"Do writers not care about my kidney donation?"
October 5, 2021 9:56 AM Subscribe
Dawn Dorland donated her kidney, but her story, she feels, was stolen. In the New York Times Magazine, Robert Kolker details a years-long grudge, and ensuing legal battle, between writers Dawn Dorland and Sonya Larson. Dorland gave a kidney in a non-directed donation (i.e. to a stranger), in what she saw as an act of righteous and praiseworthy moral clarity. Larson then wrote and published a story in which a character donates a kidney in an act of... well. The portrayal was not a flattering one—and, to Dorland's mind, it got worse.
The question of how much inspiration writers can legitimately draw from real life has been a hot topic this year (previously). This story revisits those issues and adds light plagiarism, group text shit-talking, frankly unhinged social media behavior, notes of white saviorism and entitlement, the question of whether writing is an activity or a community, and a useful cautionary tale about indemnification clauses. It's interesting to note what Kolker praises about Larson's work: "Even as she allows readers to be one step ahead of her characters, to see how they’re going astray, her writing luxuriates in the seductive power that comes from living an unmoored life."
According to writer Celeste Ng (who is briefly involved here), Dorland pitched the story to the Times herself. One wonders if she got what she was after.
The question of how much inspiration writers can legitimately draw from real life has been a hot topic this year (previously). This story revisits those issues and adds light plagiarism, group text shit-talking, frankly unhinged social media behavior, notes of white saviorism and entitlement, the question of whether writing is an activity or a community, and a useful cautionary tale about indemnification clauses. It's interesting to note what Kolker praises about Larson's work: "Even as she allows readers to be one step ahead of her characters, to see how they’re going astray, her writing luxuriates in the seductive power that comes from living an unmoored life."
According to writer Celeste Ng (who is briefly involved here), Dorland pitched the story to the Times herself. One wonders if she got what she was after.
I absolutely was sympathetic to Larson until the word for word copying of the letter in the audio version. "My acquaintance donated a kidney and I thought about it and wrote a story that has a kidney donation in it" is not stealing someone's life.
The secret snark group is -- whatever, I'm sorry those came to light, we're allowed to dislike someone and mock them in private to our friends, even though it would hurt them if they knew. But I think Larson did take more than inspiration from someone she was professionally related to, who she knew enough to mock in a friend group of other professional peers. I think using that letter was shitty, she knew it was shitty, and she changed it eventually because she knew it was shitty, but this is still not someone coming at her about nothing at all.
I am, however, somewhat interested in Larson's work now so who knows.
posted by jeather at 10:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
“I never copied the letter. I was interested in these words and phrases because they reminded me of the language used by white-savior figures. And I played with this language in early drafts of my story. Fiction writers do this constantly.”Ok, but then
“I think I’m DONE with the kidney story but I feel nervous about sending it out b/c it literally has sentences that I verbatim grabbed from Dawn’s letter on FB. I’ve tried to change it but I can’t seem to — that letter was just too damn good. I’m not sure what to do … feeling morally compromised/like a good artist but a shitty person.”She did change it, eventually, but after it had been published in some areas (I'm not clear at what point the letter was changed in the short story).
The secret snark group is -- whatever, I'm sorry those came to light, we're allowed to dislike someone and mock them in private to our friends, even though it would hurt them if they knew. But I think Larson did take more than inspiration from someone she was professionally related to, who she knew enough to mock in a friend group of other professional peers. I think using that letter was shitty, she knew it was shitty, and she changed it eventually because she knew it was shitty, but this is still not someone coming at her about nothing at all.
I am, however, somewhat interested in Larson's work now so who knows.
posted by jeather at 10:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
I'm on Dorland's side here.
I think the question of how much inspiration writers can "legitimately" draw from real life interesting and kind of unanswerable - what is legitimate, all art is a copy, etc. etc.
But at the end of the day Larson really demonstrated an utter lack of charity or kindness. She actively mocked someone with really mean in-group vs. out-group dynamics. She had social power and exercised that power against a weaker social outcast.
Larson's self-assessment is right (although I haven't read the story so I'm not sure about the 'good artist' bit):
I’m not sure what to do … feeling morally compromised/like a good artist but a shitty person.
posted by The Ted at 10:40 AM on October 5, 2021 [21 favorites]
I think the question of how much inspiration writers can "legitimately" draw from real life interesting and kind of unanswerable - what is legitimate, all art is a copy, etc. etc.
But at the end of the day Larson really demonstrated an utter lack of charity or kindness. She actively mocked someone with really mean in-group vs. out-group dynamics. She had social power and exercised that power against a weaker social outcast.
Larson's self-assessment is right (although I haven't read the story so I'm not sure about the 'good artist' bit):
I’m not sure what to do … feeling morally compromised/like a good artist but a shitty person.
posted by The Ted at 10:40 AM on October 5, 2021 [21 favorites]
Oh wow. I know some people involved here. I remember reading part of "The Kindest." I was in the Grub Street scene (if not quite this one) when I lived in Boston, although I did not know anything about what happened here. I am, in general, not good at the hot goss and frequently miss out on hearing what's going on around me, but I don't know why it took the damn NYT Magazine to tell me about this.
I need to keep my thoughts to myself, especially since they're complicated right now. But I'll say this: in earning $425 for the story, Larson got more than most short story writers do. And for that, Dorland shook her down till her teeth rattled. However you look at it, it's ugly.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:42 AM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
I need to keep my thoughts to myself, especially since they're complicated right now. But I'll say this: in earning $425 for the story, Larson got more than most short story writers do. And for that, Dorland shook her down till her teeth rattled. However you look at it, it's ugly.
posted by Countess Elena at 10:42 AM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
I absolutely was sympathetic to Larson until the word for word copying of the letter in the audio version.My thoughts exactly. There are no heroes here. Or even reasonable human beings. (I am glad to have read it.)
posted by eotvos at 10:52 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
This tweet from Helen Rosner is kinda where I'm at with this:
"There’s just so so so much going on here but I am still stuck on the early-in-the-piece notion of *noticing a specific person wasn’t interacting with the content in the private Facebook group about you that you added them to* and then *personally emailing them to find out why*"
Was it mean that others were mocking her behind her back? Sure, but doing a supposedly altruistic thing and then keeping score on who praised you enough for it is easily mockable behavior. So she's really not starting off in a good place, there
posted by dnash at 10:55 AM on October 5, 2021 [85 favorites]
"There’s just so so so much going on here but I am still stuck on the early-in-the-piece notion of *noticing a specific person wasn’t interacting with the content in the private Facebook group about you that you added them to* and then *personally emailing them to find out why*"
Was it mean that others were mocking her behind her back? Sure, but doing a supposedly altruistic thing and then keeping score on who praised you enough for it is easily mockable behavior. So she's really not starting off in a good place, there
posted by dnash at 10:55 AM on October 5, 2021 [85 favorites]
Actually I do have some relevant thoughts. The scarcity mindset with short story writers, especially literary ones, is very, very real. And writer cliques are extremely real. I am generally on the outside of the latter and privately dealing with the former. Dormand felt ignored and, later, felt robbed, and she had reasons to feel that way. But even justified feelings don't justify actions all by themselves. Now Dormand has white woman's tears all down the front of her clothes, and for what?
posted by Countess Elena at 10:55 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 10:55 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Call it the result of tough week in which I've been buffeted around by a bunch of bad actors acting particularly badly in my personal life, but literally every person in this story just sounds awful.
Also, this is kind of why, as a writer, I just don't really hang out with other writers anymore.
posted by thivaia at 11:06 AM on October 5, 2021 [17 favorites]
Also, this is kind of why, as a writer, I just don't really hang out with other writers anymore.
posted by thivaia at 11:06 AM on October 5, 2021 [17 favorites]
In earning $425 for the story, Larson got more than most short story writers do. And for that, Dorland shook her down till her teeth rattled.
I don't see any indication that the money was what Dorland cared about. By literary fiction standards, this was a very successful short story, and it's very possible she cared about that.
I can't really side with either of them. Dorland's need for praise for her donation seems unhinged, and I can see why people don't like her. But Larson's use of Dorland's words seems unethical, especially with her statement that she couldn't change the letter "because it was too damn good. " Larson should be able to write about a person who donates a kidney to a stranger, but she should not use Dorland's words to do so. Larson's story seems much more nuanced and interesting than anything Dorland could have written about kidney donation, and she could have saved herself a world of grief by making her character less obviously based on Dorland.
This is why I don't tell my good stories to other writers unless I know them very well and trust them completely.
posted by FencingGal at 11:08 AM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
I don't see any indication that the money was what Dorland cared about. By literary fiction standards, this was a very successful short story, and it's very possible she cared about that.
I can't really side with either of them. Dorland's need for praise for her donation seems unhinged, and I can see why people don't like her. But Larson's use of Dorland's words seems unethical, especially with her statement that she couldn't change the letter "because it was too damn good. " Larson should be able to write about a person who donates a kidney to a stranger, but she should not use Dorland's words to do so. Larson's story seems much more nuanced and interesting than anything Dorland could have written about kidney donation, and she could have saved herself a world of grief by making her character less obviously based on Dorland.
This is why I don't tell my good stories to other writers unless I know them very well and trust them completely.
posted by FencingGal at 11:08 AM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
I'm sort of fascinated by the way this thing is structured. Kolker does such a good job at the outset showing how completely cringey and unsympathetic Dormand is, and you're totally primed to sympathize with Larson. But you find out at the very end that Larson literally straight-up plagiarized Dormand. By her own admission, Larson did not feel that she was capable of writing her own words that evoked how cringey and unsympathetic Dormand was, so she used Dormand's words instead. But at that point, you know that Larson is a successful writer, with influential friends and apparently normal interpersonal skills, and Dormand is a creepy nightmare. So does that make it ok that Larson copied Dormand's writing? Would this story read differently if Kolker had started with that bit, rather than ending with it?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:08 AM on October 5, 2021 [49 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:08 AM on October 5, 2021 [49 favorites]
Look, I get having a private friend group where you make fun of annoying people in your casual orbit. It's mean, but it's natural. But you can't then plagiarise the annoying person and refuse to change that part. Larson sent it out with the plagiarism and it looks like she only changed it when she reached the found out part of fucked around and found out.
I don't think Larson is a monster (including for mocking Dorland), but I think she did some actual wrong things, and I think that, eg, Celeste Ng is not characterizing those things fairly because she wants to support her friend. And Larson deserves support, she's getting excessively punished for her mistakes. But I don't think this comes across as "pure innocent author gets stalked for no reason" as Larson's supporters all over twitter do.
posted by jeather at 11:10 AM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
I don't think Larson is a monster (including for mocking Dorland), but I think she did some actual wrong things, and I think that, eg, Celeste Ng is not characterizing those things fairly because she wants to support her friend. And Larson deserves support, she's getting excessively punished for her mistakes. But I don't think this comes across as "pure innocent author gets stalked for no reason" as Larson's supporters all over twitter do.
posted by jeather at 11:10 AM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
I think if Larson is really that great of a writer, she could have managed to get the idea of white saviors and needy entitlement across without directly quoting a letter from the source of her inspiration.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 11:11 AM on October 5, 2021 [48 favorites]
posted by WalkerWestridge at 11:11 AM on October 5, 2021 [48 favorites]
To be clear I think one person comes out much better in this story than the other.
posted by jeather at 11:12 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by jeather at 11:12 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
No one looks good here, but I can’t help feel that Dorland is getting exactly what she wanted by pitching this story, even if it makes her look terrible. Now millions of people who didn’t know about her selfless kidney donation are talking about it. She actually wants to be Twitter’s Main Character for the day.
(Not that I’m on Team Larson either, I think her actions and behavior were terrible as well.)
posted by ejs at 11:12 AM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
(Not that I’m on Team Larson either, I think her actions and behavior were terrible as well.)
posted by ejs at 11:12 AM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
And Larson deserves support, she's getting excessively punished for her mistakes.
It doesn't seem like she's being punished, exactly. The Boston program was cancelled, but not getting to benefit from your mistakes doesn't seem like quite the same thing as being punished for them. I was skimming toward the end, though, so if I may have missed other details if she's had book contracts cancelled or similar.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
It doesn't seem like she's being punished, exactly. The Boston program was cancelled, but not getting to benefit from your mistakes doesn't seem like quite the same thing as being punished for them. I was skimming toward the end, though, so if I may have missed other details if she's had book contracts cancelled or similar.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
This is a minor tiff between (sort of) friends, the sort of thing which might break up a friend group but probably not.
The fact that there's lawyers involved is sooooo late-anthropocene USA.
posted by signal at 11:45 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
The fact that there's lawyers involved is sooooo late-anthropocene USA.
posted by signal at 11:45 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's kind of indicative of the crowd here that someone who gave away an internal organ is initially undeserving of sympathy because she wants people to praise her for it.
Then, when that person who is raking her over the coals commits plagiarism, which only barely edges out gaucherie in the annals of sin, the tables are turned.
I don't care if someone who gives away a kidney wants praise for it. I don't care if they bring it up in every single conversation for the rest of their lives. I may stop listening, I may say, "Yeah, old kidney-giver; you know, she never lets up about it," but I'm never for a second going to think that the person who writes about it has any moral high ground over the person who gives it.
posted by atchafalaya at 11:54 AM on October 5, 2021 [119 favorites]
Then, when that person who is raking her over the coals commits plagiarism, which only barely edges out gaucherie in the annals of sin, the tables are turned.
I don't care if someone who gives away a kidney wants praise for it. I don't care if they bring it up in every single conversation for the rest of their lives. I may stop listening, I may say, "Yeah, old kidney-giver; you know, she never lets up about it," but I'm never for a second going to think that the person who writes about it has any moral high ground over the person who gives it.
posted by atchafalaya at 11:54 AM on October 5, 2021 [119 favorites]
Book readers: Great friends.
Book writers: You may show up in their work in a way you don't like.
posted by nickggully at 12:04 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
Book writers: You may show up in their work in a way you don't like.
posted by nickggully at 12:04 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
It's probably best for writers to be friends with non-readers; that way they can put whatever they want into their books and none of their friends will ever even know.
posted by chavenet at 12:08 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 12:08 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
I don't care if someone who gives away a kidney wants praise for it. I don't care if they bring it up in every single conversation for the rest of their lives. I may stop listening, I may say, "Yeah, old kidney-giver; you know, she never lets up about it," but I'm never for a second going to think that the person who writes about it has any moral high ground over the person who gives it.
Of course this seems correct, but the real "sin" seems to be criticizing her peers for not caring enough. Generally speaking, people get really put out when you criticize them for something they simply don't want to give a shit about.
posted by anhedonic at 12:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
Of course this seems correct, but the real "sin" seems to be criticizing her peers for not caring enough. Generally speaking, people get really put out when you criticize them for something they simply don't want to give a shit about.
posted by anhedonic at 12:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
Dorland's self-awareness deficit shows up early on in the narrative: mistaking herself for part of an in-crowd because she was considered for a job; assuming friendships were closer/more mutual than they were; pursuing people who failed to demonstrate the admiration she seemed to think they owed her.
Larson has a deficit as well, but it trickles out slower: plagiarizing a letter by a writer she doesn't respect, and being reluctant to reword it because it's just too perfect for the voice of the "character"; publishing a story, telling someone with an obvious fixation that it isn't published yet, assuming that person will believe her. And it turns out she was just as obsessed with Dorland as she accuses Dorland of being with her -- maybe even for a longer period of time.
And yet, hypocrite that I am, I kind of want someone else to write a novel based on this story?
posted by armeowda at 12:35 PM on October 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
Larson has a deficit as well, but it trickles out slower: plagiarizing a letter by a writer she doesn't respect, and being reluctant to reword it because it's just too perfect for the voice of the "character"; publishing a story, telling someone with an obvious fixation that it isn't published yet, assuming that person will believe her. And it turns out she was just as obsessed with Dorland as she accuses Dorland of being with her -- maybe even for a longer period of time.
And yet, hypocrite that I am, I kind of want someone else to write a novel based on this story?
posted by armeowda at 12:35 PM on October 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
That's kind of like saying that a parent who constantly brings up how they gave birth to/fed and clothed a child, and criticizes/harasses that child for not constantly praising them, always has the moral high ground over the child who goes no-contact with them or writes about their toxic parent. Larson can certainly be criticized for (apparently temporarily) using lines from Dorland's letter, but not for writing about a narcissist accurately. That's part of the price you pay for being a narcissist.
posted by tavella at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by tavella at 12:36 PM on October 5, 2021 [22 favorites]
METAFILTER: There are no heroes here. Or even reasonable human beings.
posted by philip-random at 12:37 PM on October 5, 2021 [35 favorites]
posted by philip-random at 12:37 PM on October 5, 2021 [35 favorites]
*The fact that there's lawyers involved is sooooo late-anthropocene USA.*
You apparently never seen how something like this can go non-linear under UK laws around talking smack about someone.
posted by kjs3 at 12:38 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
You apparently never seen how something like this can go non-linear under UK laws around talking smack about someone.
posted by kjs3 at 12:38 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
"followed by divinity school at Harvard."
I got to this line and went, "Oh God -- oh God," as this person's entire character and weird behavior snapped into place. This is definitely a type of person at top-flight divinity schools. In the 21st century, not that many normal people go to divinity school -- you gotta be at least a little weird. And a loooooot of us manifest that weirdness by being overattached to ethics and/or truth-seeking and truth-telling, often to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot over principles.
Then there's a subgroup of divinity school students who have deeply idiosyncratic and rigid ideas about proper human interactions, typically backstopped with a self-righteous sense of "the way I want people to interact is the RIGHT way, because my beliefs are based in religious truth/ethics/whatever," often tinged with a bit of religious hysteria, but always, always blind to the ways in which their demands that others live rigidly according to idiosyncratic person's ideas actually hurts others and pushes them away. When they think they're just living according to universal love for all mankind. (If she uses the word "agape" somewhere here, I may actually scream out loud.)
They are often deeply and sincerely generous (i.e., giving someone a kidney), but sooooooooo out of sync with typical human behavior, and soooooooo sure that they're right about it, because all their actions are driven by deep compassion and brotherly love. They end up in lunatic situations like literally all the time, because they lack the natural human wariness that would tell you maybe NOT to move into a homeless encampment for no reason or marry someone you just met to help them escape their family (helllllo, divinity school buddy I had to cut out of my life!) COMBINED WITH a deep sense of moral rightness and a conviction that the world should be fair and if they act with good intentions, they should be recognized and lauded as good people. And when that doesn't happen, they often get angry or appoint themselves the arbiters of justice.
(Okay I'm going to go read the rest of the article now and see how right I am, just as soon as I finish having Div school flashback.)
"“What do you think we owe one another as writers in community?”"
Aaaaaaaaah, straight-up manipulative Div school student reconciliation meeting flashbacks.
Larson seems not-great in this story. But Dorland's behavior (especially when she begins contacting everyone Larson has any professional interaction with to try to get what Dorland views as justice) is so profoundly, stressfully familiar to me. And on the one hand I have deep sympathy for her, because I know people just like this, and I have been really close to people just like this, and I understand a lot of what drives their behavior, and I have a lot of sympathy for it. But I also had to cut two of them out of my life because of their total lack of boundaries and total inability to accept human frailty in others while simultaneously being completely unable to recognize their own flaws and failings. I still think about those situations, often, and I'm sad about having ended those friendships. But eventually, in each situation, it felt like they were a maelstrom sucking everything down with them, and I (and several other friends) finally had to say, "I am not going to be part of this orgy of destruction in the name of righteousness."
The principals didn't see it that way, of course; they were seeking justice, and calling out sinners. I guess the self-righteous minister who refuses to acknowledge others' human frailty and therefore does enormous damage in their pursuit of justice is a staple of American fiction for a reason, from Nathaniel Hawthorne to Footloose.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2021 [153 favorites]
I got to this line and went, "Oh God -- oh God," as this person's entire character and weird behavior snapped into place. This is definitely a type of person at top-flight divinity schools. In the 21st century, not that many normal people go to divinity school -- you gotta be at least a little weird. And a loooooot of us manifest that weirdness by being overattached to ethics and/or truth-seeking and truth-telling, often to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot over principles.
Then there's a subgroup of divinity school students who have deeply idiosyncratic and rigid ideas about proper human interactions, typically backstopped with a self-righteous sense of "the way I want people to interact is the RIGHT way, because my beliefs are based in religious truth/ethics/whatever," often tinged with a bit of religious hysteria, but always, always blind to the ways in which their demands that others live rigidly according to idiosyncratic person's ideas actually hurts others and pushes them away. When they think they're just living according to universal love for all mankind. (If she uses the word "agape" somewhere here, I may actually scream out loud.)
They are often deeply and sincerely generous (i.e., giving someone a kidney), but sooooooooo out of sync with typical human behavior, and soooooooo sure that they're right about it, because all their actions are driven by deep compassion and brotherly love. They end up in lunatic situations like literally all the time, because they lack the natural human wariness that would tell you maybe NOT to move into a homeless encampment for no reason or marry someone you just met to help them escape their family (helllllo, divinity school buddy I had to cut out of my life!) COMBINED WITH a deep sense of moral rightness and a conviction that the world should be fair and if they act with good intentions, they should be recognized and lauded as good people. And when that doesn't happen, they often get angry or appoint themselves the arbiters of justice.
(Okay I'm going to go read the rest of the article now and see how right I am, just as soon as I finish having Div school flashback.)
"“What do you think we owe one another as writers in community?”"
Aaaaaaaaah, straight-up manipulative Div school student reconciliation meeting flashbacks.
Larson seems not-great in this story. But Dorland's behavior (especially when she begins contacting everyone Larson has any professional interaction with to try to get what Dorland views as justice) is so profoundly, stressfully familiar to me. And on the one hand I have deep sympathy for her, because I know people just like this, and I have been really close to people just like this, and I understand a lot of what drives their behavior, and I have a lot of sympathy for it. But I also had to cut two of them out of my life because of their total lack of boundaries and total inability to accept human frailty in others while simultaneously being completely unable to recognize their own flaws and failings. I still think about those situations, often, and I'm sad about having ended those friendships. But eventually, in each situation, it felt like they were a maelstrom sucking everything down with them, and I (and several other friends) finally had to say, "I am not going to be part of this orgy of destruction in the name of righteousness."
The principals didn't see it that way, of course; they were seeking justice, and calling out sinners. I guess the self-righteous minister who refuses to acknowledge others' human frailty and therefore does enormous damage in their pursuit of justice is a staple of American fiction for a reason, from Nathaniel Hawthorne to Footloose.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:43 PM on October 5, 2021 [153 favorites]
Book writers: You may show up in their work in a way you don't like.
I have an ex-GF who is a writer. She was less than pleased when I ended the relationship. I'm quite sure there's a very, very unflattering character that will someday show up in her work that a small number of folks-in-the-know will read and go "Ooooooooooh....damn".
posted by kjs3 at 12:46 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
I have an ex-GF who is a writer. She was less than pleased when I ended the relationship. I'm quite sure there's a very, very unflattering character that will someday show up in her work that a small number of folks-in-the-know will read and go "Ooooooooooh....damn".
posted by kjs3 at 12:46 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
Book writers: You may show up in their work in a way you don't like.
overheard at the dog end of a party populated by folks from a masters level Creative Writing program. "I took this program to improve as a writer, not end up a character in some hack's novella."
posted by philip-random at 12:58 PM on October 5, 2021 [36 favorites]
Obviously all of these people are lunatics but only one of them is a lunatic who, however bone crunchingly cringe her desperate need for praise is, however over the top her campaign to get "justice" is, put themselves in real physical peril to save someone else's life.
If fawning is what it takes to get people to do that, I will fawn away.
posted by atrazine at 1:04 PM on October 5, 2021 [28 favorites]
If fawning is what it takes to get people to do that, I will fawn away.
posted by atrazine at 1:04 PM on October 5, 2021 [28 favorites]
in earning $425 for the story, Larson got more than most short story writers do.
Good lord
posted by gottabefunky at 1:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Good lord
posted by gottabefunky at 1:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm waiting for somebody to transcribe this on Twitter so it can get unrolled and picked up as a movie directed by Chloe Zao.
I might even go watch it.
posted by signal at 1:11 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
I might even go watch it.
posted by signal at 1:11 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
OK so I find the power dynamics here to be really interesting.
===
On the one hand you have a profoundly weak person. Dorland is an ostracized, unsuccessful woman from a poor background who landed on a writing career (more like a hobby) after running out of ideas, with a total lack of self-awareness and no real writer friends. From the excerpts in this article she is not a good writer.
But Larson's story inverts this - in fact racial power dynamics is a key theme in her story, where Dorland's character is now a wealthy white woman using her donation to extract sympathy. Racial power dynamics also come from her supporters (e.g. Ng):
“There’s very little emphasis on what this must be like for Sonya,” Ng told me, “and what it is like for writers of color, generally — to write a story and then be told by a white writer, ‘Actually, you owe that to me.’”
