didn't want to be one. It's time consuming and an excellent way to get kicked in the face a lot (while saying "what delicious dirt!"). But don't use this as your reason not to try. If you want to write, write. Work on the craft part. Try to build a healthy, supportive, helpful group of writer friends who can lean on each other for support and guidance. Don't use this as the devil on your shoulder telling you that there's no point.

Most people are not going to enjoy riches and massive literary success from their writing - gd bless the few writers on this thread who seem to be doing really well, I would love them to start AMAs! - and you probably won't either. So just write because you have a story to tell. Write because you have these characters telling you bits of dialogue that you want to write down, and a puzzle you want to crack through fiction, and a setting you want to go spend a couple of years getting to know really well by living in it in your head. Don't worry about Celeste Ng. She's off doing her thing. You go do yours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Celeste Ng seems to be straight up lying.

What??! This can't be right. According to her Twitter bio, she is "embarrassingly sincere." Struggling to reconcile.

That's just a way of saying, "I'm mean."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite Ng commercial success I take issue with here writing her themes her characters and her poor me attitude. Now the real person is revealed.

Is Ng's book like the Reese Witherspoon show? That show was so ham handed and stupid. Every single person was an over the top caricature, obvious, one dimensional and so dumb. Couldn't stand it. It watched like a cheesy soap opera.

I read LFE before it got a TV deal and felt like her prose was a cut above "grabbed it at the airport kiosk" but the plotting was very heavy-handed and predictable. I'm not surprised it got a TV deal because of the themes and soapiness, but I am surprised to learn this week that she's considered Literary Fiction and not just . . . fiction.

It must be because she has an MFA. I find her writing prosaic and clunky, at least in the excerpts I've skimmed. Not a reader of hers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things they fault Dawn for was doing an altruistic act for selfish motives (self-aggrandizement, cringey FB posts, tone-deafness). Look at Celeste now. Burying her feed in good deeds for Afghan refugees and lying that she never even knew Dawn.

I'm the neurodivergent PP and this is exactly what I mean about unspoken rules. Celeste Ng's feed right now is full of good deeds for Afghan refugees which is okay? Not too extra? Within acceptable social rules? But Dawn Dorland donated a kidney and talked about it as instructed by kidney donation places and that violates those same rules? It's confusing and honestly I can't figure it out.

I am the PP writer who was encouraging you to write (this is one time I wish we did have recognizable usernames!). I think what you're experiencing here - the confusion, the stress, being unsure how to behave, being unsure what will make these mean girls turn on you - is exactly what so many people experience when dealing with cruel people like this - which is why they mimic the cruel people,

because they think it shields them from the cruelty. it's not just you. we all feel it when we are not the queen b who is taking control of the social scene and deciding who is in and who is out - how do you either get to sit at the cool kids table and be invited to the parties, or how do you remain invisible off to the side so that they won't decide that it's your turn to be beaten to a pulp.

and i should not even say "they" - i think it's "we." i think it is a completely normal reaction to this abnormal but common social dynamic, to try to protect yourself.

that said these are gd effing adults and i am astonished that among them there wasn't a single person who stood up for dawn in this group. usually there is someone willing to be the voice of conscience. at least i would hope.

shan1212 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my question of the day. If you're one of the Chunky Monkeys, how are you feeling about Sonya Larson right about now?

If I was a member I would feel betrayed. For most of these members they were relying on Sonya being truthful, and she was not. Now they're "being dragged" and will have to answer questions about this debacle at every cocktail party they go to for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, I think they are thinking, WTF Sonya, we treated DD like this because we took your word for it that she's a creepy stalker who's obsessed with destroying your career. I mean, if a creepy, obsessed stalker really was trying to ruin my friend's life, I would say F*ck her! too.

At first I was somewhat underwhelmed by Becky Tuch's apology, but with her clarifications today, and the fact that she's STILL the only person to apologize publicly, I am changing my mind. Because while she doesn't outright say it, the implication is that Sonya lied to everyone and that's why they acted the way they did.

I think Tuch's apology is now appropriately complete and humble. If only some of the others could find their way. Not sure I would buy it from "embarrassingly sincere" Ng at this point but it would be a nice break from her recent full court press of virtue signaling to try to change the subject.