According to Ng, Dorland is the one with the power.
===
I can't square Ng's position with the undermining, behind-your-back gossip, and in-group / out-group ostracism from this community. This struck a nerve with me given it's how I've seen power dynamics present themselves in practice and be used against those perceived as weak (perhaps unconsciously). This is how I've seen privilege perpetuate itself across the organizations I've worked in. Larson's the in-group here.
Of course Dorland's need for acceptance is unhinged. But there's a way to react to unhinged people with grace and understanding. I would argue it's the responsibility of the stronger person to act this way.
posted by The Ted at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2021 [65 favorites]
===
On the one hand you have a profoundly weak person. Dorland is an ostracized, unsuccessful woman from a poor background who landed on a writing career (more like a hobby) after running out of ideas, with a total lack of self-awareness and no real writer friends. From the excerpts in this article she is not a good writer.
But Larson's story inverts this - in fact racial power dynamics is a key theme in her story, where Dorland's character is now a wealthy white woman using her donation to extract sympathy. Racial power dynamics also come from her supporters (e.g. Ng):
“There’s very little emphasis on what this must be like for Sonya,” Ng told me, “and what it is like for writers of color, generally — to write a story and then be told by a white writer, ‘Actually, you owe that to me.’”
According to Ng, Dorland is the one with the power.
===
I can't square Ng's position with the undermining, behind-your-back gossip, and in-group / out-group ostracism from this community. This struck a nerve with me given it's how I've seen power dynamics present themselves in practice and be used against those perceived as weak (perhaps unconsciously). This is how I've seen privilege perpetuate itself across the organizations I've worked in. Larson's the in-group here.
Of course Dorland's need for acceptance is unhinged. But there's a way to react to unhinged people with grace and understanding. I would argue it's the responsibility of the stronger person to act this way.
posted by The Ted at 1:13 PM on October 5, 2021 [65 favorites]
These tweets are so frustrating, and atchafalaya is so obviously right. This annoying litigious lady donated a friggin' kidney! It's possible that literary and media people might...sometimes...lack some perspective? Nobody wants white saviors out there doing their cringey white savior thing, but it takes a heck of a lot more than that to make you the bad person when you donated a literal kidney to a stranger!
The moment in the story that killed me was the group text where Larson asked, "Like, what am I supposed to do? DONATE MY ORGANS?"
YES! THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!
posted by goingonit at 1:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [34 favorites]
The moment in the story that killed me was the group text where Larson asked, "Like, what am I supposed to do? DONATE MY ORGANS?"
YES! THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!
posted by goingonit at 1:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [34 favorites]
These people both sound like assholes? The story doesn't progress the way it does without a healthy dose of assholeishness all around.
No one is obligated to donate an organ. To build an identity around the gift of an organ to someone seems the opposite of selfless? Completely baffled by her need to have people acknowledge her organ donation to her satisfaction.
And you should always assume your group texts could become public someday. This happened to some Mayor of LA staffers earlier this year and they looked just as charming as the people in the story's group text, though in their case they were talking shit about Dolores Huerta.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:40 PM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
No one is obligated to donate an organ. To build an identity around the gift of an organ to someone seems the opposite of selfless? Completely baffled by her need to have people acknowledge her organ donation to her satisfaction.
And you should always assume your group texts could become public someday. This happened to some Mayor of LA staffers earlier this year and they looked just as charming as the people in the story's group text, though in their case they were talking shit about Dolores Huerta.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:40 PM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
One of the questions that comes up in the piece is:
If you choose to do a supererogatory good deed, to what level should you be quiet or loud about it?
“I don’t know,” Scharer wrote. “A hashtag seems to me like a cry for attention.”
“Right??” Larson wrote. “#domoreforeachother. Like, what am I supposed to do? DONATE MY ORGANS?”
I am not about to tell any specific person that they are supposed to donate one of their kidneys, that they are obliged to do so. But I do think it's a reasonable and good thing to remind people that it's something they could do, and to get attention to that possibility and to yourself as a credible case study -- I successfully did this and am still healthy while using only one kidney.
I know there are customs and cultural and spiritual/religious traditions saying that charity should be done in secret. I've had an argument on social media with someone who believed it is positively unethical to mention your charitable donations publicly, and that the only reason a person might publicly talk about their charitable donations was to manipulate others' perception of them -- look at me, I give to charity, I'm a good person.
But I know from experience and from experts' advice that writing online about a donation I've made is important advertising to my peer groups, lending my credibility to a specific cause, and nudging them by demonstrating that the specific thing I've done is possible, that I've done it and maybe they can too. This is why I publicly say "I've donated X amount to such-and-such charity" and serve as a matching-pledge donor, and I figure it's why one person in my circles tweets when she's in the process of training or working as a poll inspector for local elections. So I figure that's also true of living kidney donation.
Of course, I may also be the kind of sincere and oblivious person who says well-meaning things that elicit dozens of scornful messages in private groupchats I'm not in! Speaking of which, if you're in a Slack groupchat, even a free one, here's why and how to delete your free backlogs.
posted by brainwane at 1:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [43 favorites]
If you choose to do a supererogatory good deed, to what level should you be quiet or loud about it?
“I don’t know,” Scharer wrote. “A hashtag seems to me like a cry for attention.”
“Right??” Larson wrote. “#domoreforeachother. Like, what am I supposed to do? DONATE MY ORGANS?”
I am not about to tell any specific person that they are supposed to donate one of their kidneys, that they are obliged to do so. But I do think it's a reasonable and good thing to remind people that it's something they could do, and to get attention to that possibility and to yourself as a credible case study -- I successfully did this and am still healthy while using only one kidney.
I know there are customs and cultural and spiritual/religious traditions saying that charity should be done in secret. I've had an argument on social media with someone who believed it is positively unethical to mention your charitable donations publicly, and that the only reason a person might publicly talk about their charitable donations was to manipulate others' perception of them -- look at me, I give to charity, I'm a good person.
But I know from experience and from experts' advice that writing online about a donation I've made is important advertising to my peer groups, lending my credibility to a specific cause, and nudging them by demonstrating that the specific thing I've done is possible, that I've done it and maybe they can too. This is why I publicly say "I've donated X amount to such-and-such charity" and serve as a matching-pledge donor, and I figure it's why one person in my circles tweets when she's in the process of training or working as a poll inspector for local elections. So I figure that's also true of living kidney donation.
Of course, I may also be the kind of sincere and oblivious person who says well-meaning things that elicit dozens of scornful messages in private groupchats I'm not in! Speaking of which, if you're in a Slack groupchat, even a free one, here's why and how to delete your free backlogs.
posted by brainwane at 1:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [43 favorites]
Good lord
Yes, in my experience, most published short story writers are paid in contributors' copies or a flat payment of well under $100. The higher-end magazines may pay a high honorarium or (especially in SF/F) by the word. Why do it? To build the resume, to get your name out there, to enter contests or qualify for prizes, and, of course, for ott. Larson's story did very well on all of these metrics, especially artistically.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:48 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yes, in my experience, most published short story writers are paid in contributors' copies or a flat payment of well under $100. The higher-end magazines may pay a high honorarium or (especially in SF/F) by the word. Why do it? To build the resume, to get your name out there, to enter contests or qualify for prizes, and, of course, for ott. Larson's story did very well on all of these metrics, especially artistically.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:48 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I took this program to improve as a writer, not end up a character in some hack's novella
yoink!
posted by bigbigdog at 1:51 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
yoink!
posted by bigbigdog at 1:51 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
At least Kristen Roupenian and Alexis Nowicki seemed likeable.
posted by kevinbelt at 2:31 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 2:31 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Sign me up for Team Larson. Dorland is up in here trying to destroy someone's career for no reason. She thinks it is appropriate to take someone to court and ruin their career over hurt feelings. Sure, the letter should've been rewritten sooner and more thoroughly and more proactively. But it doesn't even seem like that's what Dorland's primary problem is here. She was stirring up trouble before she even found out about it. Intellectual property rights is not the thing that caused Dorland to go nuclear here. Dorland is the thing that caused Dorland to go nuclear.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
Is it worse to be annoying and oblivious, or cruel and manipulative? I feel very strongly that it’s the latter. Larsen didn’t just write a story about how awful and annoying Dorland is, she repeatedly lied to her about it. I have no idea how people are landing on her side of this.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:56 PM on October 5, 2021 [73 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:56 PM on October 5, 2021 [73 favorites]
This story makes me think "asshole" is a derogation that is used too frequently, imprecisely and inhumanely in our contemporary culture. It's the ultimate in lazy writing because it's fundamentally a lazy thought - and not merely a relevant thought filtered through inadequate expression
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 3:05 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 3:05 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Binary thought is the real evil. They're both awful and both not awful. I never want to hear about either of them again.
posted by knapah at 3:15 PM on October 5, 2021 [35 favorites]
posted by knapah at 3:15 PM on October 5, 2021 [35 favorites]
All I can say is that I went in for the schadenfreude and came out feeling depressed and like a bad person for having read all the way through it. Which is appropriate I suppose -- schadenfreude is certainly a vice. Ugly, depressing events all around, and I think I'm going to go take a shower.
posted by treepour at 3:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by treepour at 3:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
This story makes me think "asshole" is a derogation that is used too frequently, imprecisely and inhumanely in our contemporary culture. It's the ultimate in lazy writing because it's fundamentally a lazy thought - and not merely a relevant thought filtered through inadequate expressionI think this is so right. All of us humans are so primed to merge the ideas of goodness and likability, and calling someone an "asshole" is implying that they're not good by pointing out that they're not likable. And all of us (certainly both of the people in this story!) have their identity tied up in their social status which makes this a very stinging thing to do to someone.
The concept that there are people out there who will never particularly like you and never be friends with you, and that this doesn't make either you or the other people bad or wrong or evil, is such a hard one to really internalize, and many people never do. And the corollary, that there are people you may not like or want to be friends with who are also not bad or wrong or evil, is just as hard.
posted by goingonit at 3:34 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
I don't know if Dorland is good or not, it's hard to say. I know she isn't likable. I do know that Larson is neither likable nor good, and the circle of writers defending her are definitely showing similar signs.
posted by ChrisR at 3:38 PM on October 5, 2021 [26 favorites]
posted by ChrisR at 3:38 PM on October 5, 2021 [26 favorites]
This is the best TLDR so far:
Plagiarist gaslights litigious narcissist, everybody sucks.
posted by signal at 3:42 PM on October 5, 2021 [32 favorites]
Plagiarist gaslights litigious narcissist, everybody sucks.
posted by signal at 3:42 PM on October 5, 2021 [32 favorites]
Dorland talks about the group, the Chunky Monkeys, and her "artist-friends". Larsen talks about her writing as an individual. One is saying "We", and the other is saying "I". Dorland is insisting that Larsen is part of her group; she is a controller. Larsen claims to be an outsider, looking in; she is a user. Of course, when they meet, hilarity ensues. (Look at all the spin-offs from this kidney charity: stories, articles, lawsuits -- this could last a long time and aid many a career, artistic, legal, journalistic, whatever.)
posted by CCBC at 3:46 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by CCBC at 3:46 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Is it worse to be annoying and oblivious, or cruel and manipulative? I feel very strongly that it’s the latter. Larsen didn’t just write a story about how awful and annoying Dorland is, she repeatedly lied to her about it. I have no idea how people are landing on her side of this.
I think the minute she decided that she was morally justified in involving lawyers to right the wrong of being the inspiration for a short story because she had her feelings hurt about it was the minute she turned from "annoying and oblivious" to frankly malicious and self-obsessed. I don't really think anyone comes off well in this story, but it is excessive to sue someone for writing a minor short story based on your public behavior. And, well, yeah, hounding reporters for years until they wrote about this is also not the greatest sign of kindness and good nature.
posted by ch1x0r at 3:48 PM on October 5, 2021 [28 favorites]
I think the minute she decided that she was morally justified in involving lawyers to right the wrong of being the inspiration for a short story because she had her feelings hurt about it was the minute she turned from "annoying and oblivious" to frankly malicious and self-obsessed. I don't really think anyone comes off well in this story, but it is excessive to sue someone for writing a minor short story based on your public behavior. And, well, yeah, hounding reporters for years until they wrote about this is also not the greatest sign of kindness and good nature.
posted by ch1x0r at 3:48 PM on October 5, 2021 [28 favorites]
This conversation reminds me of The Dress.
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:49 PM on October 5, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by toodleydoodley at 3:49 PM on October 5, 2021 [13 favorites]
Dorland is insisting that Larsen is part of her group; she is a controller.
It really seems like a lot of it comes down to the fact that Dorland thought she was close friends with Larson, and she wasn't.
If a close friend donated a kidney, I most definitely would feel obligated (and inclined!) to talk to the friend about it, to give support, and to keep up to date on their journey. If a close friend donated a kidney, and I didn't say anything to them about it, then I would definitely think it's appropriate for them to message me and say, "Hey, did you see this thing...?" And, if I had a close friend who donated a kidney, and then I wanted to write a story that included kidney donation as a plot point, I would definitely talk to them about it. I mean, why wouldn't you!
On the other hand, if I saw someone I had in a class years ago talk on Facebook about how they donated a kidney, I wouldn't comment on it. If that person joined me to a private group about how they donated a kidney, I would be taken aback and a little weirded out. If they then sent me private messages about whether I had seen what they had said, I would find that oppressive and uncomfortable. And if I then decided to write a story that included kidney donation as a plot point, I wouldn't at all feel like I had to talk to them about it. I mean, why would you!
So much of what happens seems to be the result of Dorland thinking she was close friends with people who, at best, tolerated her on a professional and social level.
As someone who is constantly terrified that the people I think of as close friends are, in fact, merely tolerating me on a professional and social level, reading through this was like looking into a nightmare mirror.
posted by meese at 4:30 PM on October 5, 2021 [97 favorites]
It really seems like a lot of it comes down to the fact that Dorland thought she was close friends with Larson, and she wasn't.
If a close friend donated a kidney, I most definitely would feel obligated (and inclined!) to talk to the friend about it, to give support, and to keep up to date on their journey. If a close friend donated a kidney, and I didn't say anything to them about it, then I would definitely think it's appropriate for them to message me and say, "Hey, did you see this thing...?" And, if I had a close friend who donated a kidney, and then I wanted to write a story that included kidney donation as a plot point, I would definitely talk to them about it. I mean, why wouldn't you!
On the other hand, if I saw someone I had in a class years ago talk on Facebook about how they donated a kidney, I wouldn't comment on it. If that person joined me to a private group about how they donated a kidney, I would be taken aback and a little weirded out. If they then sent me private messages about whether I had seen what they had said, I would find that oppressive and uncomfortable. And if I then decided to write a story that included kidney donation as a plot point, I wouldn't at all feel like I had to talk to them about it. I mean, why would you!
So much of what happens seems to be the result of Dorland thinking she was close friends with people who, at best, tolerated her on a professional and social level.
As someone who is constantly terrified that the people I think of as close friends are, in fact, merely tolerating me on a professional and social level, reading through this was like looking into a nightmare mirror.
posted by meese at 4:30 PM on October 5, 2021 [97 favorites]
Here's the thing though, people's writing is protected under the law, and we have all been taught about plagiarism and giving credit when our own writing is inspired by someone else's writing. That is where the issue becomes legal to me- it's true that creatives take other people's stories and make them into their own, but it was the use of the letter in the work that creates the legal problem. From Congress's website on the constitution: "The Court has noted on several occasions that the copyright law contains two important First Amendment safeguards: (1) limiting copyright protection to an author's creative expression of ideas, but prohibiting protection of ideas in and of themselves; and (2) permitting fair use of a copyrighted work in certain circumstances, including for purposes of criticism, teaching, comment, news reporting, and parody. These traditional contours of copyright protection have foreclosed heightened First Amendment scrutiny of copyright laws.4"
posted by momochan at 4:42 PM on October 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by momochan at 4:42 PM on October 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
When my grandboss said she was looking into donating a kidney for someone, I was all "okay, all right." And really, that was just me going "hey, can I get you to look at my busted computer" and her going "sure, but I have to go to a lab first" and me going "like a school computer lab?"
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:47 PM on October 5, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:47 PM on October 5, 2021
This is no one's finest hour, but on the upside for Larson, at least her catty friend group had to be subpoenaed, and didn't just sell her out like Heidi Cruz. (Link is to a Jezebel article, if you don't recall the other great group chat fiasco of 2021, when a Senator fled his disaster stricken district for a tropical vacation.)
This has the makings of an amazing novel or movie, but the unfictionalized version bums me out. Similarly, I prefer murder mystery novels to true crime.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:49 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
This has the makings of an amazing novel or movie, but the unfictionalized version bums me out. Similarly, I prefer murder mystery novels to true crime.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:49 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wow. There is so much to dislike on both sides. I am just very glad neither of these people is in my life, and I can’t believe I just read 9500 words about them.
posted by obfuscation at 5:27 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by obfuscation at 5:27 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think there is a 100% chance that Larsen was trolling the shit out of Dorland because Dorland is FUCKING TEDIOUS and wearing her altruism on every possible platform about how she donated an actual organ to a complete stranger while the rest of the world horded their precious body parts and, yes, was giving off some major white lady savior vibes (although it went to an orthodox Jew).
BUT, what an amazingly clumsy and amateur and just blatant way to do it. Larsen deserves the heap of ridicule that is raining down on her now because she ADMITS that she plagiarized the letter and acknowledged that she was potentially going down the very wrong path of using someone else's words, life, etc.
And also, epic move on the part of Dorland's lawyer to subpoena the group chat.
posted by tafetta, darling! at 5:43 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
BUT, what an amazingly clumsy and amateur and just blatant way to do it. Larsen deserves the heap of ridicule that is raining down on her now because she ADMITS that she plagiarized the letter and acknowledged that she was potentially going down the very wrong path of using someone else's words, life, etc.
And also, epic move on the part of Dorland's lawyer to subpoena the group chat.
posted by tafetta, darling! at 5:43 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
I only recently learned that there are people who donate kidneys to total strangers, endangering their lives for somebody they've never met, and it floored me that anybody could be so selfless. I'm kind of amazed that so many people can read this story and take Larson's side even a little bit. It sounds like even Larson knows deep down that she did a mean, weird, shitty thing to Dorland, but she's been justifying this so hard and for so long that she's kind of convinced herself she's the wronged party. She's throwing every excuse she can think of at this thing, including trying to reframe this as some spoiled white lady picking on a POC. It's bullshit and does a disservice to anybody trying to legitimately call out white privilege. You can't just flog your status as part of a persecuted minority to distract from something truly shitty that you did. What are you, Kevin Spacey?
People (not just Larson) want to frame this as Dorland donating a life-saving organ because she was chasing glory somehow. It's true that nothing is totally altruistic, ever; humans get a thrill from doing kind things. But donating a kidney to a stranger is, truly, one of the most generous, impressive things a human being can do. Nothing Dorland did in the wake of that strikes me as too much. So, she rode on a float? She was raising awareness for this cause she was passionate about, and if she was also getting off on her 15 minutes who fucking cares. I don't think Dorland was trying to shake down her friends to hail her as a saint. I think she was understandably puzzled why her friends didn't seem to acknowledge this crazy thing she did, and even acted kind of frosty about it. It made her a little paranoid, and in the end things were worse than she ever could have guessed. People she considered her friends were gossiping about her, giggling about her, writing stories where she was painted as the bad guy. Jesus Christ.
I get the feeling that Larson was really annoyed that Dorland could just be so relentlessly upbeat and good all the time. And honestly, I can kind of relate. Pollyannas can be a pain in the ass sometimes. But it should have stopped at the point where Larson was saying to friends, "She did this amazing thing, and I feel so shitty for resenting her." It's OK to share your petty goblin side sometimes, in a close circle of friends. But everything Larson did after that was just awful.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:57 PM on October 5, 2021 [91 favorites]
People (not just Larson) want to frame this as Dorland donating a life-saving organ because she was chasing glory somehow. It's true that nothing is totally altruistic, ever; humans get a thrill from doing kind things. But donating a kidney to a stranger is, truly, one of the most generous, impressive things a human being can do. Nothing Dorland did in the wake of that strikes me as too much. So, she rode on a float? She was raising awareness for this cause she was passionate about, and if she was also getting off on her 15 minutes who fucking cares. I don't think Dorland was trying to shake down her friends to hail her as a saint. I think she was understandably puzzled why her friends didn't seem to acknowledge this crazy thing she did, and even acted kind of frosty about it. It made her a little paranoid, and in the end things were worse than she ever could have guessed. People she considered her friends were gossiping about her, giggling about her, writing stories where she was painted as the bad guy. Jesus Christ.
I get the feeling that Larson was really annoyed that Dorland could just be so relentlessly upbeat and good all the time. And honestly, I can kind of relate. Pollyannas can be a pain in the ass sometimes. But it should have stopped at the point where Larson was saying to friends, "She did this amazing thing, and I feel so shitty for resenting her." It's OK to share your petty goblin side sometimes, in a close circle of friends. But everything Larson did after that was just awful.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:57 PM on October 5, 2021 [91 favorites]
archive today:
Who Is the Bad Art Friend?
posted by bendy at 6:06 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
Who Is the Bad Art Friend?
posted by bendy at 6:06 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
I absolutely think Larson acted wrongly and did a shitty thing and had some laughable justifications for her actions, but Dorland’s lack of touch with reality and obsession with having donated a kidney is just… unbearable. Maybe only one of them could be labeled a “bad person,” but they both suck.
posted by obfuscation at 6:13 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by obfuscation at 6:13 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
The real villain in this story? Facebook.
posted by betweenthebars at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 6:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
“I left that conference with this question: Do writers not care about my kidney donation? Which kind of confused me, because I thought I was in a community of service-oriented people.”
Oh, Jeezus. No, lady. No, they do not! They have lives they are living. Other things that make them worry, laugh, or otherwise occupy their limited headspace. I consider myself reasonably service-oriented and I would never, ever consider donating my kidney to a random stranger. And I make no apologies for that. If you mention to me that you’ve done so, my reaction would likely be along the lines of “Wow! Good for you! I would never do that.”
And then I would go on with my day. I would probably not be arsed to comment on a frigging Facebook post. If you were to bring it up again — over a year later — I would immediately think you are nuts and be inclined to avoid you at all costs.
Ms. Larson’s mistake was seeing this toxic mess of a person and then writing a story about them. Like, really. How could you ever think this would end well? Just leave the fresh turd on the ground and stop acting surprised that you got shit on your hand.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:57 PM on October 5, 2021 [28 favorites]
Oh, Jeezus. No, lady. No, they do not! They have lives they are living. Other things that make them worry, laugh, or otherwise occupy their limited headspace. I consider myself reasonably service-oriented and I would never, ever consider donating my kidney to a random stranger. And I make no apologies for that. If you mention to me that you’ve done so, my reaction would likely be along the lines of “Wow! Good for you! I would never do that.”
And then I would go on with my day. I would probably not be arsed to comment on a frigging Facebook post. If you were to bring it up again — over a year later — I would immediately think you are nuts and be inclined to avoid you at all costs.
Ms. Larson’s mistake was seeing this toxic mess of a person and then writing a story about them. Like, really. How could you ever think this would end well? Just leave the fresh turd on the ground and stop acting surprised that you got shit on your hand.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:57 PM on October 5, 2021 [28 favorites]
Started reading at lunch, after a few paragraphs realized I'd want to come back after work and read the full article while enjoying some popcorn. But the more I read, the worse that popcorn tasted...
Needed a brain wash, figured I'd grab an article at ESPN, October is always prime sports month. No joke, the article I clicked features... Lou Holtz as Dawn Dorland? That is a deliberately rough analogy, but there is an uncanny overlap.
posted by Theophrastus Johnson at 7:16 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Needed a brain wash, figured I'd grab an article at ESPN, October is always prime sports month. No joke, the article I clicked features... Lou Holtz as Dawn Dorland? That is a deliberately rough analogy, but there is an uncanny overlap.
posted by Theophrastus Johnson at 7:16 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
FTA: She wanted to write a story that was like a Rorschach test, one that might betray the reader’s own hidden biases.
Reading the comments here, it turns out the real Rorschach test was the story written about the writing of the story all along
posted by obliterati at 7:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [18 favorites]
Reading the comments here, it turns out the real Rorschach test was the story written about the writing of the story all along
posted by obliterati at 7:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [18 favorites]
"The secret snark group is -- whatever, I'm sorry those came to light, we're allowed to dislike someone and mock them in private to our friends, even though it would hurt them if they knew. But I think Larson did take more than inspiration from someone she was professionally related to, who she knew enough to mock in a friend group of other professional peers. I think using that letter was shitty, she knew it was shitty, and she changed it eventually because she knew it was shitty, but this is still not someone coming at her about nothing at all." Welcome to working in social circles of "professional artists." Hope you have a life raft, and your life raft as well.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
But just after the surgery, when she checked Facebook, Dorland noticed some people she’d invited into the group hadn’t seemed to react to any of her posts. On July 20, she wrote an email to one of them: a writer named Sonya Larson.
I mean the absolute gall to try and police someone else's liking or interaction with posts on Facebook! I'm pretty flabbergasted at this being something she thought was fine and normal to do here.
posted by Carillon at 7:23 PM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
I mean the absolute gall to try and police someone else's liking or interaction with posts on Facebook! I'm pretty flabbergasted at this being something she thought was fine and normal to do here.
posted by Carillon at 7:23 PM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
"Needed a brain wash, figured I'd grab an article at ESPN, October is always prime sports month. No joke, the article I clicked features... Lou Holtz as Dawn Dorland? "
Lou Holtz is a fucking embarrassment and being a jackass about "Play Like a Champion Today" is literally the least of his sins, to the point that even mendacious jackass John Jenkins is hesitant to have him do PR for the university at this point. Literally no one in this article is as horrible a human being as Lou Fucking Holtz (which, I admit, is basically the lowest bar it is possible to set in modern American life).
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:30 PM on October 5, 2021
Lou Holtz is a fucking embarrassment and being a jackass about "Play Like a Champion Today" is literally the least of his sins, to the point that even mendacious jackass John Jenkins is hesitant to have him do PR for the university at this point. Literally no one in this article is as horrible a human being as Lou Fucking Holtz (which, I admit, is basically the lowest bar it is possible to set in modern American life).
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:30 PM on October 5, 2021
The article is behind a paywall for me
bendy's archive link makes the article accessible for free to nonsubscribers.
posted by virago at 7:33 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
bendy's archive link makes the article accessible for free to nonsubscribers.
posted by virago at 7:33 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
So, yes both these individuals came off poorly, but can someone explain why minor league writer drama warrants a long form article in ny review of books? TBH the article itself seemed to be aiming to entertain by revealing the gory details of two very flawed peoples' personal and professional lives without really saying anything new or notable about anything.
posted by lemur at 7:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by lemur at 7:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
lemur: simple, articles are written by writers, writers think that writers are important
posted by goingonit at 7:47 PM on October 5, 2021 [20 favorites]
posted by goingonit at 7:47 PM on October 5, 2021 [20 favorites]
This conversation reminds me of The Dress.
I think both Laurel and Yanny have a martyr complex.
posted by armeowda at 7:54 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think both Laurel and Yanny have a martyr complex.
posted by armeowda at 7:54 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
This article crystallized a feeling that I've been having more and more: I'm really sick of the whole sneering-morality-tale thing of the...I dunno, not exactly left, not exactly progressive, maybe "ethically hip"? part of the internet.
The sneering morality tale takes many forms but they all get me down more than they amuse me these days. The sneer is the key thing, and the key part is to reduce people to a one-dimensional morality tale. Sometimes the story is sophisticated and it's not entirely clear which side we're supposed to sneer at so we get to argue about which one is the Most Problematic of All. Sometimes the story is a proxy for something else - we're really dealing with economic inequality or racism, but we dress it up as who washes correctly, who prefers the correct branded products, etc. But again, the critical part is assigning the sneer. If someone is Very Bad Indeed, it's okay to sneer at their body or any suffering they may incidentally endure or their accidental revelation of sincerity.
And of course at the bottom of this is the dread of being cringe and not even realizing it. And of course the desire to watch someone get taken down for being cringe, with cringe defined differently depending on who is talking.
The sneering morality tale is really about modern surveillance culture and the fear it induces, I think. We read about people who are just....totally...un....self...aware with fascination because we are always potentially being observed and judged not just by strangers in the street and friends and coworkers but by basically anyone in the world should we have the misfortune to catch their eye. So stories about people who don't understand how they are being perceived have a huge fascination because maybe if we read enough of them we can control how we are perceived or at least not act too cringe, or at least align ourselves with the correct people.
Another thing about the sneering morality tale - so often it's about something that really is not improved by being super public. Like this one, where everyone involved is just kind of horrible and the purpose of the story is not to expose a structural injustice or to propose some kind of reform to publishing but to get us to argue over who is worse and exactly why they're bad. "Let the courts and people's actual social circles sort this out," says no one ever, alas.
The sneering moral tale isn't so much in opposition to some kind of sincere gentle moral tale, like I'm not saying that I would enjoy a sentimental story about friendship from the New York Times. I just want out altogether - no more dealing with morality through this weird purity and danger narrative, no more looking at other people as either heroes or terrible examples, no more despising people for not understanding that they are just...so....cringe, no more people as entertainment, no more people as proxies for actual social problems.
Like, as the world burns I don't particularly want to be discussing, eg, some stupid Goodreads drama or whether it is unethical to criticize KPop or something.
posted by Frowner at 8:00 PM on October 5, 2021 [108 favorites]
The sneering morality tale takes many forms but they all get me down more than they amuse me these days. The sneer is the key thing, and the key part is to reduce people to a one-dimensional morality tale. Sometimes the story is sophisticated and it's not entirely clear which side we're supposed to sneer at so we get to argue about which one is the Most Problematic of All. Sometimes the story is a proxy for something else - we're really dealing with economic inequality or racism, but we dress it up as who washes correctly, who prefers the correct branded products, etc. But again, the critical part is assigning the sneer. If someone is Very Bad Indeed, it's okay to sneer at their body or any suffering they may incidentally endure or their accidental revelation of sincerity.
And of course at the bottom of this is the dread of being cringe and not even realizing it. And of course the desire to watch someone get taken down for being cringe, with cringe defined differently depending on who is talking.
The sneering morality tale is really about modern surveillance culture and the fear it induces, I think. We read about people who are just....totally...un....self...aware with fascination because we are always potentially being observed and judged not just by strangers in the street and friends and coworkers but by basically anyone in the world should we have the misfortune to catch their eye. So stories about people who don't understand how they are being perceived have a huge fascination because maybe if we read enough of them we can control how we are perceived or at least not act too cringe, or at least align ourselves with the correct people.
Another thing about the sneering morality tale - so often it's about something that really is not improved by being super public. Like this one, where everyone involved is just kind of horrible and the purpose of the story is not to expose a structural injustice or to propose some kind of reform to publishing but to get us to argue over who is worse and exactly why they're bad. "Let the courts and people's actual social circles sort this out," says no one ever, alas.
The sneering moral tale isn't so much in opposition to some kind of sincere gentle moral tale, like I'm not saying that I would enjoy a sentimental story about friendship from the New York Times. I just want out altogether - no more dealing with morality through this weird purity and danger narrative, no more looking at other people as either heroes or terrible examples, no more despising people for not understanding that they are just...so....cringe, no more people as entertainment, no more people as proxies for actual social problems.
Like, as the world burns I don't particularly want to be discussing, eg, some stupid Goodreads drama or whether it is unethical to criticize KPop or something.
posted by Frowner at 8:00 PM on October 5, 2021 [108 favorites]
Thanks Frowner, you articulated my general feeling of ickiness while reading the article far better than I could. It's 'sneerporn'.
posted by lemur at 8:02 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by lemur at 8:02 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
... involving lawyers to right the wrong of being the inspiration for a short story because she had her feelings hurt ...
If it were just the letter, I would be more inclined to accept your point. But after reading the transcripts of the group chat, wherein Dorland's primary offense seemed to be her failure to recognize her own social miscues, I know who I'm more likely to sympathize with. I don't think Dorland's behavior rises to the level of malice. "Annoying and oblivious" is exactly it
On preview: What Frowner said.
posted by virago at 8:09 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
If it were just the letter, I would be more inclined to accept your point. But after reading the transcripts of the group chat, wherein Dorland's primary offense seemed to be her failure to recognize her own social miscues, I know who I'm more likely to sympathize with. I don't think Dorland's behavior rises to the level of malice. "Annoying and oblivious" is exactly it
On preview: What Frowner said.
posted by virago at 8:09 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
The whole thing is just weird and gross but what’s sticking in my craw is the “yes you’re supposed to give up your organs”, mainly because of the common argument that forced pregnancy is akin to demanding a stranger give you their organs.
It’s just hitting me really weird.
posted by palomar at 8:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
It’s just hitting me really weird.
posted by palomar at 8:10 PM on October 5, 2021 [12 favorites]
The real villain in this story? Facebook.
Thank you. This is a great snapshot of what's evil about FB: making normal social interactions public, and permanently recording them, so that insecure and awkward people can obsess over their minutiae. Absolutely predatory.
As to who comes off worse? Dorland has nothing to lose, no career, no reputation. Larson did, so she went from "budding little-known writer of promise" to "mean plagiarist and divisive figure who unfairly played the race card ." At the same time, lots of exposure, and a smaller, avid fanbase is not a bad thing either.
Seems to me that the person who lost the most in all of this is Celeste Ng, who is a major name and gets maybe +2 for friend loyalty, but -25 for nasty punching down at an obviously unwell person. In the NYT comments she is getting savaged.
posted by msalt at 8:12 PM on October 5, 2021 [20 favorites]
Thank you. This is a great snapshot of what's evil about FB: making normal social interactions public, and permanently recording them, so that insecure and awkward people can obsess over their minutiae. Absolutely predatory.
As to who comes off worse? Dorland has nothing to lose, no career, no reputation. Larson did, so she went from "budding little-known writer of promise" to "mean plagiarist and divisive figure who unfairly played the race card ." At the same time, lots of exposure, and a smaller, avid fanbase is not a bad thing either.
Seems to me that the person who lost the most in all of this is Celeste Ng, who is a major name and gets maybe +2 for friend loyalty, but -25 for nasty punching down at an obviously unwell person. In the NYT comments she is getting savaged.
posted by msalt at 8:12 PM on October 5, 2021 [20 favorites]
Oh, the other thing that’s really hard to get out of my brain’s back teeth is the part of the story where Kidney Lady keeps showing up to events that Mean Lady is speaking at, and she takes Mean Lady’s visible unhappiness at seeing her as a secret private message about how KL has the moral high ground and ML can’t bear to look at her because of it. Not because it’s a little scary to keep showing up at those events and making sure you’re noticed by your target or anything, the same target you’re suing for huge sums of money and trashing everywhere you possibly can. KL’s stated reasons for doing that and her rationalizing that no one could possibly be scared by that was… well, that’s certainly a lack of self awareness. Whew jesus.
posted by palomar at 8:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by palomar at 8:19 PM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
This should be a rejected Seinfeld script not a story in a major publication. I feel soiled.
Also I bet the kidney recipient is grateful.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:20 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
Also I bet the kidney recipient is grateful.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:20 PM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
and she takes Mean Lady’s visible unhappiness at seeing her as a secret private message about how KL has the moral high ground and
and people wonder why I refuse to engage with anyone on the morality of things ...
... unless I've had at least four and half drinks.
posted by philip-random at 8:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
and people wonder why I refuse to engage with anyone on the morality of things ...
... unless I've had at least four and half drinks.
posted by philip-random at 8:26 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is a great snapshot of what's evil about FB
And the last link in the FPP makes it obvious that Twitter is the wrong place for anyone involved in this saga -- however tangentially -- to continue talking about it. (Fer crying out loud!)
It's hard to resist the urge to get in the last word. But it's smart to remember that only Twitter ultimately benefits from drawing eyeballs via Twitter kerfuffles.
posted by virago at 8:27 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
And the last link in the FPP makes it obvious that Twitter is the wrong place for anyone involved in this saga -- however tangentially -- to continue talking about it. (Fer crying out loud!)
It's hard to resist the urge to get in the last word. But it's smart to remember that only Twitter ultimately benefits from drawing eyeballs via Twitter kerfuffles.
posted by virago at 8:27 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
simple, articles are written by writers, writers think that writers are important
See also all of the Academy awards bestowed upon movies about movie-making, acting, or anything having to do with movies at all.
Donating a kidney is, yes, an amazing act. Reading all of this, though, I can't help but see Dorland as being so utterly praise seeking in her action. Even her own words (and, if true, contacting the Times to get them to write about it) shout how loudly she is desperate to be praised.
I am not saying there's something wrong with wishing people would notice the good things you do, but to ignore the difference in motive and what it says for a person to do good acts in order to receive praise rather than just doing good acts is a bit unrealistic to me. If you do something good, and no one notices, well, shit, at least you did something good. You don't run to a national publication to get them to write about how wonderful a person you are.
Hell, Dorland was in a parade, on a float. I don't know how much more attention a person would need past that, but, well, clearly she does.
I'm not excusing Larson entirely, but seriously, Dorland's donation speaks more, in her own words, to being about "the journey" she is on than to any notion of genuine altruism.
The effect? Total net positive. The motives? Suspect as all hell.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:27 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
See also all of the Academy awards bestowed upon movies about movie-making, acting, or anything having to do with movies at all.
Donating a kidney is, yes, an amazing act. Reading all of this, though, I can't help but see Dorland as being so utterly praise seeking in her action. Even her own words (and, if true, contacting the Times to get them to write about it) shout how loudly she is desperate to be praised.
I am not saying there's something wrong with wishing people would notice the good things you do, but to ignore the difference in motive and what it says for a person to do good acts in order to receive praise rather than just doing good acts is a bit unrealistic to me. If you do something good, and no one notices, well, shit, at least you did something good. You don't run to a national publication to get them to write about how wonderful a person you are.
Hell, Dorland was in a parade, on a float. I don't know how much more attention a person would need past that, but, well, clearly she does.
I'm not excusing Larson entirely, but seriously, Dorland's donation speaks more, in her own words, to being about "the journey" she is on than to any notion of genuine altruism.
The effect? Total net positive. The motives? Suspect as all hell.
posted by Ghidorah at 8:27 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
The extreme level of attention seeking (who the hell shows up at a writer's conference a year later and her main concern afterwards is that she didn't get enough praise for her organ donation?) kind of reminded me of Munchausen's syndrome. It's definitely a much more *productive* way to harm yourself for attention -- someone got a much-needed kidney out of it -- but I have to wonder if it didn't stem from the same impulse.
posted by tavella at 8:39 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by tavella at 8:39 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
Okay, I can actually contribute to this conversation.
Back in 2018, I donated my left kidney to my wife.
It was a profoundly moving experience. I still have not come to terms with the fact that at this moment, right now a small part of my flesh and blood is walking around in someone else's body, keeping them alive and happy. My wife is just ten feet away from me as I write this, and she is still breathing today because three years ago I checked a box, signed a form, and spent a few days in the hospital.
It was and always will be the high-water mark of my life. Sure, I've raised two children with some success and I've spent 30 years keeping my wife happy and I've had a successful career and I've had some small level of quiet accomplishments, but nothing that matches putting my life on the line to save the life of another. It's made me more contemplative, I hope it's made me more kind, and I've spent many hours wondering if this really is some towering achievement of mine or if it's just the baseline level of the humanity that binds us all together.
It also, for a brief while in 2018, made me into an insufferable little prig. Did I brag about it on Facebook? Dear reader, I am ashamed to admit that I did. Was I seeking validation and praise? Oh yes I was. And yes I was also hoping to inspire others to at least think about it, to at least check the "organ donor" box on their driver's license, and maybe to check with their local hospital about whether they'd qualify. Because I'd seen and lived with the other side of the organ donation story. As with my wife, almost all the people who need a new kidney or liver or heart or lungs are deeply, profoundly ill and are spending what are the last years or last months of their lives in unfathomable pain and fear. If riding in a parade float, or posting memes on facebook, can move that needle a bit, then have at it.
This is to say that I understand Dorland's narcissism and egotism because I was that same person. Oh yes, I did more than just write my story on facebook; I also texted my boss from the hospital bed ("Guess where I am now!") and I wrote a letter to my professional organization ("Instead of talking about widgets, why aren't we talking about organ donations?") and I put stickers on my car and I brought it up in conversation all. the. time., for about a year.
This is to say as well that Dorland's behavior is not unusual in our community. We have a name for ourselves (the "one-bean" club) and we have facebook pages and meetups IRL's and online support groups and we have lots and lots of people who write self-published books about their Journey because, and I hope I've made this clear, it really does change you. Dorland seems to have gone a bit further than most, but again it's not completely out of line compared to what I've seen.
That said, if I discovered that one of my facebook "friends" had written a short story about me and my kidney donation which cast me as some kind of white-savior clueless villian, and then showed it to her friends who then all laughed at me, and then got it published? I would be royally pissed, and this would be before I discovered that she also lifted one of my own letters and put it into her story, saying, "That letter was just too damn good".
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 8:48 PM on October 5, 2021 [216 favorites]
Back in 2018, I donated my left kidney to my wife.
It was a profoundly moving experience. I still have not come to terms with the fact that at this moment, right now a small part of my flesh and blood is walking around in someone else's body, keeping them alive and happy. My wife is just ten feet away from me as I write this, and she is still breathing today because three years ago I checked a box, signed a form, and spent a few days in the hospital.
It was and always will be the high-water mark of my life. Sure, I've raised two children with some success and I've spent 30 years keeping my wife happy and I've had a successful career and I've had some small level of quiet accomplishments, but nothing that matches putting my life on the line to save the life of another. It's made me more contemplative, I hope it's made me more kind, and I've spent many hours wondering if this really is some towering achievement of mine or if it's just the baseline level of the humanity that binds us all together.
It also, for a brief while in 2018, made me into an insufferable little prig. Did I brag about it on Facebook? Dear reader, I am ashamed to admit that I did. Was I seeking validation and praise? Oh yes I was. And yes I was also hoping to inspire others to at least think about it, to at least check the "organ donor" box on their driver's license, and maybe to check with their local hospital about whether they'd qualify. Because I'd seen and lived with the other side of the organ donation story. As with my wife, almost all the people who need a new kidney or liver or heart or lungs are deeply, profoundly ill and are spending what are the last years or last months of their lives in unfathomable pain and fear. If riding in a parade float, or posting memes on facebook, can move that needle a bit, then have at it.
This is to say that I understand Dorland's narcissism and egotism because I was that same person. Oh yes, I did more than just write my story on facebook; I also texted my boss from the hospital bed ("Guess where I am now!") and I wrote a letter to my professional organization ("Instead of talking about widgets, why aren't we talking about organ donations?") and I put stickers on my car and I brought it up in conversation all. the. time., for about a year.
This is to say as well that Dorland's behavior is not unusual in our community. We have a name for ourselves (the "one-bean" club) and we have facebook pages and meetups IRL's and online support groups and we have lots and lots of people who write self-published books about their Journey because, and I hope I've made this clear, it really does change you. Dorland seems to have gone a bit further than most, but again it's not completely out of line compared to what I've seen.
That said, if I discovered that one of my facebook "friends" had written a short story about me and my kidney donation which cast me as some kind of white-savior clueless villian, and then showed it to her friends who then all laughed at me, and then got it published? I would be royally pissed, and this would be before I discovered that she also lifted one of my own letters and put it into her story, saying, "That letter was just too damn good".
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 8:48 PM on October 5, 2021 [216 favorites]
Another thing that I think would improve the world: Accepting that there are some crimes beyond the reach of the law, so to speak, and that some people are just assholes, or all people are just assholes sometimes, and blocking and moving on is the only reasonable choice. What if Larson had just figured, "well, this woman is being kind of self-centered, but she did in fact undergo surgery and lose a body part so I'll chalk it up and if I do draw on my thoughts about her I won't write a story where she is clearly identifiable to our mutual social circle? What if Dorland had thought, "this really sucks, even if I am not a perfect person gossiping about me and trying to humiliate me is deeply fucked up, I guess I need to find some better friends rather than revisiting this and trying to sue"?
What if we tried to have some sense of proportion about how much justice or "justice" we can exact from other people when they're jerks to us? What if we decided that if we're squeamish we won't poke the rubble on the beach? Unless there is some real concrete issue to resolve, one is so seldom better off after seeing someone's private chats/papers/etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:50 PM on October 5, 2021 [31 favorites]
What if we tried to have some sense of proportion about how much justice or "justice" we can exact from other people when they're jerks to us? What if we decided that if we're squeamish we won't poke the rubble on the beach? Unless there is some real concrete issue to resolve, one is so seldom better off after seeing someone's private chats/papers/etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:50 PM on October 5, 2021 [31 favorites]
"Seems to me that the person who lost the most in all of this is Celeste Ng, who is a major name and gets maybe +2 for friend loyalty, but -25 for nasty punching down at an obviously unwell person. In the NYT comments she is getting savaged."
It's sort-of astonishing to watch a bunch of professional writers on Twitter gleefully dunk on Dorland, mocking her and defending Larson, without seeming to have any self-awareness that Dorland is a sympathetic -- if extraordinarily complicated -- character in this story, and that by literally acting like Regina George in public, they are making Larson less-sympathetic by the moment. And making themselves look like ugly bullies. And like people have said above, this is a complicated story of privilege and personalities and publishing, but people turning up to act like the popular clique and making vaguebook statements that "insiders" will get and then clarifying them so even outsiders know you're mocking Dorland -- it is NOT a good look. Also, GOOD LORD, why would you WANT to insert yourself publicly into this story, if you're an author? This is radioactive! Stay away!
Do literally NONE of these people understand how other human beings perceive their actions when those actions are read in isolation from the rest of their personality? Have literally NONE of these people ever seen a PR statement? "Dawn Dorland did an amazing thing by donating a kidney, and I'm truly sorry she's hurting right now. Sonya is a good friend, and I believe her when she says this was unintentional. But the fact is that Dawn was badly hurt by Sonya's actions, however intentional or unintentional. This is a messy and emotional situation that I hope the two can resolve between them, and nothing that I can say will add any insight, nor is it my place to stand in judgment of either of them. The best thing I can do in this situation is honor Dawn's incredible act of compassion by linking to this national kidney charity ...." (this took me 40 seconds)
Also, regarding people tracking other people's likes on facebook -- this is so common that it's a frequent plotline on teen shows (I'm 14 on the inside, I watch a lot of teen shows!). It's cringe to admit to doing it, and it's super cringe to call someone out for failing to like/comment, but it's such a common activity that entire multi-episode arcs revolve around making thirst-trap TikToks and obsessively checking to see if one's crush has commented. And around discussing classmates' like/comment activity with one's close friends -- especially if one is hoping the popular kids will like one's TikToks. Like, sure, these are shows about teenagers. But they're written by 45-year-old writers who are clearly doing the same thing. And there are daily articles in major, serious, Pulitzer-winning publications about which celebrities are liking and not-liking which other celebrities' statuses! Like, everybody knew JLo was dumping ARod before anything became public because she stopped liking or commenting on his socials. It's not just a thing obsessive teenagers do, it is a legitimate journalistic investigation tool at this point!
(Also this story is making me want to go re-watch The Good Place to think about supererogatory acts and the motives behind them, which is maybe the best possible outcome of having read this. And double shout-out to brainwane for using the word supererogatory, it's so exciting to see in a sentence in the wild.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:51 PM on October 5, 2021 [81 favorites]
It's sort-of astonishing to watch a bunch of professional writers on Twitter gleefully dunk on Dorland, mocking her and defending Larson, without seeming to have any self-awareness that Dorland is a sympathetic -- if extraordinarily complicated -- character in this story, and that by literally acting like Regina George in public, they are making Larson less-sympathetic by the moment. And making themselves look like ugly bullies. And like people have said above, this is a complicated story of privilege and personalities and publishing, but people turning up to act like the popular clique and making vaguebook statements that "insiders" will get and then clarifying them so even outsiders know you're mocking Dorland -- it is NOT a good look. Also, GOOD LORD, why would you WANT to insert yourself publicly into this story, if you're an author? This is radioactive! Stay away!
Do literally NONE of these people understand how other human beings perceive their actions when those actions are read in isolation from the rest of their personality? Have literally NONE of these people ever seen a PR statement? "Dawn Dorland did an amazing thing by donating a kidney, and I'm truly sorry she's hurting right now. Sonya is a good friend, and I believe her when she says this was unintentional. But the fact is that Dawn was badly hurt by Sonya's actions, however intentional or unintentional. This is a messy and emotional situation that I hope the two can resolve between them, and nothing that I can say will add any insight, nor is it my place to stand in judgment of either of them. The best thing I can do in this situation is honor Dawn's incredible act of compassion by linking to this national kidney charity ...." (this took me 40 seconds)
Also, regarding people tracking other people's likes on facebook -- this is so common that it's a frequent plotline on teen shows (I'm 14 on the inside, I watch a lot of teen shows!). It's cringe to admit to doing it, and it's super cringe to call someone out for failing to like/comment, but it's such a common activity that entire multi-episode arcs revolve around making thirst-trap TikToks and obsessively checking to see if one's crush has commented. And around discussing classmates' like/comment activity with one's close friends -- especially if one is hoping the popular kids will like one's TikToks. Like, sure, these are shows about teenagers. But they're written by 45-year-old writers who are clearly doing the same thing. And there are daily articles in major, serious, Pulitzer-winning publications about which celebrities are liking and not-liking which other celebrities' statuses! Like, everybody knew JLo was dumping ARod before anything became public because she stopped liking or commenting on his socials. It's not just a thing obsessive teenagers do, it is a legitimate journalistic investigation tool at this point!
(Also this story is making me want to go re-watch The Good Place to think about supererogatory acts and the motives behind them, which is maybe the best possible outcome of having read this. And double shout-out to brainwane for using the word supererogatory, it's so exciting to see in a sentence in the wild.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:51 PM on October 5, 2021 [81 favorites]
Back in 2018, I donated my left kidney to my wife.
Flagged as fantastic, a really helpful comment.
posted by Frowner at 8:52 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
Flagged as fantastic, a really helpful comment.
posted by Frowner at 8:52 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
So, yes both these individuals came off poorly, but can someone explain why minor league writer drama warrants a long form article in ny review of books?
This thread has 83 comments as I type this, and the second most popular MeFi post today has 36. I don’t know the Twitter numbers or article views on NYT.com but I’m willing to bet both are high. Eyeballs and engagement are everything these days; under our current incentive system you can’t blame a journalist for writing an article they know people are going to want to read.
posted by ejs at 8:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
This thread has 83 comments as I type this, and the second most popular MeFi post today has 36. I don’t know the Twitter numbers or article views on NYT.com but I’m willing to bet both are high. Eyeballs and engagement are everything these days; under our current incentive system you can’t blame a journalist for writing an article they know people are going to want to read.
posted by ejs at 8:53 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Dorland is a sympathetic -- if extraordinarily complicated -- character in this story
I do not understand this perspective at all. At. All. I felt visceral discomfort reading through what she said and wrote. It was red flag after red flag after red flag. I do not see how she comes across as sympathetic.
posted by meese at 9:03 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
I do not understand this perspective at all. At. All. I felt visceral discomfort reading through what she said and wrote. It was red flag after red flag after red flag. I do not see how she comes across as sympathetic.
posted by meese at 9:03 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
Dorland saved someone's life by donating a kidney. That's incredibly sympathetic.
posted by No One Ever Does at 9:07 PM on October 5, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by No One Ever Does at 9:07 PM on October 5, 2021 [21 favorites]
The action is not the same as the person performing the action.
posted by meese at 9:08 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by meese at 9:08 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
what’s sticking in my craw is the “yes you’re supposed to give up your organs”, mainly because of the common argument that forced pregnancy is akin to demanding a stranger give you their organs.
You do know people can volunteer to get pregnant? Which is just a little bit closer to the concept of someone volunteering to donate an organ. Nobody is 'demanding a stranger give you their organs'. You could make a great analogy that people are willing to go through organ donation for a family member, like they're willing to go through pregnancy to get their own kid - but a very small minority is willing to go through either experience for the sake of someone else, in stranger donation or surrogacy. Except that kidney donation is a walk in the damn park compared to pregnancy, which makes it very slightly surprising that more people won't consider it. But most people can't even get off the couch to donate blood, so what do you expect.
posted by bashing rocks together at 9:09 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
You do know people can volunteer to get pregnant? Which is just a little bit closer to the concept of someone volunteering to donate an organ. Nobody is 'demanding a stranger give you their organs'. You could make a great analogy that people are willing to go through organ donation for a family member, like they're willing to go through pregnancy to get their own kid - but a very small minority is willing to go through either experience for the sake of someone else, in stranger donation or surrogacy. Except that kidney donation is a walk in the damn park compared to pregnancy, which makes it very slightly surprising that more people won't consider it. But most people can't even get off the couch to donate blood, so what do you expect.
posted by bashing rocks together at 9:09 PM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
How many of you have been close to someone who was on dialysis for years? When I was younger I dated someone who was. And I've seen someone my parent was close to (who I was not), who died of kidney failure. The person who died, a younger person of color, would have taken a goddamn kidney from an alien at the end, no matter how much gratitude the alien wanted.
Every one of you criticizing Dorland should spend some time in a dialysis room. A lot of time.
I'm not arguing that Dorland is likable, or a good writer. But I've sat here privately and called Larson unprintable names. Never will I touch a book that has her name on it as a contributing author or editor. I will never touch another book by Ng. I am so angry and disappointed. Beyond disappointed. Using your minority class to distract with sleight of hand from straight-up plagiarism, enacting the whole mean girl trope so hard it's an exact caricature imprint...Jesus Christ. Other people have already said what I feel far more elegantly, but I am urging those of you denigrating Dorland to consider actual people with actual failed kidneys.
I'm lucky enough to have had certain kinds of empathy beaten into me by life, which some of you clearly haven't learned, hard or easy. I've been through major surgery twice, and woke up screaming both times, and the idea that someone would go through major surgery for a stranger blows my goddamn mind. (The first time I went to have surgery in another country alone I posted to metatalk and asked if we could do a mix-cd exchange and explained why that would be nest for me. Cortex called me weird and took it down. This ugliness so many of you are showing reminds me of that. Someone else in pain, and part of your community but not your in-group? Yeah, I'm saddened but not at ALL surprised by the tone here.)
I have so many mixed feelings about motivation. I've seen a person close to me do real harm by adopting too many kids out of a need for adulation. But at the end of the day those kids needed a place to sleep, and no one else was offering for some of them. The case is far more clear_cut for organ donation. Donors aren't able to exert power over the person to whom they donate the organ. And they are pretty intensely psychologically screened. People die without donated kidneys Horrible, wildly painful, drawn-out deaths, with lives that grow smaller as their bodies poison them, sometimes for years and years on dialysis. The person I was close to? They were lucky enough to get a donation and then that donated organ failed. The other thing is watching people drift away with time as the person just doesn't get better. In this case I watched his views get more strange and conservative as his world got smaller and smaller.
On days like these, watching the jerks throw rocks and say "Iwouldn't donate and you can't make me, but tee hee, did you see that gormless woman who who thought people were her friends? How high and mighty she thinks she is, suggesting people donate. Hashtags, how yesterday. How rudely earnest. And on top of that she's never been published! Of course she wanted her kidney to go to a POC. She never said that, but you can't trust people who get excited about doing something good and try to encourage others to donate organs. She owed this other woman the use of her words, for free." Where was I? Oh yes, watching folks say this is going to give me lurid dreams of nephritic kidneys and people waking up in tubs of ice. I might write about it, but don't worry. If I reprint the meanest comments verbatim in my story, I'll be sure to point out that I'm a minority, and I only made a few bucks and you can't whine about your hurt feelings because you said it's not a big deal. I can't bring myself to talk shit about anyone behind their back though, so my chat logs aren't gonna do much for ya.
It's like a being in a room of spoiled, neurotic lapdogs, yapping and snarling and biting. Anyone who shits on an organ donor hasn't been through enough shit, period.
If you're one of three people reading this who got my info and sent me music before cortex nuked it, please contact me. My life got torched from so many different angles I deleted that account and lost my list and I very, very, very much wanted to thank you and send you some music in return
posted by liminal_shadows at 9:12 PM on October 5, 2021 [98 favorites]
Every one of you criticizing Dorland should spend some time in a dialysis room. A lot of time.
I'm not arguing that Dorland is likable, or a good writer. But I've sat here privately and called Larson unprintable names. Never will I touch a book that has her name on it as a contributing author or editor. I will never touch another book by Ng. I am so angry and disappointed. Beyond disappointed. Using your minority class to distract with sleight of hand from straight-up plagiarism, enacting the whole mean girl trope so hard it's an exact caricature imprint...Jesus Christ. Other people have already said what I feel far more elegantly, but I am urging those of you denigrating Dorland to consider actual people with actual failed kidneys.
I'm lucky enough to have had certain kinds of empathy beaten into me by life, which some of you clearly haven't learned, hard or easy. I've been through major surgery twice, and woke up screaming both times, and the idea that someone would go through major surgery for a stranger blows my goddamn mind. (The first time I went to have surgery in another country alone I posted to metatalk and asked if we could do a mix-cd exchange and explained why that would be nest for me. Cortex called me weird and took it down. This ugliness so many of you are showing reminds me of that. Someone else in pain, and part of your community but not your in-group? Yeah, I'm saddened but not at ALL surprised by the tone here.)
I have so many mixed feelings about motivation. I've seen a person close to me do real harm by adopting too many kids out of a need for adulation. But at the end of the day those kids needed a place to sleep, and no one else was offering for some of them. The case is far more clear_cut for organ donation. Donors aren't able to exert power over the person to whom they donate the organ. And they are pretty intensely psychologically screened. People die without donated kidneys Horrible, wildly painful, drawn-out deaths, with lives that grow smaller as their bodies poison them, sometimes for years and years on dialysis. The person I was close to? They were lucky enough to get a donation and then that donated organ failed. The other thing is watching people drift away with time as the person just doesn't get better. In this case I watched his views get more strange and conservative as his world got smaller and smaller.
On days like these, watching the jerks throw rocks and say "Iwouldn't donate and you can't make me, but tee hee, did you see that gormless woman who who thought people were her friends? How high and mighty she thinks she is, suggesting people donate. Hashtags, how yesterday. How rudely earnest. And on top of that she's never been published! Of course she wanted her kidney to go to a POC. She never said that, but you can't trust people who get excited about doing something good and try to encourage others to donate organs. She owed this other woman the use of her words, for free." Where was I? Oh yes, watching folks say this is going to give me lurid dreams of nephritic kidneys and people waking up in tubs of ice. I might write about it, but don't worry. If I reprint the meanest comments verbatim in my story, I'll be sure to point out that I'm a minority, and I only made a few bucks and you can't whine about your hurt feelings because you said it's not a big deal. I can't bring myself to talk shit about anyone behind their back though, so my chat logs aren't gonna do much for ya.
It's like a being in a room of spoiled, neurotic lapdogs, yapping and snarling and biting. Anyone who shits on an organ donor hasn't been through enough shit, period.
If you're one of three people reading this who got my info and sent me music before cortex nuked it, please contact me. My life got torched from so many different angles I deleted that account and lost my list and I very, very, very much wanted to thank you and send you some music in return
posted by liminal_shadows at 9:12 PM on October 5, 2021 [98 favorites]
involving lawyers to right the wrong of being the inspiration for a short story because she had her feelings hurt
The NYT story says that Larson sued first, after both had lawyered up and exchanged threats. I guess she didn't anticipate that her group chats would be subpoenaed, or didn't care.
Kidney Lady keeps showing up to events that Mean Lady is speaking at
Pretty sure those were Zoom events, which is not quite so "scary" in the way that you're describing as in person.
posted by msalt at 9:30 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
The NYT story says that Larson sued first, after both had lawyered up and exchanged threats. I guess she didn't anticipate that her group chats would be subpoenaed, or didn't care.
Kidney Lady keeps showing up to events that Mean Lady is speaking at
Pretty sure those were Zoom events, which is not quite so "scary" in the way that you're describing as in person.
posted by msalt at 9:30 PM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
I'm amazed that anyone would be blase about a kidney donation. I'm more amazed that people would be mean about it. Dorland seems to be the kind of annoying that brings out some people's inner bully. She's self-involved, but the writers are assholes.
posted by Mavri at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2021 [24 favorites]
posted by Mavri at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2021 [24 favorites]
... Except that kidney donation is a walk in the damn park compared to pregnancy, which makes it very slightly surprising that more people won't consider it.
This is not true. Canada and the UK have 7.3 and 9.2 deaths per 100,000 live births (source). Kidney donors have roughly the same mortality rate, 7 deaths per 100,000 donations (source). Kidney donation is relatively safe, but it's still major abdominal surgery; having done it, I don't think I'd call it a "walk in the damn park".
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 9:39 PM on October 5, 2021 [30 favorites]
This is not true. Canada and the UK have 7.3 and 9.2 deaths per 100,000 live births (source). Kidney donors have roughly the same mortality rate, 7 deaths per 100,000 donations (source). Kidney donation is relatively safe, but it's still major abdominal surgery; having done it, I don't think I'd call it a "walk in the damn park".
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 9:39 PM on October 5, 2021 [30 favorites]
I cringed my way through this story, partly because of what it echoed about some of my own experiences. I've known what it's to deal with someone like Dorland, who aggressively demands attention and praise in a way that ultimately inspires contempt in others, and I also thought guiltily about the times I've used friends and family as illustrative anecdotes in essays I've written (no one who has seen the things I've written about them has ever minded, but I've tried to become better about sending people the relevant text before I publish the piece so they have a chance to vet it).
Okay, so Dorland was posting a lot about donating a kidney and promoting it as a good thing to do (totally fine!), but didn't think it was getting the response it deserved (not so healthy), and was actually asking specific people had they seen her posts about it...? (a little out of line)
Larson, meanwhile, has written a story with kidney donation as a plot point (totally fine!) in which she's specifically magnified what she sees as problematic in Dorland's kidney donation journey (not cool!) and then it turns out she's straight-up plagiarized a post of Dorland's (holy shit!).
Dorland has not handled the situation appropriately -- she got on Larson's case about the story before she even knew she had anything to object to, she sued her for an exorbitant amount of money compared to what Larson actually made from the story, showed up at two of Larson's online events when they were suing each other, and according to Ng she has called Larson's work and asked them to suspend her, got her phone number which she didn’t even have before, and texted her constantly -- but that doesn't mean she doesn't have anything to legitimately object to.
Larson, for her part, has refused to take any real responsibility for what she has done and tried to frame Dorland as the real problem, i.e., because of her privilege/entitlement, because she's a failed writer. And Celeste Ng and the others taking her part... ugh.
It's a glorious trainwreck of a situation, but I wouldn't care to actually know any of these people. Ick.
Every writer uses material from the lives of people they know when writing fiction, but it seems to me one really, really needs to either change the material enough to make it not recognizable, or clear it with the person(s) one is writing about. And actual plagiarism is never okay.
posted by orange swan at 9:59 PM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
Okay, so Dorland was posting a lot about donating a kidney and promoting it as a good thing to do (totally fine!), but didn't think it was getting the response it deserved (not so healthy), and was actually asking specific people had they seen her posts about it...? (a little out of line)
Larson, meanwhile, has written a story with kidney donation as a plot point (totally fine!) in which she's specifically magnified what she sees as problematic in Dorland's kidney donation journey (not cool!) and then it turns out she's straight-up plagiarized a post of Dorland's (holy shit!).
Dorland has not handled the situation appropriately -- she got on Larson's case about the story before she even knew she had anything to object to, she sued her for an exorbitant amount of money compared to what Larson actually made from the story, showed up at two of Larson's online events when they were suing each other, and according to Ng she has called Larson's work and asked them to suspend her, got her phone number which she didn’t even have before, and texted her constantly -- but that doesn't mean she doesn't have anything to legitimately object to.
Larson, for her part, has refused to take any real responsibility for what she has done and tried to frame Dorland as the real problem, i.e., because of her privilege/entitlement, because she's a failed writer. And Celeste Ng and the others taking her part... ugh.
It's a glorious trainwreck of a situation, but I wouldn't care to actually know any of these people. Ick.
Every writer uses material from the lives of people they know when writing fiction, but it seems to me one really, really needs to either change the material enough to make it not recognizable, or clear it with the person(s) one is writing about. And actual plagiarism is never okay.
posted by orange swan at 9:59 PM on October 5, 2021 [19 favorites]
Fuzzy.little.sock, I’m not saying that a year from now you should send to everyone who commented on this post but did not favorite your comment a memail that says “Does MetaFilter not care about my kidney donation?”
But if you did I’d think it was at least a little funny.
posted by rewil at 10:01 PM on October 5, 2021 [51 favorites]
But if you did I’d think it was at least a little funny.
posted by rewil at 10:01 PM on October 5, 2021 [51 favorites]
To me, this whole mess comes down to how broken social media has made us, how badly we crave some sort of recognition, how the internet has gamified doing anything. Here’s a lady that did a real selfless act but the article makes it sound like Giving A Kidney only mattered to her as Potential Content for social media engagement or a story or whatever, and that’s just such a bummer. It’s such a bummer that many people only do things these days in order to get followers or likes or fame or vitality or whatnot (Even on meta filter there’s a favorite button which…why).
It’s a bummer, too, that this woman was teased in a group chat by an author she thought she was friends with. I have always assumed that nobody really thinks about me as much as I’m worried they might be, but it must have been terrifying to realize that people were actively engaged in making fun of you and then plagiarizing your words for a character in a short story as a way of continuing to make fun of you. That sucks. I’m sure we don’t know the whole story, but what we do know just sucks.
People need to just be cool. Like, for a second, just be cool to each other.
posted by RubixsQube at 10:50 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
It’s a bummer, too, that this woman was teased in a group chat by an author she thought she was friends with. I have always assumed that nobody really thinks about me as much as I’m worried they might be, but it must have been terrifying to realize that people were actively engaged in making fun of you and then plagiarizing your words for a character in a short story as a way of continuing to make fun of you. That sucks. I’m sure we don’t know the whole story, but what we do know just sucks.
People need to just be cool. Like, for a second, just be cool to each other.
posted by RubixsQube at 10:50 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
"I do not understand this perspective at all. At. All. I felt visceral discomfort reading through what she said and wrote. It was red flag after red flag after red flag. I do not see how she comes across as sympathetic."
So, I feel like Larson was a pretty typical human fail-state -- she was promoting her own career arguably at someone else's expense, but that's really common and understandable in late capitalism. And she was nasty (and even cruel) behind someone's back, someone that she really disliked, which -- we've all been in ugly group-chats, in person or online. Larson's failures are really easy to understand, and even empathize with -- even if you ultimately feel that she was the less-ethical person, or the person more at fault. These are incredibly human failings that most of us share to one degree or another, and most of us can recognize, even if we would not have carried those failings quite so far.
Dorland's fail-state was a hell of a lot more complicated, and a lot harder to understand -- but, as I wrote above, I feel like I get it. I've known and been very close to people just like this. And you are not wrong -- it is viscerally uncomfortable. They are deeply uncomfortable human beings. They are not behaving in ways that are comprehensible for most people, and it makes you want to push them away. It's dangerous, it's foreign, it's needy, it's weird, it's not normal.
I'm going to talk about this through the lens of my former close friend, who is absolutely not Dorland, and maybe my experience reflects exactly nothing and you should just ignore this comment. That's fair! I only know Dorland through this article, and I can only respond to what's in the article. When I was in Divinity school, I had a very dear friend, whom I will call Adam, who was preparing for ordained ministry. Adam was exactly as fucked up as the rest of us human beings, with flaws and faults and vices, and virtues and strengths and admirable qualities. And everyone in (Christian) Divinity school takes Jesus way too seriously. We would not be in Divinity school if we didn't, at least not in the 21st century. (In the 19th century there are definitely plenty of div school dudebros who are like "sweet, smart-people school, where I don't have to bust my ass on a farm! And I'll get money and respect and I'll be a community leader!" In the 21st century, this is no longer a thing; you have to be weird and overly-sincere.) Adam took Jesus way, way, WAY too seriously, even by Divinity school standards. Adam, who was (is) a deeply wonderful human being, was trying at every moment to emulate Jesus in all of Jesus's weirdness, especially the parts that flip the capitalist tables and make people feel uncomfortable about their interpersonal relationships.
Adam was like, "Why should I care about the norms of human society? I'm here to serve Jesus." So at one point he just stopped paying his rent and moved out with no notice to anyone, and went to live in a homeless encampment to minister to the homeless, and we [his friends] were all like, "DUDE. ADAM. There are programs and studies about how to help people who don't have housing, and the problem is definitely not that nobody's ever told them about Jesus, or even that nobody's ever modeled Jesus's radical loving-kindness to them -- the problem (in this particular encampment) is drug addiction, and you cannot solve that by loving people more." Adam at one point gave away literally all of his clothes but one outfit, and (for some totally inexplicable reason) a cape, and he walked around in one outfit for literally months, and attended classes, and refused to do laundry because it was a waste of 75 cents that he could give to someone more deserving. (And also I guess he would have been naked while doing the laundry, which I guess is awkward.) Smelling like someone who has not bathed in literal months is not a normal way to attend graduate school, and definitely does not endear you to your classmates.
It was really hard to reject him or pull away from him, because he was an incredibly giving person, who worked incredibly hard to live out his beliefs. That's admirable! Most of us -- me very much included -- are hypocrites who have ideals, but don't live up to them. Adam was willing to discard just about everything in his life to live up to his ideals. But I cannot express to you how viscerally uncomfortable it was to be friends with him. (And literally all of his friends were in Divinity school, and that is because everyone in Divinity school takes Jesus (and/or ethics generally) way too seriously, and has a lot of sympathy for other people who do.) Some of it was because he made us feel guilty for not doing enough. Some of it was because all of his attempts to help people were wildly (wildly!) wrongheaded. But an awful lot of it was that his behavior was just not normal, and people behaving well outside the norms are very uncomfortable to deal with. Just not bathing for six months is more than enough to make you an outcast that other people are jumpy about befriending. I mean, I'm fundamentally a social, hairless ape, and I don't want all the other social, hairless apes to shun me because I'm too friendly with that one super-weird social, hairless ape who doesn't understand the norms of the troop!
If one of my former classmates were to make a group chat today that was titled, like, "HEY, REMEMBER ADAM'S WEIRD CAPE?" I would be all over that shit, because I seriously cannot express to you how weird the cape situation was -- I am still thinking about it 20 years later -- and I would probably be hella embarrassed if that cape-mockery became public. I think, and I sincerely hope, that I would not mock Adam as a human being -- I hope it come across here that I have a deep sympathy for him, even if I think his actions were misguided. And I have an understanding of my own visceral reaction to his "weird" behavior. I think my ultimate withdrawal from our friendship was healthy and ethical, because his self-destructive behavior was becoming other-destructive in ways that I could not condone. I tried to conduct that withdrawal in an ethical and honest way (several of us tried to speak to him very frankly as we made a clear decision to withdraw from him, not in an intervention kind of way, but sort-of in an intervention kind of way), but I also recognize that his socially awkward behavior was part of what drove that decision -- not just for me, but for all of us. I'd like to think that we were all honest and self-reflective enough to realize that, and to try to separate what was socially and culturally uncomfortable from what was actually harmful about his behavior. But I don't know that we did. We were 24; what did we know? I feel like in retrospect I both have more compassion for him AND have a more acute sense of how unhealthy his behavior was -- behavior that at 24, I was a lot more willing to excuse as being in the service of idealism. But I don't know; it was a hard and fucking complicated situation that I would struggle to deal with today, let alone as a dumb kid 20 years ago. I think about it a lot. I don't know what I would have done differently. But it doesn't feel great.
Anyway, this is the lens I read Dorland through, and find her sympathetic. I think she cares a lot about other people, and wants other people to care that much too -- finds it inexplicable when they don't! But also, in a very flawed human way, wants her love for mankind to be recognized and lauded. And I think her behavior, because it is outside the norm in the sort of way that leads to one giving up a kidney for a stranger, is hard to grapple with. My immediate reaction to Larson was, "Ugh, this is some mean-girl bullshit." (With apologies to girls; it's some mean KID bullshit, but the movie is called Mean Girls, so.) But Dorland is both generous and needy, in a combination that feels hard to take. People are made uncomfortable both by her generosity ("What, do I have to donate a kidney now?") and by her neediness ("OMG, who is this obsessively checking their socials?"). It's all too intense. It's easier to back off. It makes the other social, hairless apes uncomfortable.
And because I assume you will all want to know, we do have one friend who is "the guy who keeps up with Adam" while the rest of us have withdrawn, and Adam's life is (predictably) kind-of a mess, because he has not "outgrown" trying to live like Jesus 24/7. We've all quietly bailed him out at one point or another, through our friend. He is -- I don't know, he's living a life that I'm talking about to people who've never met him, 20 years later. That's not nothing! But it's also a giant freaking mess, and I think he's done a lot of damage along the way to people he's drawn into his orbit. It's possible he's done a lot of good, that he's changed people's hearts and lives in ways we don't know about. But the visible parts are mostly destructive, and I love him? but I love him from a very safe distance, because dude is a poltergeist.
But he has never been in an ugly group chat. And has nothing to fear from subpoenas (except probably some incidental felonies he committed while trying to help people in very misguided ways, that seems on-brand for him).
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:00 PM on October 5, 2021 [70 favorites]
So, I feel like Larson was a pretty typical human fail-state -- she was promoting her own career arguably at someone else's expense, but that's really common and understandable in late capitalism. And she was nasty (and even cruel) behind someone's back, someone that she really disliked, which -- we've all been in ugly group-chats, in person or online. Larson's failures are really easy to understand, and even empathize with -- even if you ultimately feel that she was the less-ethical person, or the person more at fault. These are incredibly human failings that most of us share to one degree or another, and most of us can recognize, even if we would not have carried those failings quite so far.
Dorland's fail-state was a hell of a lot more complicated, and a lot harder to understand -- but, as I wrote above, I feel like I get it. I've known and been very close to people just like this. And you are not wrong -- it is viscerally uncomfortable. They are deeply uncomfortable human beings. They are not behaving in ways that are comprehensible for most people, and it makes you want to push them away. It's dangerous, it's foreign, it's needy, it's weird, it's not normal.
I'm going to talk about this through the lens of my former close friend, who is absolutely not Dorland, and maybe my experience reflects exactly nothing and you should just ignore this comment. That's fair! I only know Dorland through this article, and I can only respond to what's in the article. When I was in Divinity school, I had a very dear friend, whom I will call Adam, who was preparing for ordained ministry. Adam was exactly as fucked up as the rest of us human beings, with flaws and faults and vices, and virtues and strengths and admirable qualities. And everyone in (Christian) Divinity school takes Jesus way too seriously. We would not be in Divinity school if we didn't, at least not in the 21st century. (In the 19th century there are definitely plenty of div school dudebros who are like "sweet, smart-people school, where I don't have to bust my ass on a farm! And I'll get money and respect and I'll be a community leader!" In the 21st century, this is no longer a thing; you have to be weird and overly-sincere.) Adam took Jesus way, way, WAY too seriously, even by Divinity school standards. Adam, who was (is) a deeply wonderful human being, was trying at every moment to emulate Jesus in all of Jesus's weirdness, especially the parts that flip the capitalist tables and make people feel uncomfortable about their interpersonal relationships.
Adam was like, "Why should I care about the norms of human society? I'm here to serve Jesus." So at one point he just stopped paying his rent and moved out with no notice to anyone, and went to live in a homeless encampment to minister to the homeless, and we [his friends] were all like, "DUDE. ADAM. There are programs and studies about how to help people who don't have housing, and the problem is definitely not that nobody's ever told them about Jesus, or even that nobody's ever modeled Jesus's radical loving-kindness to them -- the problem (in this particular encampment) is drug addiction, and you cannot solve that by loving people more." Adam at one point gave away literally all of his clothes but one outfit, and (for some totally inexplicable reason) a cape, and he walked around in one outfit for literally months, and attended classes, and refused to do laundry because it was a waste of 75 cents that he could give to someone more deserving. (And also I guess he would have been naked while doing the laundry, which I guess is awkward.) Smelling like someone who has not bathed in literal months is not a normal way to attend graduate school, and definitely does not endear you to your classmates.
It was really hard to reject him or pull away from him, because he was an incredibly giving person, who worked incredibly hard to live out his beliefs. That's admirable! Most of us -- me very much included -- are hypocrites who have ideals, but don't live up to them. Adam was willing to discard just about everything in his life to live up to his ideals. But I cannot express to you how viscerally uncomfortable it was to be friends with him. (And literally all of his friends were in Divinity school, and that is because everyone in Divinity school takes Jesus (and/or ethics generally) way too seriously, and has a lot of sympathy for other people who do.) Some of it was because he made us feel guilty for not doing enough. Some of it was because all of his attempts to help people were wildly (wildly!) wrongheaded. But an awful lot of it was that his behavior was just not normal, and people behaving well outside the norms are very uncomfortable to deal with. Just not bathing for six months is more than enough to make you an outcast that other people are jumpy about befriending. I mean, I'm fundamentally a social, hairless ape, and I don't want all the other social, hairless apes to shun me because I'm too friendly with that one super-weird social, hairless ape who doesn't understand the norms of the troop!
If one of my former classmates were to make a group chat today that was titled, like, "HEY, REMEMBER ADAM'S WEIRD CAPE?" I would be all over that shit, because I seriously cannot express to you how weird the cape situation was -- I am still thinking about it 20 years later -- and I would probably be hella embarrassed if that cape-mockery became public. I think, and I sincerely hope, that I would not mock Adam as a human being -- I hope it come across here that I have a deep sympathy for him, even if I think his actions were misguided. And I have an understanding of my own visceral reaction to his "weird" behavior. I think my ultimate withdrawal from our friendship was healthy and ethical, because his self-destructive behavior was becoming other-destructive in ways that I could not condone. I tried to conduct that withdrawal in an ethical and honest way (several of us tried to speak to him very frankly as we made a clear decision to withdraw from him, not in an intervention kind of way, but sort-of in an intervention kind of way), but I also recognize that his socially awkward behavior was part of what drove that decision -- not just for me, but for all of us. I'd like to think that we were all honest and self-reflective enough to realize that, and to try to separate what was socially and culturally uncomfortable from what was actually harmful about his behavior. But I don't know that we did. We were 24; what did we know? I feel like in retrospect I both have more compassion for him AND have a more acute sense of how unhealthy his behavior was -- behavior that at 24, I was a lot more willing to excuse as being in the service of idealism. But I don't know; it was a hard and fucking complicated situation that I would struggle to deal with today, let alone as a dumb kid 20 years ago. I think about it a lot. I don't know what I would have done differently. But it doesn't feel great.
Anyway, this is the lens I read Dorland through, and find her sympathetic. I think she cares a lot about other people, and wants other people to care that much too -- finds it inexplicable when they don't! But also, in a very flawed human way, wants her love for mankind to be recognized and lauded. And I think her behavior, because it is outside the norm in the sort of way that leads to one giving up a kidney for a stranger, is hard to grapple with. My immediate reaction to Larson was, "Ugh, this is some mean-girl bullshit." (With apologies to girls; it's some mean KID bullshit, but the movie is called Mean Girls, so.) But Dorland is both generous and needy, in a combination that feels hard to take. People are made uncomfortable both by her generosity ("What, do I have to donate a kidney now?") and by her neediness ("OMG, who is this obsessively checking their socials?"). It's all too intense. It's easier to back off. It makes the other social, hairless apes uncomfortable.
And because I assume you will all want to know, we do have one friend who is "the guy who keeps up with Adam" while the rest of us have withdrawn, and Adam's life is (predictably) kind-of a mess, because he has not "outgrown" trying to live like Jesus 24/7. We've all quietly bailed him out at one point or another, through our friend. He is -- I don't know, he's living a life that I'm talking about to people who've never met him, 20 years later. That's not nothing! But it's also a giant freaking mess, and I think he's done a lot of damage along the way to people he's drawn into his orbit. It's possible he's done a lot of good, that he's changed people's hearts and lives in ways we don't know about. But the visible parts are mostly destructive, and I love him? but I love him from a very safe distance, because dude is a poltergeist.
But he has never been in an ugly group chat. And has nothing to fear from subpoenas (except probably some incidental felonies he committed while trying to help people in very misguided ways, that seems on-brand for him).
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:00 PM on October 5, 2021 [70 favorites]
"Seems to me that the person who lost the most in all of this is Celeste Ng, who is a major name and gets maybe +2 for friend loyalty, but -25 for nasty punching down at an obviously unwell person. In the NYT comments she is getting savaged."
FWIW, Ng also had this to say:
I actually have concerns about this piece because I am concerned that she is really struggling with (something) and this piece feels like gawking are someone who is struggling. And I say that as someone who *firmly* believes she is in the wrong here.
posted by naoko at 11:05 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
FWIW, Ng also had this to say:
I actually have concerns about this piece because I am concerned that she is really struggling with (something) and this piece feels like gawking are someone who is struggling. And I say that as someone who *firmly* believes she is in the wrong here.
posted by naoko at 11:05 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm trying to square the circle between Eyebrows McGee's comment and fuzzy.little.sock's comment. I think it hinges on whether Dawn is generally insufferable or locally insufferable.
If she's generally insufferable, as Eyebrows suggests, then this is just one symptom; the insufferability made her an altruistic organ donor. If she's locally insufferable, then this is something that will fade eventually; the altruistic organ donation made her insufferable for a while.
If I could take all of the most narcissistic able-bodied people on earth, sort them by self-involvedness, and deal out one of their kidneys to each of the needy, I would. It would thrill me if one decided to do so of their own volition. It feels like a bit of an absurd utilitarian thought experiment — does a single life saved balance out all the headaches you've given your fellow humans across decades of toxicity? — but if we could truly place people on some sort of morality scale, I don't know if present-day me would stack up.
But either way, choosing to spar with such a person on the subject of their organ donation is a world-level bad decision. Have that fight in some other stadium. If someone is chronically insufferable, I guarantee you'll have better odds next year at a neutral venue. If they're just acutely insufferable because of recent organ donation, then grit your teeth and use the tools you have at your disposal to make their words not show up on your computer screen for a while, and eventually the problem will go away.
Considering the art in a vacuum, I have no problem with a short story where the organ donor is actually the antihero. But if you borrow pieces of the daring story of a Slightly Too Online person and share that story within the same friend circles without some thematic laundering to cover your tracks… you're playing with fire, and God help you if you were actually surprised when said person reached out and asked to read the story. Did you think it wouldn't get back to them?
I know computers pay my salary and got us to the moon and are how I'm able to talk to you fine folks… but they've also honed some maladaptive social traits like “how about I obsess over why some rando hasn't liked my post” and “instead of ignoring someone, let's have a group chat about them behind their backs in a format that can later be subpoenaed.” We're still in the infancy of how weird this shit can get.
posted by savetheclocktower at 11:13 PM on October 5, 2021 [21 favorites]
If she's generally insufferable, as Eyebrows suggests, then this is just one symptom; the insufferability made her an altruistic organ donor. If she's locally insufferable, then this is something that will fade eventually; the altruistic organ donation made her insufferable for a while.
If I could take all of the most narcissistic able-bodied people on earth, sort them by self-involvedness, and deal out one of their kidneys to each of the needy, I would. It would thrill me if one decided to do so of their own volition. It feels like a bit of an absurd utilitarian thought experiment — does a single life saved balance out all the headaches you've given your fellow humans across decades of toxicity? — but if we could truly place people on some sort of morality scale, I don't know if present-day me would stack up.
But either way, choosing to spar with such a person on the subject of their organ donation is a world-level bad decision. Have that fight in some other stadium. If someone is chronically insufferable, I guarantee you'll have better odds next year at a neutral venue. If they're just acutely insufferable because of recent organ donation, then grit your teeth and use the tools you have at your disposal to make their words not show up on your computer screen for a while, and eventually the problem will go away.
Considering the art in a vacuum, I have no problem with a short story where the organ donor is actually the antihero. But if you borrow pieces of the daring story of a Slightly Too Online person and share that story within the same friend circles without some thematic laundering to cover your tracks… you're playing with fire, and God help you if you were actually surprised when said person reached out and asked to read the story. Did you think it wouldn't get back to them?
I know computers pay my salary and got us to the moon and are how I'm able to talk to you fine folks… but they've also honed some maladaptive social traits like “how about I obsess over why some rando hasn't liked my post” and “instead of ignoring someone, let's have a group chat about them behind their backs in a format that can later be subpoenaed.” We're still in the infancy of how weird this shit can get.
posted by savetheclocktower at 11:13 PM on October 5, 2021 [21 favorites]
there is not enough time in the world for these people. they all fucking deserve each other and I feel stupider for having read any of this.
posted by awfurby at 11:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by awfurby at 11:22 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
Dorland learned about the emails — a few hundred pages of them — from her new lawyer, Suzanne Elovecky, who read them first and warned her that they might be triggering. When she finally went through them, she saw what she meant. The Chunky Monkeys knew the donor in “The Kindest” was Dorland, and they were laughing at her. Everything she’d dreaded and feared about raising her voice — that so many writers she revered secretly dismissed and ostracized her
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but for me, this is the emotional heart of the situation. Dorland was repeatedly lied to about Larson's story and the extent to which it's based on her. Larson is stil prevaricating to us and to Dorland. Dorland had this years long, slow, horrific awakening that yes, her friend is using her words to publically use her as an example of a narcissist. While gaslighting her about it. My heart says "Yes, I would sue these people to shreds, if I could."
I think Larson is a sneaky coward and a liar about the way she handled the entire situation. Also, not changing the words because the original words seem so perfect smacks of a lack of creativity/no trust in her own abilities/laziness.
posted by Omnomnom at 11:47 PM on October 5, 2021 [50 favorites]
Maybe there's something wrong with me, but for me, this is the emotional heart of the situation. Dorland was repeatedly lied to about Larson's story and the extent to which it's based on her. Larson is stil prevaricating to us and to Dorland. Dorland had this years long, slow, horrific awakening that yes, her friend is using her words to publically use her as an example of a narcissist. While gaslighting her about it. My heart says "Yes, I would sue these people to shreds, if I could."
I think Larson is a sneaky coward and a liar about the way she handled the entire situation. Also, not changing the words because the original words seem so perfect smacks of a lack of creativity/no trust in her own abilities/laziness.
posted by Omnomnom at 11:47 PM on October 5, 2021 [50 favorites]
You do know people can volunteer to get pregnant? Which is just a little bit closer to the concept of someone volunteering to donate an organ. Nobody is 'demanding a stranger give you their organs'.
Just a few comments up thread from this one I’m making right now is one from a MeFite saying they’d force each of us to give up our kidneys if they could. I understand hyperbole and recognize that that comment is somewhat hyperbolic. Do you understand what it feels like to be a woman in a country that does not value women’s lives except as human incubators and may very soon formally end our meager ability to control our reproductive abilities? And to see people, even hyperbolicly, talk about how they want to wrest control of our bodies from us entirely?
I laud anyone who chooses to be a living donor, but some of this thread is giving me the creeps real bad.
posted by palomar at 3:22 AM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
Just a few comments up thread from this one I’m making right now is one from a MeFite saying they’d force each of us to give up our kidneys if they could. I understand hyperbole and recognize that that comment is somewhat hyperbolic. Do you understand what it feels like to be a woman in a country that does not value women’s lives except as human incubators and may very soon formally end our meager ability to control our reproductive abilities? And to see people, even hyperbolicly, talk about how they want to wrest control of our bodies from us entirely?
I laud anyone who chooses to be a living donor, but some of this thread is giving me the creeps real bad.
posted by palomar at 3:22 AM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
I think Eyebrows McGee's comment on their former divinity-school friend Adam is a great perspective on the visceral reaction that people can have to the obsessive and insufferable narcissist/altruist in their social circle.
Reading all of these great comments had really made me think about what flawed, damaged little creatures we all are, full of messy contradictions and petty jealousies and flashes of brilliance. Flagged as fantastic.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 4:11 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
Reading all of these great comments had really made me think about what flawed, damaged little creatures we all are, full of messy contradictions and petty jealousies and flashes of brilliance. Flagged as fantastic.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 4:11 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
orgy of destruction...from Nathaniel Hawthorne to Footloose
[golf clap]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:01 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
[golf clap]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 6:01 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Foz Meadows lightheartedly tweets:
Listen, literary fiction snobs can sneer at genre writers all they want, but at least we don’t get into weird embittered toxic personal contretemps about writing up a fictitious account of a colleague’s kidney donation.posted by brainwane at 6:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [52 favorites]
By contrast, genre spats have the decency to come in 5 exciting flavours:
- Who Owns The Fuckwolf Universe;
- The Alt-Right Is Angry Again;
- Bad Things Happened At A Convention;
- Does YA Suck Or Are You Just Old; and
- Twitter Found An Apple Labelled “To The Least Problematic”
There are worse things than being, in certain respects, oblivious and self-regarding (like Dorland). These are faults that are not fatal, partly because they are compatible with performing large acts of courage and compassion (like Dorland).
But are there worse things than being dishonest and malicious (like Larson)? If so, not many.
posted by PaulVario at 6:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
But are there worse things than being dishonest and malicious (like Larson)? If so, not many.
posted by PaulVario at 6:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
Wow, coming after Cat Person this shitfest has me afraid to even interact with a writer.
I think the problem with the ethical system of writers like Larson and Ng is that it stops at plagiarism. As long as you don't copy someone's words you can abuse their presumption of friendship and carve up their life like an animal carcass for clout.
posted by zymil at 6:12 AM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
I think the problem with the ethical system of writers like Larson and Ng is that it stops at plagiarism. As long as you don't copy someone's words you can abuse their presumption of friendship and carve up their life like an animal carcass for clout.
posted by zymil at 6:12 AM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
Also, Eyebrow McGee's post about "Adam" is totally fascinating and I wish I could read a long newspaper story written by her about him, rather than about these two other much less interesting people.
posted by PaulVario at 6:13 AM on October 6, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by PaulVario at 6:13 AM on October 6, 2021 [15 favorites]
Adam doesn’t sound like he would approach the New York Times with his own story.
posted by naoko at 6:15 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by naoko at 6:15 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Oof, my main reaction to having read this is gratitude that I didn’t listen to my teachers and become a writer. I’m a worse person for knowing anything about these people.
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:22 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by tchemgrrl at 6:22 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
I looked at Twitter this morning and a number of people seem to think that Dorland's kidney donation is somehow tainted by the fact that she wanted praise for it. There is definitely a Christian thing where it's wrong to tell people about your good deeds - Jesus said that people who were praised already had their reward and that God would reward what you did in secret. But if you aren't in that religious tradition, does it really undo the good of a kidney donation if you want people to praise you? Dorland's need for attention seems over the top for sure, but is it necessarily bad in itself? I'm sure the person whose life she saved wouldn't care if she was in a hundred parades.
I think you can say that Dorland sounds very annoying without pretending that donating a kidney to a stranger isn't an amazing thing that very few people would do. And that yes she should be lauded for that.
By definition, writers seeking publication want attention for their work. Nobody argues that Sylvia Plath was somehow less pure in her art because she put so much time into pursuing publication. (Probably only Salinger thought he was more pure because he quit publishing.) It seems an interesting thing to me that seeking attention and praise for literally saving someone's life while risking your own is pegged as pathological, while wanting attention, praise, and money for writing a story about someone who did just that is normal.
posted by FencingGal at 6:24 AM on October 6, 2021 [42 favorites]
I think you can say that Dorland sounds very annoying without pretending that donating a kidney to a stranger isn't an amazing thing that very few people would do. And that yes she should be lauded for that.
By definition, writers seeking publication want attention for their work. Nobody argues that Sylvia Plath was somehow less pure in her art because she put so much time into pursuing publication. (Probably only Salinger thought he was more pure because he quit publishing.) It seems an interesting thing to me that seeking attention and praise for literally saving someone's life while risking your own is pegged as pathological, while wanting attention, praise, and money for writing a story about someone who did just that is normal.
posted by FencingGal at 6:24 AM on October 6, 2021 [42 favorites]
I read some interesting stuff on on twitter from some UK commenters (unfortunately I can't seem to find it all again and am not in a position to search) where they were saying that this whole thing seemed to be very much a reflection of the kind of writing that comes out of US MFA programs - writing that appeals to a small literary in-crowd and that exists outside that crowd mostly as a trainwreck news story.
I do remember that Peter Mitchell - some guy as far as I'm concerned but actually the author of a book called Imperial Nostalgia: How The British Conquered Themselves, which looks pretty interesting - said something which totally explained why I tend not to like contemporary literary fiction: That it is structured around a character who is a moral exemplar/counter-exemplar whose actions provide a lesson and if you're lucky there's a bit more to the story but often not.
Like, I'd say the archetype of US literary fiction (as it is encountered by me, someone who reads a lot of fiction, serious and non-, but who only reads contemporary litfic when it's fairly visible in the culture, so I've read a lot of famous stuff and I think that says a lot about what leads to fame even though relatively little about literary fiction as a whole) is "Here are two people, one of them appears flawed and complex but is actually An Monster, the other appears to be An Monster but is actually flawed and complex, and they will change places over the course of the story. Also the monster one is grotesque and risible".
~~
So much of this does seem to be a really bad norming effect of the internet - we all know all the time the exact opinions of people we admire, and not just about the Feminine Mystique or Soviet Union Y/N but about breakfast products and television shows, so we have ready-made responses to everyone and everything outside the circle. And further, if we discover a new way to explain the badness of the things we all agree are bad, we get props in the circle - and again, not just over our monthly brunch/drinks/poker night but in the moment, all day everyday. A lot of pressure and reward if you respond strongly and immediately, not a lot of reward if you mull or take a middle path.
And then internet culture is invariably "Unless you are 100% perfect, everything you do should be reduced to its basest, worst elements, and these elements undercut everything else, there's no complexity". Like, it should not be suspicious that this woman donated a kidney to a stranger, however undesirable her other behavior may be. What do you think someone who undergoes major surgery to try to help a random is going to be like? A bit of a fool-saint, and fool-saints are always annoying, yes? The foolishness doesn't undercut the sainthood, and the sainthood doesn't make the annoying foolishness go away. But on the internet you have to pick a side - Stalin or DSA, fool or hero, China or the US, pepsi or fake-artisanal soda product, etc. You have to pick a side, find your team and then make capital out of it.
posted by Frowner at 6:24 AM on October 6, 2021 [42 favorites]
I do remember that Peter Mitchell - some guy as far as I'm concerned but actually the author of a book called Imperial Nostalgia: How The British Conquered Themselves, which looks pretty interesting - said something which totally explained why I tend not to like contemporary literary fiction: That it is structured around a character who is a moral exemplar/counter-exemplar whose actions provide a lesson and if you're lucky there's a bit more to the story but often not.
Like, I'd say the archetype of US literary fiction (as it is encountered by me, someone who reads a lot of fiction, serious and non-, but who only reads contemporary litfic when it's fairly visible in the culture, so I've read a lot of famous stuff and I think that says a lot about what leads to fame even though relatively little about literary fiction as a whole) is "Here are two people, one of them appears flawed and complex but is actually An Monster, the other appears to be An Monster but is actually flawed and complex, and they will change places over the course of the story. Also the monster one is grotesque and risible".
~~
So much of this does seem to be a really bad norming effect of the internet - we all know all the time the exact opinions of people we admire, and not just about the Feminine Mystique or Soviet Union Y/N but about breakfast products and television shows, so we have ready-made responses to everyone and everything outside the circle. And further, if we discover a new way to explain the badness of the things we all agree are bad, we get props in the circle - and again, not just over our monthly brunch/drinks/poker night but in the moment, all day everyday. A lot of pressure and reward if you respond strongly and immediately, not a lot of reward if you mull or take a middle path.
And then internet culture is invariably "Unless you are 100% perfect, everything you do should be reduced to its basest, worst elements, and these elements undercut everything else, there's no complexity". Like, it should not be suspicious that this woman donated a kidney to a stranger, however undesirable her other behavior may be. What do you think someone who undergoes major surgery to try to help a random is going to be like? A bit of a fool-saint, and fool-saints are always annoying, yes? The foolishness doesn't undercut the sainthood, and the sainthood doesn't make the annoying foolishness go away. But on the internet you have to pick a side - Stalin or DSA, fool or hero, China or the US, pepsi or fake-artisanal soda product, etc. You have to pick a side, find your team and then make capital out of it.
posted by Frowner at 6:24 AM on October 6, 2021 [42 favorites]
I'm trying to square the circle between Eyebrows McGee's comment and fuzzy.little.sock's comment.
Maybe there's no circle to square. Or rather, maybe there's some value in not trying to square every circle we come across, including this particular circle of altruism and self-absorption. Tolerating the tension of this ambivalence seems the better part of taking in stride the complexity of human subjectivity, to say nothing of when multiple subjectivities become bound up in conflict. It feels important somehow that Dorland gets to be a sympathetic, unlikeable, altruistic, and narcissistic human being in our collective gaze.
posted by obliterati at 7:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [15 favorites]
Maybe there's no circle to square. Or rather, maybe there's some value in not trying to square every circle we come across, including this particular circle of altruism and self-absorption. Tolerating the tension of this ambivalence seems the better part of taking in stride the complexity of human subjectivity, to say nothing of when multiple subjectivities become bound up in conflict. It feels important somehow that Dorland gets to be a sympathetic, unlikeable, altruistic, and narcissistic human being in our collective gaze.
posted by obliterati at 7:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [15 favorites]
Thank you, Eyebrows McGee, for that very thoughtful and insightful comment.
I think partly the difference in our perspectives is about the word 'sympathetic.' I feel compassion and pity for Dorland (and I recognize the problematic nature of pity). I can feel sympathy for her. But I don't find her sympathetic. I think, I'm interpreting the claim "Dorland is sympathetic" to mean "Dorland is someone whose point of view I find compelling and who I am inclined to like as a person."
I think we both agree: the evidence indicates that Dorland has a strong, conscious desire to help others, and the fact that she is in this situation points to an underlying sadness and need that is worthy of sympathy.
What I think is a point of disagreement in how we're interpreting the story is this:
I think she cares a lot about other people, and wants other people to care that much too -- finds it inexplicable when they don't!
Reading through the article didn't make think that Dorland actually cares about other people. I left thinking that, in fact, she isn't actually capable of understanding people as people who are just as significant and complicated and important as herself. She thinks she does, and she has in fact done an amazingly good thing for another person, but everything she says and the rest of her deeds indicate a failure to recognize how other people exist just as richly and comprehensively as she herself does.
And just as you're coming to the descriptions of Dorland with your past at the forefront of your attention, I am too. My mother was someone who acted, in a lot of ways, like how I'm interpreting Dorland. I've spent a whole lot of time in therapy, trying to extract an understanding of myself as a rich and comprehensive person out from the self-aggrandizing and fundamentally confused narratives my mother constructed for her daughter (aka, me). I see Dorland's words and her deeds (beyond the one), and I want to point at it and go, "See? See!? See how someone can pretend to be nice and caring but actually fail to treat them as people?"
(A bit of insignificant irony: my mother's first husband died because he lost his kidneys. If it had been possible, no doubt about it, my mother would have donated her kidney for him, and that would have been an undeniably good thing to do. Funny how life is.)
Part of what's maddening about the sort of emotional neglect I experienced as a child--and which I see Dorland exhibiting--is how very hard it is to pin down the harmful aspect of it. If someone says, "I don't care about you," you have something very clear and easily identifiable you can point to. But if someone says, "I care about you so much, I'd do anything for you, no doubt about it," while in a million little ways ignoring your boundaries and dismissing your needs, it is so much harder. This article, to me, does a great job of highlighting that sort of failure to care about others, which can hide behind aggressively and showy acts of goodness, that can be so hard to really show. I can't easily explain why my relationship with my mother is so terrible and how she hurt me so badly as a child, except I feel like I can say, "See what Dorland is doing everywhere here? That's why my mom did, to me."
Of course, being raised by someone like my mother means that I am hyper-vigilant about a certain sort of disregard of boundaries and dismissal of others. But I don't think I'm making it up. I don't think I'm reading more into the things Dorland is quoted as saying and doing than is actually there.
posted by meese at 7:06 AM on October 6, 2021 [44 favorites]
I think partly the difference in our perspectives is about the word 'sympathetic.' I feel compassion and pity for Dorland (and I recognize the problematic nature of pity). I can feel sympathy for her. But I don't find her sympathetic. I think, I'm interpreting the claim "Dorland is sympathetic" to mean "Dorland is someone whose point of view I find compelling and who I am inclined to like as a person."
I think we both agree: the evidence indicates that Dorland has a strong, conscious desire to help others, and the fact that she is in this situation points to an underlying sadness and need that is worthy of sympathy.
What I think is a point of disagreement in how we're interpreting the story is this:
I think she cares a lot about other people, and wants other people to care that much too -- finds it inexplicable when they don't!
Reading through the article didn't make think that Dorland actually cares about other people. I left thinking that, in fact, she isn't actually capable of understanding people as people who are just as significant and complicated and important as herself. She thinks she does, and she has in fact done an amazingly good thing for another person, but everything she says and the rest of her deeds indicate a failure to recognize how other people exist just as richly and comprehensively as she herself does.
And just as you're coming to the descriptions of Dorland with your past at the forefront of your attention, I am too. My mother was someone who acted, in a lot of ways, like how I'm interpreting Dorland. I've spent a whole lot of time in therapy, trying to extract an understanding of myself as a rich and comprehensive person out from the self-aggrandizing and fundamentally confused narratives my mother constructed for her daughter (aka, me). I see Dorland's words and her deeds (beyond the one), and I want to point at it and go, "See? See!? See how someone can pretend to be nice and caring but actually fail to treat them as people?"
(A bit of insignificant irony: my mother's first husband died because he lost his kidneys. If it had been possible, no doubt about it, my mother would have donated her kidney for him, and that would have been an undeniably good thing to do. Funny how life is.)
Part of what's maddening about the sort of emotional neglect I experienced as a child--and which I see Dorland exhibiting--is how very hard it is to pin down the harmful aspect of it. If someone says, "I don't care about you," you have something very clear and easily identifiable you can point to. But if someone says, "I care about you so much, I'd do anything for you, no doubt about it," while in a million little ways ignoring your boundaries and dismissing your needs, it is so much harder. This article, to me, does a great job of highlighting that sort of failure to care about others, which can hide behind aggressively and showy acts of goodness, that can be so hard to really show. I can't easily explain why my relationship with my mother is so terrible and how she hurt me so badly as a child, except I feel like I can say, "See what Dorland is doing everywhere here? That's why my mom did, to me."
Of course, being raised by someone like my mother means that I am hyper-vigilant about a certain sort of disregard of boundaries and dismissal of others. But I don't think I'm making it up. I don't think I'm reading more into the things Dorland is quoted as saying and doing than is actually there.
posted by meese at 7:06 AM on October 6, 2021 [44 favorites]
No, I think that's fair, meese. None of us know these people personally, and we are seeing them reflected through their own self image, through each other's opinions, and through the careful writing of the journalist -- and then through our own experiences and lives. And I think it actually speaks to the skill of the reporter who wrote this, that he's made two compelling, complex, complicated characters out of two women who are similarly trying to write compelling, complex, complicated characters, while living out their own complicated, messy lives. The way he's written it really invites these reflections on how our own points of view distort our view of the story, and highlights how the women's points of view distorted their views of their own and each other's stories -- both their actual life stories, and the stories they write. And the reporters work is necessarily distorting as well.
There would probably be a ton of insight to be gained into what they're like as people by hearing more extensively from the spouses and families and coworkers and baristas of the two main characters. But it would kind of undermine the thrust of the story, and the part where we fill in our own distortions as we read it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:23 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
There would probably be a ton of insight to be gained into what they're like as people by hearing more extensively from the spouses and families and coworkers and baristas of the two main characters. But it would kind of undermine the thrust of the story, and the part where we fill in our own distortions as we read it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:23 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Ooh, you made me want to take a moment to appreciate this: this is an article about two women who have done unpleasant things, who have turned a (seemingly) minor dispute into a (perhaps) exaggerated legal fight, and they're both portrayed as full, complex human beings.
That's also probably why I find this story compelling and worthy of substantial analysis. It's rare we get to see flawed women as psychologically complex beings, and so the kind of moral analysis we're engaging in, here, is something that often isn't available in news stories about women.
posted by meese at 7:30 AM on October 6, 2021 [26 favorites]
That's also probably why I find this story compelling and worthy of substantial analysis. It's rare we get to see flawed women as psychologically complex beings, and so the kind of moral analysis we're engaging in, here, is something that often isn't available in news stories about women.
posted by meese at 7:30 AM on October 6, 2021 [26 favorites]
To me, this is a story about someone trying to do damage to the career of another person.
To me, the actual kidney donation is not especially relevant. It's just a macguffin that sets the story in motion. Is it good that Dorland donated a kidney? Obviously yes. Are her motivations for doing so bad? I don't care. Was she annoying about it? That's not what I care about. Was Larson mean in that group chat? This also doesn't seem like an important question to answer.
To me, all of that just establishes the basic setting of the story.
To me, the important actions were:
* Larson actually using portions of the letter. How bad was this? Probably kinda. I think that's an interesting question to explore.
* Dorland doggedly attempting to inflict damage on Larson's career. How bad was this? Probably very. Exactly how bad this is sort of depends on your answer to the question of how bad the plagiarism was.
I think there's also a tangentially-interesting question to explore: What does a writer owe to someone whose true stories the writer uses as the basis of their work? It's a little messy to explore this question in this particular case, because of the plagiarism. In this particular case, it was a little more than inspiration that was drawn from Dorland. But it might be interesting to consider this question separately and hypothetically. What if it had been only inspiration? I think that's an interesting question to consider, but I have a firm answer for myself: The writer is free to draw whatever from wherever, and owes nothing to the source of the inspiration.
But I guess the main UNsolved question for me is: How bad was that plagiarism? I think the final version of the story has been changed enough that it's no longer plagiarism. Where I'm at is, perhaps Larson owes Dorland a cut of the sales of the Audible version of the story, and perhaps should comply with the request to stop publishing that version of the story.
But the degree to which Dorland pursued trying to tank Larson's career: Vastly disproportionate, total dick move. And now all of Boston doesn't get a short-story-reading program this year? This is what Dorland wanted. What good has been accomplished by this?
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 7:35 AM on October 6, 2021 [18 favorites]
To me, the actual kidney donation is not especially relevant. It's just a macguffin that sets the story in motion. Is it good that Dorland donated a kidney? Obviously yes. Are her motivations for doing so bad? I don't care. Was she annoying about it? That's not what I care about. Was Larson mean in that group chat? This also doesn't seem like an important question to answer.
To me, all of that just establishes the basic setting of the story.
To me, the important actions were:
* Larson actually using portions of the letter. How bad was this? Probably kinda. I think that's an interesting question to explore.
* Dorland doggedly attempting to inflict damage on Larson's career. How bad was this? Probably very. Exactly how bad this is sort of depends on your answer to the question of how bad the plagiarism was.
I think there's also a tangentially-interesting question to explore: What does a writer owe to someone whose true stories the writer uses as the basis of their work? It's a little messy to explore this question in this particular case, because of the plagiarism. In this particular case, it was a little more than inspiration that was drawn from Dorland. But it might be interesting to consider this question separately and hypothetically. What if it had been only inspiration? I think that's an interesting question to consider, but I have a firm answer for myself: The writer is free to draw whatever from wherever, and owes nothing to the source of the inspiration.
But I guess the main UNsolved question for me is: How bad was that plagiarism? I think the final version of the story has been changed enough that it's no longer plagiarism. Where I'm at is, perhaps Larson owes Dorland a cut of the sales of the Audible version of the story, and perhaps should comply with the request to stop publishing that version of the story.
But the degree to which Dorland pursued trying to tank Larson's career: Vastly disproportionate, total dick move. And now all of Boston doesn't get a short-story-reading program this year? This is what Dorland wanted. What good has been accomplished by this?
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 7:35 AM on October 6, 2021 [18 favorites]
Scrolling through Twitter last night, I was really surprised by the tolerance for plagiarism that was shown by authors I admire. As jeather points out, Larson initially published the stuff with plagiarism. Then that turns out to be a "soft" publication in a sense but also, the way Larson handled it-- and the whole thing-- seemed an awful lot like gaslighting to me. And gaslighting someone who seems mentally fragile.
Which I guess is a dilemma on its own. Responding to somebody on the basis that they have challenges is also undermining, and I think in public you have to proceed on the assumption that the person is competent.
posted by BibiRose at 7:40 AM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
Which I guess is a dilemma on its own. Responding to somebody on the basis that they have challenges is also undermining, and I think in public you have to proceed on the assumption that the person is competent.
posted by BibiRose at 7:40 AM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
I am somewhat moved by Larson's "transformative use" argument. Also, it's not like Larson lifted sections from a story Dorland was trying to sell, and therefore hurt Dorland's ability to make money off her work. To me, it seems like that's the purpose of copyright law.
However, Dorland's letter was a creative work, and it had value. She could theoretically make money publishing a blog or a book or an article about her kidney donation, and make money off her writing here.
So think I'm gonna land on that Larson should cut in Dorland for the earlier version of the story and cease publication of it. But the changed version, that's Larson's work.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 7:51 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
However, Dorland's letter was a creative work, and it had value. She could theoretically make money publishing a blog or a book or an article about her kidney donation, and make money off her writing here.
So think I'm gonna land on that Larson should cut in Dorland for the earlier version of the story and cease publication of it. But the changed version, that's Larson's work.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 7:51 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
However, Dorland's letter was a creative work, and it had value. She could theoretically make money publishing a blog or a book or an article about her kidney donation, and make money off her writing here.
I really don't think the money is the point for Dorland. There's not a lot of money involved for this individual story. What matters more for literary fiction is that Larson is building a career with this story. A successful short story can lead to more publications, a book deal (as it did with Cat Person), a teaching gig. That is not something Larson can share with Dorland even if she wants to. If she were actually friends with Dorland, she could try to put her in touch with people who might be able to help her with her writing career, but that's not going to happen here either.
The lawsuit involves money because that is the only way our culture really has to reward people who have been wronged, but Dorland was not upset over the $500 Larson got. She was upset because Larson took possession of her story, including her actual words, and published them. Larson was also extremely deceptive in her interactions with Dorland, so Dorland probably also felt betrayed by someone she thought was a friend.
The value of creative work is much more than monetary. If this whole mess hadn't happened, Dorland might have been able to publish something about her kidney donation, but I don't think her possible ability to make money from that is the issue for her.
posted by FencingGal at 8:26 AM on October 6, 2021 [26 favorites]
I really don't think the money is the point for Dorland. There's not a lot of money involved for this individual story. What matters more for literary fiction is that Larson is building a career with this story. A successful short story can lead to more publications, a book deal (as it did with Cat Person), a teaching gig. That is not something Larson can share with Dorland even if she wants to. If she were actually friends with Dorland, she could try to put her in touch with people who might be able to help her with her writing career, but that's not going to happen here either.
The lawsuit involves money because that is the only way our culture really has to reward people who have been wronged, but Dorland was not upset over the $500 Larson got. She was upset because Larson took possession of her story, including her actual words, and published them. Larson was also extremely deceptive in her interactions with Dorland, so Dorland probably also felt betrayed by someone she thought was a friend.
The value of creative work is much more than monetary. If this whole mess hadn't happened, Dorland might have been able to publish something about her kidney donation, but I don't think her possible ability to make money from that is the issue for her.
posted by FencingGal at 8:26 AM on October 6, 2021 [26 favorites]
I think the problem with the ethical system of writers like Larson and Ng is that it stops at plagiarism. As long as you don't copy someone's words you can abuse their presumption of friendship and carve up their life like an animal carcass for clout.
It's this take (which obviously has strong support from smart people in this thread) that seems so off-base to me. Unless we're going to throw out almost all literature as problematic, we have to accept that authors are going to use parts of the lives of the people around them.
As for "plagiarism," as some have pointed out upthread, Larson on publication changed what Dorland wrote. And as far as it still, even in that form, reminded Dorland of what she wrote, it was only because Dorland wrote such a generic message.
But even if she hadn't altered Dorland's language for the final version, Larson didn't copy a story Dorland wrote, she copied a Facebook message. Would it be plagiarism if an author overheard somebody on the subway and put that in a story? Because that's about the size of what was going on.
And as in Cat Person, it's not that somebody has "carved up" someone else's life; nobody had to know Dorland was involved at all. Dorland brought herself into this story, aggressively. Larson, by contrast, kept any thoughts she had about Dorland specifically private (and it's only because of Dorland, again, that those thoughts have now been published).
And finally, regarding that group chat, I'm amazed at how many folks in this thread have never said a bad word about a third person, but I guess somebody's gotta throw that first stone.
posted by TheProfessor at 8:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
It's this take (which obviously has strong support from smart people in this thread) that seems so off-base to me. Unless we're going to throw out almost all literature as problematic, we have to accept that authors are going to use parts of the lives of the people around them.
As for "plagiarism," as some have pointed out upthread, Larson on publication changed what Dorland wrote. And as far as it still, even in that form, reminded Dorland of what she wrote, it was only because Dorland wrote such a generic message.
But even if she hadn't altered Dorland's language for the final version, Larson didn't copy a story Dorland wrote, she copied a Facebook message. Would it be plagiarism if an author overheard somebody on the subway and put that in a story? Because that's about the size of what was going on.
And as in Cat Person, it's not that somebody has "carved up" someone else's life; nobody had to know Dorland was involved at all. Dorland brought herself into this story, aggressively. Larson, by contrast, kept any thoughts she had about Dorland specifically private (and it's only because of Dorland, again, that those thoughts have now been published).
And finally, regarding that group chat, I'm amazed at how many folks in this thread have never said a bad word about a third person, but I guess somebody's gotta throw that first stone.
posted by TheProfessor at 8:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
But there's a problem that goes just beyond the plagiarism - Larson, as I think can be seen in all the background chatter, deliberately created a story that everyone in their mutual semi-professional circles recognized the foundations of and held up for ridicule.
Is Dorland perfect - not in the least. She does come off as a try hard in the way that turns people off. (things I recognize in myself) But after having something she probably feels is a high watermark, chopped up, used for fodder while being made fun of in those semi-professional circles she felt a part of, I can understand her desire to strike back.
(as FencingGal just pointed out - unfortunately, we don't have a great many equalizers for loss of reputation and opportunity)
So in ways this is petty, in ways this is coated in so much Regina George slime that no one is clean. At the end of the day I come down on the side of the lady doing net positive things for the universe, even if I'd probably want to roll my eyes at the need for validation.
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:33 AM on October 6, 2021 [20 favorites]
Is Dorland perfect - not in the least. She does come off as a try hard in the way that turns people off. (things I recognize in myself) But after having something she probably feels is a high watermark, chopped up, used for fodder while being made fun of in those semi-professional circles she felt a part of, I can understand her desire to strike back.
(as FencingGal just pointed out - unfortunately, we don't have a great many equalizers for loss of reputation and opportunity)
So in ways this is petty, in ways this is coated in so much Regina George slime that no one is clean. At the end of the day I come down on the side of the lady doing net positive things for the universe, even if I'd probably want to roll my eyes at the need for validation.
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:33 AM on October 6, 2021 [20 favorites]
I read some interesting stuff on on twitter from some UK commenters (unfortunately I can't seem to find it all again and am not in a position to search) where they were saying that this whole thing seemed to be very much a reflection of the kind of writing that comes out of US MFA programs - writing that appeals to a small literary in-crowd and that exists outside that crowd mostly as a trainwreck news story.That seems like a weird take, tbh. I don't think that there's anyone involved whose writing appeals to a small literary in-crowd. I think we're supposed to infer that Dorland maybe isn't a very good writer, and her writing doesn't appeal to much of anyone. Sonya Larson is an early-career writer. She has only published short stories, and short stories are typically only read by literary insiders, but she's on the kind of career trajectory that often leads to people publishing novels that get a lot of mainstream attention. Celeste Ng wrote a #1 New York Times bestseller that was optioned by Reese Witherspoon and made into a Hulu miniseries, and it's really hard to cast her as someone whose writing appeals only to a small literary in-crowd.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:41 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
And finally, regarding that group chat, I'm amazed at how many folks in this thread have never said a bad word about a third person, but I guess somebody's gotta throw that first stone.
When email was pretty new, I sent someone a message I thought of as private about something that had happened to me that was pertinent to something she was writing. She forwarded that message to her entire listserve, and I learned a valuable lesson about email and privacy. So I am only catty in real life now.
posted by FencingGal at 8:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
When email was pretty new, I sent someone a message I thought of as private about something that had happened to me that was pertinent to something she was writing. She forwarded that message to her entire listserve, and I learned a valuable lesson about email and privacy. So I am only catty in real life now.
posted by FencingGal at 8:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
I always feel that there's a big difference between "sometimes people gossip meanly about others but it's something to try to avoid, even though sometimes it's difficult to draw the line between venting to friends over legitimate frustrations and just running people down because you find it fun" and "sure, I had a whole chat devoted to running someone down, everyone does it, no one should judge me".
posted by Frowner at 8:46 AM on October 6, 2021 [40 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 8:46 AM on October 6, 2021 [40 favorites]
son, it's not that somebody has "carved up" someone else's life; nobody had to know Dorland was involved at all. Dorland brought herself into this story, aggressively. Larson, by contrast, kept any thoughts she had about Dorland specifically private (and it's only because of Dorland, again, that those thoughts have now been published).
Except that Larson shared that information with a group of people that Dorland particularly admired and valued. She didn't make that information public, but she didn't keep it private -- she shared it with exactly the people that would most hurt Dorland. I'm not saying she deliberately made that choice, but that's the result of how she behaved.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:49 AM on October 6, 2021 [15 favorites]
Except that Larson shared that information with a group of people that Dorland particularly admired and valued. She didn't make that information public, but she didn't keep it private -- she shared it with exactly the people that would most hurt Dorland. I'm not saying she deliberately made that choice, but that's the result of how she behaved.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:49 AM on October 6, 2021 [15 favorites]
This whole situation is reminding me why I tend to avoid becoming friends with other writers. I know that sounds self-righteous, and I don't mean to say I'm any better, or writers are any worse on the whole than the general population, but when writers behave badly, they behave badly in ways I cannot handle, and being a group of writers where such behaviours/character traits are concentrated and exacerbated makes me want to run screaming.
posted by orange swan at 9:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by orange swan at 9:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Just reread the beginning of the story now that I have some distance, and bam:
“ a Facebook friend of Dorland’s named Tom Meek commented on one of Dorland’s posts. ‘Sonya read a cool story about giving out a kidney. You came to my mind and I wondered if you were the source of inspiration? Still impressed you did this’”
This is either expert trolling or a hilarious self-own. Good job, Tom Meek.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
“ a Facebook friend of Dorland’s named Tom Meek commented on one of Dorland’s posts. ‘Sonya read a cool story about giving out a kidney. You came to my mind and I wondered if you were the source of inspiration? Still impressed you did this’”
This is either expert trolling or a hilarious self-own. Good job, Tom Meek.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
I saw a comment somewhere that Larson would have been better off by claiming it was a satire of the letter in order to create the effect she needed for her story. And that’s making me want to sit down and pick apart my thoughts on plagiarism/parody/inspiration/satire and man I don’t even know.
posted by rewil at 9:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by rewil at 9:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
donating a kidney to a stranger isn't an amazing thing that very few people would do. And that yes she should be lauded for that.
I definitely agree with this, but I think I can also see why it, especially with her need for recognition, pings people's alarm centers.
Like meese, I've known a few people (fortunately not raised by them) where the splashy good deeds were performative and didn't really take into account you as a person. The splashy good deeds would also then be used for leverage to cross boundaries. Dorland may not be as bean county about things, but I can see why people may have that impression, especially with the social media activity tracking.
So because donating a kidney is amazing, if your Spidey sense is pinging you're now anticipating getting walloped with a massive (emotional) bill in return, so all you want to do is get away. Again, Dorland may not be that kind of person (or the huge bill is at least spread out over the number of people that she wants recognition from).
posted by ghost phoneme at 9:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
I definitely agree with this, but I think I can also see why it, especially with her need for recognition, pings people's alarm centers.
Like meese, I've known a few people (fortunately not raised by them) where the splashy good deeds were performative and didn't really take into account you as a person. The splashy good deeds would also then be used for leverage to cross boundaries. Dorland may not be as bean county about things, but I can see why people may have that impression, especially with the social media activity tracking.
So because donating a kidney is amazing, if your Spidey sense is pinging you're now anticipating getting walloped with a massive (emotional) bill in return, so all you want to do is get away. Again, Dorland may not be that kind of person (or the huge bill is at least spread out over the number of people that she wants recognition from).
posted by ghost phoneme at 9:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
Larson, as I think can be seen in all the background chatter, deliberately created a story that everyone in their mutual semi-professional circles recognized the foundations of and held up for ridicule.
I noticed this in the discussion about Cat People, too--this assumption that writing a story intended for general publication that uses details from a person's life must somehow be a nonfiction depiction of that person. It's not. I love Wolf Hall and its sequels, and it is period-accurate in a way that little historical fiction is, but I would never mistake it for a biography of Cromwell. Same with something like Hadrian's Memoirs. And that's where the subject is clear and identifiable to anyone who has a passing knowledge of Tudor England. I'd never heard of Dorland before, and even if I'd read the story, I wouldn't know who she was. I don't assume that reading the story would give me any insight into Dorland as a person. It's fiction. In some ways, it's more morally defensible than being catty about the same actions in group chat, in that it doesn't directly purport to be about her. (People object to the cattiness, but...if you concede that an author, like any other person, has a right to have an opinion about someone's behavior, and a right to share that opinion with friends, what is it about writing the version of the story that isn't objectively linked to the subject that reflects that POV [and, of course, though this is often forgotten--POV of narrator is not necessarily POV of author, in a way that's generally not true for group chat] that crosses the line where being bitchy in chat doesn't?)
Now I do think using specific public language of Dorland's, while it might be defensible as a matter of professional ethics, makes it blurrier as a matter of personal ethics, because it links the story more directly/unquestionably to a specific person. Fine. Change it. Apologize. Give her $100 of the $450. It's all very well to talk about Larson's career, but, realistically, it isn't those handful of lines that will have made it, if it gets made.
The person I'm side-eyeing here pretty hard who I haven't seen mentioned is Dorland's lawyer. When you rep "ordinary people"--people who may not understand what the legal process is, what benefits you can actually gain from it, what harm can be caused along the way--you really have an ethical responsibility to make all that clear. A lot of Dorland's upset seems based on what she read that she actually invoked formal mechanisms of justice to get her hands on. Getting upset over reading social interactions that you subpoenaed is a self-inflicted wound, and one that a good lawyer might have prepared her client to avoid. (I forget in which of the Narnia books one of the characters get to overhear her friends talking about her and what she hears is its own punishment for snooping; it's kind of a basic lesson for children.)
Finally, I think calling good deeds is performative is in most cases a lazy and stupid critique. What the hell, if the lady wants to be insufferable to her friends for months about her kidney donation, she still donated a kidney to a stranger. Let her be insufferable. However, she pitched this damn story to the NYT. She is the one who made sure that we've heard her name and know both what she did and (what really upsets her) what her semi-social circle thought about her. If I were dumb and/or damaged enough to subpoena all my colleagues/professional acquaintances' group chats in the first place, if I found--which, let's be real, I undoubtedly would--them saying some bitchy things about me, the last thing I would do is try to make sure it all got into the NYT. Again, so much self-inflicted harm, arising from an apparently insatiable thirst to have all her feelings publicly validated, and really the kinder thing for the article's author to have done would have been to pass on it entirely.
posted by praemunire at 9:16 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
I noticed this in the discussion about Cat People, too--this assumption that writing a story intended for general publication that uses details from a person's life must somehow be a nonfiction depiction of that person. It's not. I love Wolf Hall and its sequels, and it is period-accurate in a way that little historical fiction is, but I would never mistake it for a biography of Cromwell. Same with something like Hadrian's Memoirs. And that's where the subject is clear and identifiable to anyone who has a passing knowledge of Tudor England. I'd never heard of Dorland before, and even if I'd read the story, I wouldn't know who she was. I don't assume that reading the story would give me any insight into Dorland as a person. It's fiction. In some ways, it's more morally defensible than being catty about the same actions in group chat, in that it doesn't directly purport to be about her. (People object to the cattiness, but...if you concede that an author, like any other person, has a right to have an opinion about someone's behavior, and a right to share that opinion with friends, what is it about writing the version of the story that isn't objectively linked to the subject that reflects that POV [and, of course, though this is often forgotten--POV of narrator is not necessarily POV of author, in a way that's generally not true for group chat] that crosses the line where being bitchy in chat doesn't?)
Now I do think using specific public language of Dorland's, while it might be defensible as a matter of professional ethics, makes it blurrier as a matter of personal ethics, because it links the story more directly/unquestionably to a specific person. Fine. Change it. Apologize. Give her $100 of the $450. It's all very well to talk about Larson's career, but, realistically, it isn't those handful of lines that will have made it, if it gets made.
The person I'm side-eyeing here pretty hard who I haven't seen mentioned is Dorland's lawyer. When you rep "ordinary people"--people who may not understand what the legal process is, what benefits you can actually gain from it, what harm can be caused along the way--you really have an ethical responsibility to make all that clear. A lot of Dorland's upset seems based on what she read that she actually invoked formal mechanisms of justice to get her hands on. Getting upset over reading social interactions that you subpoenaed is a self-inflicted wound, and one that a good lawyer might have prepared her client to avoid. (I forget in which of the Narnia books one of the characters get to overhear her friends talking about her and what she hears is its own punishment for snooping; it's kind of a basic lesson for children.)
Finally, I think calling good deeds is performative is in most cases a lazy and stupid critique. What the hell, if the lady wants to be insufferable to her friends for months about her kidney donation, she still donated a kidney to a stranger. Let her be insufferable. However, she pitched this damn story to the NYT. She is the one who made sure that we've heard her name and know both what she did and (what really upsets her) what her semi-social circle thought about her. If I were dumb and/or damaged enough to subpoena all my colleagues/professional acquaintances' group chats in the first place, if I found--which, let's be real, I undoubtedly would--them saying some bitchy things about me, the last thing I would do is try to make sure it all got into the NYT. Again, so much self-inflicted harm, arising from an apparently insatiable thirst to have all her feelings publicly validated, and really the kinder thing for the article's author to have done would have been to pass on it entirely.
posted by praemunire at 9:16 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
Thank you to everyone here. I saw this on twitter, read the NYT article, and thought, as so often, "I can't wait to see what metafilter will have to say."
In addition to "facebook cruelly enabling both our human need for praise/validation/attention and our human need to mock/exclude/create in- and out-groups," another thing that's happening in 21c American culture is "longform nonfiction journalism replacing fiction as the narrative mode that people actually care about." I haven't read anything by any of the writers in this story, and I would guess that most other people haven't either. The successful writer here--and Eyebrows Magee and others have drawn attention to various artful choices in narrative and characterization--is Robert Kolker. You can also see how the ethics of journalism, in tandem with the intellectual property law, are bleeding over into the way we talk and think about fiction.
posted by sy at 9:19 AM on October 6, 2021 [23 favorites]
In addition to "facebook cruelly enabling both our human need for praise/validation/attention and our human need to mock/exclude/create in- and out-groups," another thing that's happening in 21c American culture is "longform nonfiction journalism replacing fiction as the narrative mode that people actually care about." I haven't read anything by any of the writers in this story, and I would guess that most other people haven't either. The successful writer here--and Eyebrows Magee and others have drawn attention to various artful choices in narrative and characterization--is Robert Kolker. You can also see how the ethics of journalism, in tandem with the intellectual property law, are bleeding over into the way we talk and think about fiction.
posted by sy at 9:19 AM on October 6, 2021 [23 favorites]
This is an amazing AITA post. ESH.
posted by airmail at 9:52 AM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by airmail at 9:52 AM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
regarding that group chat, I'm amazed at how many folks in this thread have never said a bad word about a third person
Are we going to pretend that none of us have checked to see how many upvotes or likes a comment we've made has received? Or even who upvoted?
I think the power of this story is that the main characters embody two shameful behaviors we all do, but they heighten them. Larson isn't just snarky behind Dorland's back to mutual friends; she writes a public short story that ridicules her, and adds a detail (the signoff "Kindly") that the victim is sure to see and suffer over. Dorland doesn't just check to see who liked her posts, she emails people who didn't.
What's interesting is how everyone seems to be compelled to choose a side (including me), when I'm pretty confident that we all share both flaws in varying proportions.
posted by msalt at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2021 [28 favorites]
Are we going to pretend that none of us have checked to see how many upvotes or likes a comment we've made has received? Or even who upvoted?
I think the power of this story is that the main characters embody two shameful behaviors we all do, but they heighten them. Larson isn't just snarky behind Dorland's back to mutual friends; she writes a public short story that ridicules her, and adds a detail (the signoff "Kindly") that the victim is sure to see and suffer over. Dorland doesn't just check to see who liked her posts, she emails people who didn't.
What's interesting is how everyone seems to be compelled to choose a side (including me), when I'm pretty confident that we all share both flaws in varying proportions.
posted by msalt at 9:58 AM on October 6, 2021 [28 favorites]
Galaxor Nebulon: "However, Dorland's letter was a creative work, and it had value. She could theoretically make money publishing a blog or a book or an article about her kidney donation, and make money off her writing here.
So think I'm gonna land on that Larson should cut in Dorland for the earlier version of the story and cease publication of it. But the changed version, that's Larson's work."
Out of all the strange takes on this strange event, the strangest one for me is this one that evaluates it solely as a monetary issue.
posted by signal at 10:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
So think I'm gonna land on that Larson should cut in Dorland for the earlier version of the story and cease publication of it. But the changed version, that's Larson's work."
Out of all the strange takes on this strange event, the strangest one for me is this one that evaluates it solely as a monetary issue.
posted by signal at 10:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
This is an amazing AITA post. ESH.
Heh, I have been thinking that this article is so much like a very long, proofread, fact-checked AITA post. And as with AITA posts, people are interested in it because of the entertainment value of the situation as well as the armchair pop psychologist/moral philosopher exercise of assessing the situation and figuring out what happened, who is at fault and by how much, and how the situation could be resolved.
posted by orange swan at 10:01 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Heh, I have been thinking that this article is so much like a very long, proofread, fact-checked AITA post. And as with AITA posts, people are interested in it because of the entertainment value of the situation as well as the armchair pop psychologist/moral philosopher exercise of assessing the situation and figuring out what happened, who is at fault and by how much, and how the situation could be resolved.
posted by orange swan at 10:01 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Flagged as fantastic; really enjoyed this article and the intelligent, well-thought out MeFi commentary. Thanks, guys!
posted by unicorn chaser at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by unicorn chaser at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
What's intriguing is how everyone seems to feel forced to pick a side (myself included), when I'm pretty sure that we all share both flaws to a certain degree.
posted by sy at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by sy at 10:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
Just reaching out here to check on folks who haven't liked my last comment yet. I thought it was pretty well written and made some good points. #writethoughtfulcomments. I'm still part of the group of friends, right?
posted by sy at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [32 favorites]
posted by sy at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [32 favorites]
Lol:
@AITA_online
AITA for refusing to engage in the kidney discourse?
(Please, I want no part of it.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:11 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
@AITA_online
AITA for refusing to engage in the kidney discourse?
(Please, I want no part of it.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:11 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
No one tell sy about the group chat regarding him.
posted by orange swan at 10:12 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by orange swan at 10:12 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
I am a published writer, and I once had an amazing, fascinating, deeply cringy interaction with someone in my social circle that would make a fantastic story. I even wrote it up and sent it to my writer dad who loved it, I’ve told it as a funny anecdote on several occasions, etc.
I would never publish it or anything derived from it. Because it would be cruel, and because I can come up with my own ideas.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:14 AM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
I would never publish it or anything derived from it. Because it would be cruel, and because I can come up with my own ideas.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:14 AM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
I took creative writing workshops in college and loved writing, but... some of the people in those workshops! No offense to anyone here who writes for a living or did an MFA but my professors were encouraging me to go the MFA route and I was determined that I would not spend 2 years of my life in a community of people that were as petty, narrow-minded, and narcissistic as the classmates in my workshops. (That wasn't the only factor -- wanting to have money was a big one -- but it certainly didn't help.) This piece rings familiar.
posted by redlines at 10:18 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by redlines at 10:18 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
sy: What's intriguing is how everyone seems to feel forced to pick a side (myself included), when I'm pretty sure that we all share both flaws to a certain degree.
Oh necessarily. What we're finding out more specifically is which set of those flaws we find most unacceptable in ourselves. If you felt drawn towards a side (for me, Larson), it's worth considering what it is in the opposite number that you'd most like to disown in your self. The mixture of desperation and aggression in Dorland - a kind of urgent, pleading narcissism - is something I'd spent over a decade in therapy addressing, and it still makes me uncomfortable to see it in others (granted, this case is one artfully magnified, by Kolker). By that same token, I suppose I'm far more comfortable with my own impulses towards sadism and deceitfulness, FWIW.
posted by obliterati at 10:22 AM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
Oh necessarily. What we're finding out more specifically is which set of those flaws we find most unacceptable in ourselves. If you felt drawn towards a side (for me, Larson), it's worth considering what it is in the opposite number that you'd most like to disown in your self. The mixture of desperation and aggression in Dorland - a kind of urgent, pleading narcissism - is something I'd spent over a decade in therapy addressing, and it still makes me uncomfortable to see it in others (granted, this case is one artfully magnified, by Kolker). By that same token, I suppose I'm far more comfortable with my own impulses towards sadism and deceitfulness, FWIW.
posted by obliterati at 10:22 AM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
sy: "What's intriguing is how everyone seems to feel forced to pick a side (myself included),"
My read is that most of us, including myself, think they all suck.
posted by signal at 10:30 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
My read is that most of us, including myself, think they all suck.
posted by signal at 10:30 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Are we going to pretend that none of us have checked to see how many upvotes or likes a comment we've made has received? Or even who upvoted?
Absolutely not. In my slack groups I have my "reactions and mentions sidebar" open all the time, and I 100% check to see who used which emoji. But what I don't then do is message people who didn't react/comment/whatever asking them why they didn't.
posted by jeather at 10:33 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
Absolutely not. In my slack groups I have my "reactions and mentions sidebar" open all the time, and I 100% check to see who used which emoji. But what I don't then do is message people who didn't react/comment/whatever asking them why they didn't.
posted by jeather at 10:33 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
Coincidentally, I recently finished the novel I Give It To You, which deals with a writer's appropriating other peoples' stories. (The protagonist, at least, thought she had permission.) Come for the Italian setting, stay for the writing!
A better use of your time than this stew of bad manners and strange behavior, I'd say.
posted by BWA at 10:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
A better use of your time than this stew of bad manners and strange behavior, I'd say.
posted by BWA at 10:45 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
I thought this was a great comment from NYTimes:
It's telling that Larson and friends took time to belittle Dorland, expressed disgust of Dorland, at the same time Larson was ignoring Dorland's requests for acknowledgement on-line... Survivors of childhood trauma often feel invisible and long to be seen and have their worth acknowledged. They often become rescuers in life, identifying with the helpless, continually enacting the rescue they themselves didn't receive... I suspect what disgusted Larson and her group, perhaps the reason they disliked Dorland in the first place, was Dorland's obvious hunger for recognition and validation. That fragile longing for "likes" is something writers, especially literary writers, tend to repress and ignore and disdain in themselves. Jung would call it their Shadow. We tend to react strongly, with disgust or rage, when we see our Shadow manifested in someone else.posted by airmail at 10:52 AM on October 6, 2021 [58 favorites]
Are we going to pretend that none of us have checked to see how many upvotes or likes a comment we've made has received? Or even who upvoted?
Part of the fun of posting on social media is the interaction it generates. So sure, when I post to my Facebook page, one of my blogs, or my blog's FB page, or on Twitter, or here on Metafilter, etc., I routinely check in to see how people reacted. And I might be a tiny bit disappointed if it no one or very few people seemed to notice my efforts, but only momentarily. I write things primarily because I wanted to write them. And I certainly don't feel aggrieved or confront people for not responding to my posts -- I don't see attention as something anyone owes me, nor do I feel it's something I need.
There's a difference between enjoying attention in a healthy way and being a human black hole of need who aggressively demands it from others. People in the latter category are selfish, exhausting, and tend to bring out the worst in others, who resent being milked for attention and expected to provide praise for things they don't genuinely admire or aren't interested in.
posted by orange swan at 10:59 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Part of the fun of posting on social media is the interaction it generates. So sure, when I post to my Facebook page, one of my blogs, or my blog's FB page, or on Twitter, or here on Metafilter, etc., I routinely check in to see how people reacted. And I might be a tiny bit disappointed if it no one or very few people seemed to notice my efforts, but only momentarily. I write things primarily because I wanted to write them. And I certainly don't feel aggrieved or confront people for not responding to my posts -- I don't see attention as something anyone owes me, nor do I feel it's something I need.
There's a difference between enjoying attention in a healthy way and being a human black hole of need who aggressively demands it from others. People in the latter category are selfish, exhausting, and tend to bring out the worst in others, who resent being milked for attention and expected to provide praise for things they don't genuinely admire or aren't interested in.
posted by orange swan at 10:59 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think the problem with the ethical system of writers like Larson and Ng is that it stops at plagiarism. As long as you don't copy someone's words you can abuse their presumption of friendship and carve up their life like an animal carcass for clout.
It's this take (which obviously has strong support from smart people in this thread) that seems so off-base to me. Unless we're going to throw out almost all literature as problematic, we have to accept that authors are going to use parts of the lives of the people around them.
I think maybe writers and their ecosystem of editors, publications, and writers workshops are in a weird bubble where plagiarism is the only sin that matters (because it's a sin against other writers) while a lot of people outside that bubble definitely judge them as bad when they betray people by writing embarrassing "fictionalized" but identifiable versions of their lives.
posted by straight at 11:03 AM on October 6, 2021 [20 favorites]
It's this take (which obviously has strong support from smart people in this thread) that seems so off-base to me. Unless we're going to throw out almost all literature as problematic, we have to accept that authors are going to use parts of the lives of the people around them.
I think maybe writers and their ecosystem of editors, publications, and writers workshops are in a weird bubble where plagiarism is the only sin that matters (because it's a sin against other writers) while a lot of people outside that bubble definitely judge them as bad when they betray people by writing embarrassing "fictionalized" but identifiable versions of their lives.
posted by straight at 11:03 AM on October 6, 2021 [20 favorites]
I think maybe writers and their ecosystem of editors, publications, and writers workshops are in a weird bubble where plagiarism is the only sin that matters (because it's a sin against other writers)Oh, does this ever ring true!
posted by ChrisR at 11:09 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Out of all the strange takes on this strange event, the strangest one for me is this one that evaluates it solely as a monetary issue.I guess I'm just hung up on how there are lawyers and court cases going on here, so I'm like: Okay, what could Dorland possibly hope to accomplish with a court case? The only options I'm aware of are to get money or halt publication. It seems like she started involving lawyers over hurt feelings, but lawyers can't make someone be a closer friend to you. Lawyers can't take away the feeling that you've been betrayed. Lawyers can get you money or halt publication.
posted by Galaxor Nebulon at 11:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
signal: "Out of all the strange takes on this strange event, the strangest one for me is this one that evaluates it solely as a monetary issue."
And yet that's the only aspect that is at issue in the pending legal action.
I do wonder what Dawn would've done in a parallel universe where Sonya's short story never used a letter as a storytelling device, meaning that there'd be no plagiarism or basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit. Would she still have wanted to sue for emotional distress?
Obviously, Larsen's life would suck a bit less right now if she had been more diligent about using the spirit of Dawn's letter, not just the words. But I think Dawn's life would also suck a lot less because she'd have been stuck with hurt feelings and no recourse. She would've needed to move on from this.
There's a reason there isn't such a thing as Emotional Court. It's usually legal to hurt someone else's feelings. We recognize that I can cause you to feel sad in a way that's valid and deserves sympathy, but which I could not have reasonably foreseen and am therefore not culpable. Civil action is based on the idea that money, in its fungibility, can make someone whole after they've been wronged — but there's no easy way to fix hurt feelings after the fact, or else it would feel better when you hear someone mutter an apology to you that they clearly don't mean.
In a hypothetical Emotional Court, the judge would tell Dawn and Sonya to pack up their shit, go home, and never think about any of this again, because that's the outcome that maximizes their emotional well-being. Instead, Dawn is treating the actual courts like Emotional Court, and is destined to be disappointed no matter what the outcome.
posted by savetheclocktower at 11:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
And yet that's the only aspect that is at issue in the pending legal action.
I do wonder what Dawn would've done in a parallel universe where Sonya's short story never used a letter as a storytelling device, meaning that there'd be no plagiarism or basis for a copyright infringement lawsuit. Would she still have wanted to sue for emotional distress?
Obviously, Larsen's life would suck a bit less right now if she had been more diligent about using the spirit of Dawn's letter, not just the words. But I think Dawn's life would also suck a lot less because she'd have been stuck with hurt feelings and no recourse. She would've needed to move on from this.
There's a reason there isn't such a thing as Emotional Court. It's usually legal to hurt someone else's feelings. We recognize that I can cause you to feel sad in a way that's valid and deserves sympathy, but which I could not have reasonably foreseen and am therefore not culpable. Civil action is based on the idea that money, in its fungibility, can make someone whole after they've been wronged — but there's no easy way to fix hurt feelings after the fact, or else it would feel better when you hear someone mutter an apology to you that they clearly don't mean.
In a hypothetical Emotional Court, the judge would tell Dawn and Sonya to pack up their shit, go home, and never think about any of this again, because that's the outcome that maximizes their emotional well-being. Instead, Dawn is treating the actual courts like Emotional Court, and is destined to be disappointed no matter what the outcome.
posted by savetheclocktower at 11:10 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
I think the problem with the ethical system of writers like Larson and Ng is that it stops at plagiarism. As long as you don't copy someone's words you can abuse their presumption of friendship and carve up their life like an animal carcass for clout.
The book to read here is "The Journalist and the Murderer," by Janet Malcolm.
It's interesting to see, here, how many people think the moral calculus is simple.
"If I, myself, were a fiction writer, would simply not use the people in my life for inspiration in a way they might find hurtful!"
OR
"If I, myself, were to see myself in a piece of fiction, I would not find it hurtful! I would simply suck it up and move on."
But the thing is...we all have stories of ourselves in which we are deeply invested. And we feel a deep sense of ownership of those stories. It is terrible to feel as though someone has taken control of "your" story and made it theirs; that some piece of you has been captured and narrativized on the page. It feels like a violation, because in some sense, it is. But also, it's not at all. We don't own the fragments of ourselves we put out into the world; we don't get to control whether or not people read our kidney donations as selfish or selfless, whether the people we think are our friends actually like us; what other people are saying about us on our group chats when we're not around. To survive, we have to pretend that other people see us approximately in the way we see ourselves, even if surely on some level we know that's not true. Of course it felt fucking terrible for Dorland to read that story, and to discover the gossip and mockery that went into its creation. It's a nightmare that I think we can all imagine ourselves into - like that Robert Burns quote: O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us/To see oursels as ithers see us. We're not meant to have that knowledge. It's the kind of thing that could genuinely drive us mad.
And yet.
Where the fuck do all of you think that fiction comes from? Do you genuinely imagine that all the books you've been loving and reading your whole lives were birthed without causing anyone pain? Do you think the parents, siblings, spouses, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who found little bits of themselves distorted and pinned to the page in every novel didn't suffer exactly as much - or infinitely more - than Dorland? The extraction of the Facebook post is a distraction - while legally, it may be an issue, ethically it's no different than putting a conversation you overheard at a bar down word-for-word.
It's easy enough to say, "Just don't write about people in a way that will allow them to recognize themselves or that will hurt them." But I wonder how many of you would want to live in that world, and consume only the culture that came out of a space that was so comprehensively policed. It's easy to say, "I bet that story sucks, and Larson seems unlikeable, so I don't care what happens to her." But every writer who sees this play out on Twitter today is being served a warning: make a misstep like this, and this could happen to you. If you think that's only going to affect the writing that you, personally, dislike, you're naive.
And I wonder, too, if you see yourselves as playing any part in the creation of this system. After all, I'd expect that as all of Twitter sharpens its knives and slavers over the moral failings of both Dorland and Larson, they may both be feeling, in this moments, as animal carcasses who are being carved up and served for the enjoyment of the mob. Does that mean it shouldn't exist? I genuinely don't know.
posted by Merricat Blackwood at 11:13 AM on October 6, 2021 [22 favorites]
The book to read here is "The Journalist and the Murderer," by Janet Malcolm.
It's interesting to see, here, how many people think the moral calculus is simple.
"If I, myself, were a fiction writer, would simply not use the people in my life for inspiration in a way they might find hurtful!"
OR
"If I, myself, were to see myself in a piece of fiction, I would not find it hurtful! I would simply suck it up and move on."
But the thing is...we all have stories of ourselves in which we are deeply invested. And we feel a deep sense of ownership of those stories. It is terrible to feel as though someone has taken control of "your" story and made it theirs; that some piece of you has been captured and narrativized on the page. It feels like a violation, because in some sense, it is. But also, it's not at all. We don't own the fragments of ourselves we put out into the world; we don't get to control whether or not people read our kidney donations as selfish or selfless, whether the people we think are our friends actually like us; what other people are saying about us on our group chats when we're not around. To survive, we have to pretend that other people see us approximately in the way we see ourselves, even if surely on some level we know that's not true. Of course it felt fucking terrible for Dorland to read that story, and to discover the gossip and mockery that went into its creation. It's a nightmare that I think we can all imagine ourselves into - like that Robert Burns quote: O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us/To see oursels as ithers see us. We're not meant to have that knowledge. It's the kind of thing that could genuinely drive us mad.
And yet.
Where the fuck do all of you think that fiction comes from? Do you genuinely imagine that all the books you've been loving and reading your whole lives were birthed without causing anyone pain? Do you think the parents, siblings, spouses, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances who found little bits of themselves distorted and pinned to the page in every novel didn't suffer exactly as much - or infinitely more - than Dorland? The extraction of the Facebook post is a distraction - while legally, it may be an issue, ethically it's no different than putting a conversation you overheard at a bar down word-for-word.
It's easy enough to say, "Just don't write about people in a way that will allow them to recognize themselves or that will hurt them." But I wonder how many of you would want to live in that world, and consume only the culture that came out of a space that was so comprehensively policed. It's easy to say, "I bet that story sucks, and Larson seems unlikeable, so I don't care what happens to her." But every writer who sees this play out on Twitter today is being served a warning: make a misstep like this, and this could happen to you. If you think that's only going to affect the writing that you, personally, dislike, you're naive.
And I wonder, too, if you see yourselves as playing any part in the creation of this system. After all, I'd expect that as all of Twitter sharpens its knives and slavers over the moral failings of both Dorland and Larson, they may both be feeling, in this moments, as animal carcasses who are being carved up and served for the enjoyment of the mob. Does that mean it shouldn't exist? I genuinely don't know.
posted by Merricat Blackwood at 11:13 AM on October 6, 2021 [22 favorites]
Writers don't get to have it both ways. They can try to say, "I'm okay with people judging and ridiculing this person whose life I've put on display in my fiction, but they mustn't judge and ridicule me for choosing to hurt someone for the sake of a story," but good luck with that.
posted by straight at 11:21 AM on October 6, 2021 [29 favorites]
posted by straight at 11:21 AM on October 6, 2021 [29 favorites]
We don't own the fragments of ourselves we put out into the world; we don't get to control whether or not people read our kidney donations as selfish or selfless, whether the people we think are our friends actually like us; what other people are saying about us on our group chats when we're not around. To survive, we have to pretend that other people see us approximately in the way we see ourselves, even if surely on some level we know that's not true.
I myself have no doubt that if someone I knew wrote a story in which I were recognizable, even just to myself, as the inspiration for an unsympathetic character, I would be mortified. Of course! But--to the extent that one even assumes identity between me and Story Character Praemunite, and identity between Narratorial POV and Friend POV, which are both actually very complex critical questions, ones which I'm a little jarred to see treated so superficially by some comments--I would also know that these thoughts were already in Friend's head. Writing them down didn't bring them into being! It's the inevitable tension that results when everyone is the hero of their own personal narrative, which also means that everyone else is not. It's the kind of dynamic one hopes one would learn to recognize relatively early on in adulthood.
posted by praemunire at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
I myself have no doubt that if someone I knew wrote a story in which I were recognizable, even just to myself, as the inspiration for an unsympathetic character, I would be mortified. Of course! But--to the extent that one even assumes identity between me and Story Character Praemunite, and identity between Narratorial POV and Friend POV, which are both actually very complex critical questions, ones which I'm a little jarred to see treated so superficially by some comments--I would also know that these thoughts were already in Friend's head. Writing them down didn't bring them into being! It's the inevitable tension that results when everyone is the hero of their own personal narrative, which also means that everyone else is not. It's the kind of dynamic one hopes one would learn to recognize relatively early on in adulthood.
posted by praemunire at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Okay, what could Dorland possibly hope to accomplish with a court case?
Just to be clear, Larson was the first to file a lawsuit:
From the article: "On Dec. 26, Dorland emailed Epstein, asking if he was the right person to accept the papers when she filed a lawsuit. As it happened, Larson beat her to the courthouse. On Jan. 30, 2019, Dorland and her lawyer, Cohen, were both sued in federal court, accused of defamation and tortious interference — that is, spreading lies about Larson and trying to tank her career."
They appear to have hired lawyers at about the same time.
posted by FencingGal at 11:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
Just to be clear, Larson was the first to file a lawsuit:
From the article: "On Dec. 26, Dorland emailed Epstein, asking if he was the right person to accept the papers when she filed a lawsuit. As it happened, Larson beat her to the courthouse. On Jan. 30, 2019, Dorland and her lawyer, Cohen, were both sued in federal court, accused of defamation and tortious interference — that is, spreading lies about Larson and trying to tank her career."
They appear to have hired lawyers at about the same time.
posted by FencingGal at 11:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
I think Frowner's comment hits the nail on the head.
This must be what it would have felt like to be "at court" in 18th century France, or "in society" in 19th century England.
In fact, if this all turned out to be a sort of meta-tribute to Les Liaisons dangereuses, I would be super impressed!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:35 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
This must be what it would have felt like to be "at court" in 18th century France, or "in society" in 19th century England.
In fact, if this all turned out to be a sort of meta-tribute to Les Liaisons dangereuses, I would be super impressed!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:35 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is a really interesting story, and great writing by Kolker. The most amazing bit was Larson changing the letter closing to "Kindly" and saying it was "a direct reference to the title;" and then having to revisit the title (helpfully referenced in the previous paragraph) and realizing the title itself was a jab at Dorland.
I'm so glad I'm not friends with any of these people.
posted by netowl at 11:50 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm so glad I'm not friends with any of these people.
posted by netowl at 11:50 AM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
when I click and engage in this story, and read all the comments, it makes me think of my dog rolling in absolute filth on our walks. she can't resist the filth and stink and neither can I.
posted by elkevelvet at 11:50 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 11:50 AM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
I guess I'm just hung up on how there are lawyers and court cases going on here, so I'm like: Okay, what could Dorland possibly hope to accomplish with a court case?
Many Americans have the mistaken belief that a court verdict will validate the truth of their position in a dispute, and this is more important to them than money or an injunction. That's tragic, because court verdicts map to the truth very badly, but there it is.
The one thing that is guaranteed in a situation like this is publicity, and in this she succeeded wildly. Why did she want that? I'm saddened that no one -- including Kolker, the NYT writer -- seems to consider the possibility that Dorland wanted to bring attention to the need for kidney donors, which is a real thing.
Even if her goals were purely petty, this brouhaha has already publicized that need. My only worry is the surprisingly number of people shitting on kidney donors because the donor might have mixed motives, which might make some people reluctant to donate for fear of being called a narcissist (!)
posted by msalt at 11:58 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Many Americans have the mistaken belief that a court verdict will validate the truth of their position in a dispute, and this is more important to them than money or an injunction. That's tragic, because court verdicts map to the truth very badly, but there it is.
The one thing that is guaranteed in a situation like this is publicity, and in this she succeeded wildly. Why did she want that? I'm saddened that no one -- including Kolker, the NYT writer -- seems to consider the possibility that Dorland wanted to bring attention to the need for kidney donors, which is a real thing.
Even if her goals were purely petty, this brouhaha has already publicized that need. My only worry is the surprisingly number of people shitting on kidney donors because the donor might have mixed motives, which might make some people reluctant to donate for fear of being called a narcissist (!)
posted by msalt at 11:58 AM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Basically this:
"I am a published writer, and I once had an amazing, fascinating, deeply cringy interaction with someone in my social circle that would make a fantastic story. I even wrote it up and sent it to my writer dad who loved it, I’ve told it as a funny anecdote on several occasions, etc.
I would never publish it or anything derived from it. Because it would be cruel, and because I can come up with my own ideas."
It's also just bad form. It's not only libel-broaching, but it can bring a nasty sense of what's culturally acceptable among creative groups. Definitely not advised.
I have these interactions daily. I don't board the story or photo/recording trains because I know how quickly those can descend into negativity or genuine damage.
And yes.. collectively, "these people kinda suck." If they'd like to spiral into the ether as a collective group of nonsense people, well, fine. Sympathy to the people who accidentally merge with that social tornado. Overall, it seems like a handful of people with partially formed social limitations, discovering what it's like when those qualities merge.
As for kidney hero: at the end of the day, that person donated a kidney. She doesn't necessarily need a second birthday party for it (she can make one if she wants?), but almost no one is donating organs out of narcissism. Just let her donate the fucking kidney. Seriously?
posted by firstdaffodils at 11:59 AM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
"I am a published writer, and I once had an amazing, fascinating, deeply cringy interaction with someone in my social circle that would make a fantastic story. I even wrote it up and sent it to my writer dad who loved it, I’ve told it as a funny anecdote on several occasions, etc.
I would never publish it or anything derived from it. Because it would be cruel, and because I can come up with my own ideas."
It's also just bad form. It's not only libel-broaching, but it can bring a nasty sense of what's culturally acceptable among creative groups. Definitely not advised.
I have these interactions daily. I don't board the story or photo/recording trains because I know how quickly those can descend into negativity or genuine damage.
And yes.. collectively, "these people kinda suck." If they'd like to spiral into the ether as a collective group of nonsense people, well, fine. Sympathy to the people who accidentally merge with that social tornado. Overall, it seems like a handful of people with partially formed social limitations, discovering what it's like when those qualities merge.
As for kidney hero: at the end of the day, that person donated a kidney. She doesn't necessarily need a second birthday party for it (she can make one if she wants?), but almost no one is donating organs out of narcissism. Just let her donate the fucking kidney. Seriously?
posted by firstdaffodils at 11:59 AM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
Do you understand what it feels like to be a woman in a country
Get a grip. Yes, I'm a woman in the same country. No, even referring to that comment as "someone suggesting they would make everyone donate a kidney" is a willful misreading of hyperbolic silliness.
posted by bashing rocks together at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
Get a grip. Yes, I'm a woman in the same country. No, even referring to that comment as "someone suggesting they would make everyone donate a kidney" is a willful misreading of hyperbolic silliness.
posted by bashing rocks together at 12:18 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
It is what they said, though. I also found it creepy.
posted by tavella at 12:20 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by tavella at 12:20 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Very late to this and unfortunately did skim the comments a bit so apologizes if someone else has made the following points, but i have a few takeaways I want to provide.
The first is to point out that this is a sensationalist article obviously meant to get as many people outraged about either of these people as possible, and, as a result, probably does it's best to make both people look as terrible as possible. I see a lot of comments that are along the lines of "X person obviously overstepped Y's boundaries" and "Y was obviously the one that was gaslighting X", but when i view this article through the lens of editorializing and sensationalizing, I can't help but feel like we, as people who are seeing the situation through this extremely simplified view, simply don't have enough information as to the full extent that either of these people tried to communicate with one another, felt the need to communicate to one another, what the social context was, etc, etc.
The other point i want to make is, I don't think it's either necessary or valuable to do morality arithmetic. A lot of people are saying things like "Is it so bad that Dorland was obnoxious about donating a kidney when she did FUCKING DONATE A KIDNEY" or "Does Larson talking shit about Dorland in groupchats really justify Dorland trying to end Larson's career?" I personally feel like it's valid to agree with all of "It was good for Dorland to donate a kidney" and "Dorland overstepped boundaries in the way she promoted donating a kidney" and "It was rude and unprofessional of Larson to shit talk in a group chat" and also "Dorland probably could have handled this better than by launching a defamation lawsuit".
Furthermore, i think it's possible and even healthy and positive to acknowledge the various subsequent conclusions from these. "Dorland should be praised for donating a kidney" isn't a contradiction of "Dorland should be criticized for overstepping boundaries when talking about donating a kidney". Similarly, "Larson should not have plagiarized Dorland's letter and should have communicated with Dorland more kindly and empathetically" isn't a contradiction of "Larson is within her rights to turn her personal experiences into stories"
posted by fizzzzzzzzzzzy at 12:23 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
The first is to point out that this is a sensationalist article obviously meant to get as many people outraged about either of these people as possible, and, as a result, probably does it's best to make both people look as terrible as possible. I see a lot of comments that are along the lines of "X person obviously overstepped Y's boundaries" and "Y was obviously the one that was gaslighting X", but when i view this article through the lens of editorializing and sensationalizing, I can't help but feel like we, as people who are seeing the situation through this extremely simplified view, simply don't have enough information as to the full extent that either of these people tried to communicate with one another, felt the need to communicate to one another, what the social context was, etc, etc.
The other point i want to make is, I don't think it's either necessary or valuable to do morality arithmetic. A lot of people are saying things like "Is it so bad that Dorland was obnoxious about donating a kidney when she did FUCKING DONATE A KIDNEY" or "Does Larson talking shit about Dorland in groupchats really justify Dorland trying to end Larson's career?" I personally feel like it's valid to agree with all of "It was good for Dorland to donate a kidney" and "Dorland overstepped boundaries in the way she promoted donating a kidney" and "It was rude and unprofessional of Larson to shit talk in a group chat" and also "Dorland probably could have handled this better than by launching a defamation lawsuit".
Furthermore, i think it's possible and even healthy and positive to acknowledge the various subsequent conclusions from these. "Dorland should be praised for donating a kidney" isn't a contradiction of "Dorland should be criticized for overstepping boundaries when talking about donating a kidney". Similarly, "Larson should not have plagiarized Dorland's letter and should have communicated with Dorland more kindly and empathetically" isn't a contradiction of "Larson is within her rights to turn her personal experiences into stories"
posted by fizzzzzzzzzzzy at 12:23 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
Speaking as someone with only one kidney (and knocking on wood that I won't ever need another one!), I see Dorland's decision to donate a kidney to a stranger as being a clearly very brave act, but people have all kinds of reasons for doing the things they do. It is very naïve for people to believe that someone who aspires to be a professional writer wouldn't donate a kidney even just for the material. People do way, way, WAY crazier things so that they will have something to write about.
I think she donated the kidney because she wanted to help someone else, because she thought it would be good creative fodder, and perhaps because she thought this would raise her esteem in a social circle she craved approval from. I think her discovery that she was humiliated and socially rejected by this group gave her a desire for some serious capital-r Revenge, and that is not a very noble impulse. On the other hand, if you publish fiction that is obviously about a rather intense and socially inappropriate figure in your writing circle, you should expect to suffer consequences.
posted by cakelite at 1:10 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think she donated the kidney because she wanted to help someone else, because she thought it would be good creative fodder, and perhaps because she thought this would raise her esteem in a social circle she craved approval from. I think her discovery that she was humiliated and socially rejected by this group gave her a desire for some serious capital-r Revenge, and that is not a very noble impulse. On the other hand, if you publish fiction that is obviously about a rather intense and socially inappropriate figure in your writing circle, you should expect to suffer consequences.
posted by cakelite at 1:10 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
How many of you have been close to someone who was on dialysis for years? When I was younger I dated someone who was. And I've seen someone my parent was close to (who I was not), who died of kidney failure. The person who died, a younger person of color, would have taken a goddamn kidney from an alien at the end, no matter how much gratitude the alien wanted.
Every one of you criticizing Dorland should spend some time in a dialysis room. A lot of time.
I have. Four years.
It's an astonishing experience to read this thread as a recipient. My jaw is bruised from the force of dropping. When I started treatment I'd often joke about refusing a kidney from Michael Vick or Ann Coulter. By the end, when my body had changed so completely that I was nearly unrecognizable and I was too sick to even realize the extent of it, I would have accepted one from them, Dorland, or absolutely anyone else. Everything I have right now is because of someone like her.
posted by mochapickle at 1:16 PM on October 6, 2021 [78 favorites]
Every one of you criticizing Dorland should spend some time in a dialysis room. A lot of time.
I have. Four years.
It's an astonishing experience to read this thread as a recipient. My jaw is bruised from the force of dropping. When I started treatment I'd often joke about refusing a kidney from Michael Vick or Ann Coulter. By the end, when my body had changed so completely that I was nearly unrecognizable and I was too sick to even realize the extent of it, I would have accepted one from them, Dorland, or absolutely anyone else. Everything I have right now is because of someone like her.
posted by mochapickle at 1:16 PM on October 6, 2021 [78 favorites]
"Have you read the article about me in the New York Times?" - Dawn Dorland's outgoing Facebook messages today, probably.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:17 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 1:17 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
I had several comments. I have deleted them all.
I would hate to be, and am secretly terrified of actually being, either of these people.
posted by bq at 1:28 PM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
I would hate to be, and am secretly terrified of actually being, either of these people.
posted by bq at 1:28 PM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
Smelling like someone who has not bathed in literal months is not a normal way to attend graduate school
I'm not too sure about that- I went to the University of Chicago.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:29 PM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm not too sure about that- I went to the University of Chicago.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 1:29 PM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
"Have you read the article about me in the New York Times?" - Dawn Dorland's outgoing Facebook messages today, probably.
1. Laughed.
2. If every self-involved dingus donated a kidney, I bet we'd have so many kidneys. We could probably then ignore the NYtimes for a while, and possibly celebrate all of the sane people who inherited kidneys. Everyone wins.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:36 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
1. Laughed.
2. If every self-involved dingus donated a kidney, I bet we'd have so many kidneys. We could probably then ignore the NYtimes for a while, and possibly celebrate all of the sane people who inherited kidneys. Everyone wins.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:36 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
"My kidney wrote a story for the NY times today, guys. Also, please complete this survey indicating you reviewed my kidney's work. Thank you."
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:38 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:38 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
"My kidney wrote a story for the NY times today, guys. Also, please complete this survey indicating you reviewed my kidney's work. Thank you." by Sonya Larson.
posted by FencingGal at 1:42 PM on October 6, 2021 [28 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 1:42 PM on October 6, 2021 [28 favorites]
The responses to this story that praise Larson are fascinating to me, because she's very obviously the villain. But also, part of what makes her a good villain is that she convinces herself and those around her that she's not villainous, and also that if you disagree with her then you're morally bankrupt, cringy, and embarrassing. It's human nature not to want to be any of those things, and so it's easier to pile on Dorland further for being morally bankrupt, cringy, and embarrassing. At least then we can be like, phew, we're not the baddies.
But gosh, she's mean here. And Dorland has so clearly been taught to ignore her instincts about people. Because people who would lurk on kidney donation posts and not comment and then pretend they don't know about it are acting kind of weird, right? And her instincts were exactly right. Larson's behavior was predatory. But instead of trusting those instincts and, like, just taking that person out of her facebook group she poked around and hinted and that's familiar to me, too, as someone who grew up with ugly family of origin dynamics.
Meanwhile, Celeste Ng's comments strike me as the kind of tortured complicity of someone who doesn't really agree but has been convinced that it's not prudent to disagree. She knows it's not right though, on some level.
I've been the subject of this kind of treatment on a much smaller scale (a prank someone played on me during MFA times, when later I was told that the whole program knew about it and thought was hilarious), and I've also been part of writers forums like these where someone leveraged their social power to justify all sorts of things. As a part of these communities - and they're endemic, not at all limited to only literary writers; the idea that they're not in sci-fi or commercial writing is hilarious! - I've participated in mobbing behavior and brigading I wasn't proud of, and also just basically kind of had my self confidence destroyed as a writer and a person. Because there would always be some terrible crime of comportment someone else (or maybe I) was commiting, but those standards always shifted, because they weren't about behavior, they were about your place in the power structure. Craved inclusion in those dynamics at one point, don't now. It was always a weird fit because I'd be the person who would be like, "Folks, let's maybe not mock the kidney donor." Anyway, I feel better since I don't seek that kind of thing out anymore, but I'm forever certain that someone is probably screencapping my comments and making fun of me. Oh well! Hi there.
This all really seems to me to be a shade of academic mobbing.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:43 PM on October 6, 2021 [47 favorites]
But gosh, she's mean here. And Dorland has so clearly been taught to ignore her instincts about people. Because people who would lurk on kidney donation posts and not comment and then pretend they don't know about it are acting kind of weird, right? And her instincts were exactly right. Larson's behavior was predatory. But instead of trusting those instincts and, like, just taking that person out of her facebook group she poked around and hinted and that's familiar to me, too, as someone who grew up with ugly family of origin dynamics.
Meanwhile, Celeste Ng's comments strike me as the kind of tortured complicity of someone who doesn't really agree but has been convinced that it's not prudent to disagree. She knows it's not right though, on some level.
I've been the subject of this kind of treatment on a much smaller scale (a prank someone played on me during MFA times, when later I was told that the whole program knew about it and thought was hilarious), and I've also been part of writers forums like these where someone leveraged their social power to justify all sorts of things. As a part of these communities - and they're endemic, not at all limited to only literary writers; the idea that they're not in sci-fi or commercial writing is hilarious! - I've participated in mobbing behavior and brigading I wasn't proud of, and also just basically kind of had my self confidence destroyed as a writer and a person. Because there would always be some terrible crime of comportment someone else (or maybe I) was commiting, but those standards always shifted, because they weren't about behavior, they were about your place in the power structure. Craved inclusion in those dynamics at one point, don't now. It was always a weird fit because I'd be the person who would be like, "Folks, let's maybe not mock the kidney donor." Anyway, I feel better since I don't seek that kind of thing out anymore, but I'm forever certain that someone is probably screencapping my comments and making fun of me. Oh well! Hi there.
This all really seems to me to be a shade of academic mobbing.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:43 PM on October 6, 2021 [47 favorites]
I’ve seen many folks compare this situation to Am I The Asshole, but it reminds me much more of (the far superior, imo) Hobby Drama
posted by thebots at 1:46 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by thebots at 1:46 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Wow…just wow. So many object lessons on the perils of social media, being friends—or frenemies—with writers, and more.
For me, though, one thing leapt our from all this, and it is that Dorlund asked “do writers”—not just people but writers—“not care about my kidney donation?” I recognize that she did a wonderful thing for another human, and I respect and admire that. However, it seems that she tried to use that act of generosity to seek validation from a specific group that is very much focussed elsewhere, and that is a large source of her pain.
The other one is mean and dishonest. I would not want to be on the same room with either of them.
posted by rpfields at 1:46 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
For me, though, one thing leapt our from all this, and it is that Dorlund asked “do writers”—not just people but writers—“not care about my kidney donation?” I recognize that she did a wonderful thing for another human, and I respect and admire that. However, it seems that she tried to use that act of generosity to seek validation from a specific group that is very much focussed elsewhere, and that is a large source of her pain.
The other one is mean and dishonest. I would not want to be on the same room with either of them.
posted by rpfields at 1:46 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
PhoBWanKenobi, you may be doing better than you think. I'm really sorry you had those experiences, but you genuinely sound as though you made the effort to understand and work through them. I think a lot of people are very understanding of how unfortunate that place can be. That's challenging and I hope there were hidden opportunities in it.
As for mockery and organ donors: A person can giggle a little bit, and yes, if you're doing something next level generous, it's already inherently altruistic. If you spend a lot of time advertising the experience (a little is probably ok), it does start to look strange. Most of these experiences probably sound like people just getting out of control. Tbh, they may all feel ugly and dumb now. Many people in the aftermath of this nonsense eventually wake up thinking, "uh, wow."
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:51 PM on October 6, 2021
As for mockery and organ donors: A person can giggle a little bit, and yes, if you're doing something next level generous, it's already inherently altruistic. If you spend a lot of time advertising the experience (a little is probably ok), it does start to look strange. Most of these experiences probably sound like people just getting out of control. Tbh, they may all feel ugly and dumb now. Many people in the aftermath of this nonsense eventually wake up thinking, "uh, wow."
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:51 PM on October 6, 2021
If you spend a lot of time advertising the experience (a little is probably ok), it does start to look strange.
I mean, idk, who cares about strange if you save someone's life?
I realize I am being oh so "cringe" in saying so (because one thing uncovered by this conversation is that talking about trauma is cringe) but I grew up in a family where any kind of generosity was mocked like this. In that case, at least, it was a way to make yourself feel better about your own lack of participation in generosity, for whatever reason, often including an insecurity, ironically, that people wouldn't want your generosity.
I do more since coming away from that dynamic, and I'm happy to hear people talk about the good things they do, because people should talk about the good things they do. It's not really all that embarrassing to be good.
It also doesn't make the rest of us bad if someone else is good and in these dynamics, good always seems like this limited resource, and most people are happy to get a donated kidney (???!) even if someone's reasons for doing it are, like, silly.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:56 PM on October 6, 2021 [22 favorites]
I mean, idk, who cares about strange if you save someone's life?
I realize I am being oh so "cringe" in saying so (because one thing uncovered by this conversation is that talking about trauma is cringe) but I grew up in a family where any kind of generosity was mocked like this. In that case, at least, it was a way to make yourself feel better about your own lack of participation in generosity, for whatever reason, often including an insecurity, ironically, that people wouldn't want your generosity.
I do more since coming away from that dynamic, and I'm happy to hear people talk about the good things they do, because people should talk about the good things they do. It's not really all that embarrassing to be good.
It also doesn't make the rest of us bad if someone else is good and in these dynamics, good always seems like this limited resource, and most people are happy to get a donated kidney (???!) even if someone's reasons for doing it are, like, silly.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:56 PM on October 6, 2021 [22 favorites]
"If you spend a lot of time advertising the experience (a little is probably ok), it does start to look strange.
I mean, idk, who cares about strange if you save someone's life?" Completely agree (see the End of the day comment way above).
My only concern with this, is, in a broad scale perspective, ideal world type of examination: A person doesn't take on experiences like this for self glorification. They do it to donate their kidney and help someone. Yes, incredible you helped someone: how is the person with the new kidney?
All expressed, if I ever need a kidney, that's not going to mean very much at all (self glorification etc) What's perspective placing are posts included from people who needed kidneys. Probably the most valuable perspective in the circumstance.
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:00 PM on October 6, 2021
I mean, idk, who cares about strange if you save someone's life?" Completely agree (see the End of the day comment way above).
My only concern with this, is, in a broad scale perspective, ideal world type of examination: A person doesn't take on experiences like this for self glorification. They do it to donate their kidney and help someone. Yes, incredible you helped someone: how is the person with the new kidney?
All expressed, if I ever need a kidney, that's not going to mean very much at all (self glorification etc) What's perspective placing are posts included from people who needed kidneys. Probably the most valuable perspective in the circumstance.
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:00 PM on October 6, 2021
"If you spend a lot of time advertising the experience (a little is probably ok), it does start to look strange.
I mean, idk, who cares about strange if you save someone's life?"
To me this position ignores basic social conventions. I'm trying to think of a good deed that would reach the kind of heights where I would tolerate someone I'm not close with talking about it incessantly and needling me for approval and I can't. Someone could rescue a bunch of children from a burning orphanage and it would still be pretty fucking weird for them to bring it up as much as this lady brought up donating a kidney - particularly when it's to people who aren't even your close friends!
"Because people who would lurk on kidney donation posts and not comment and then pretend they don't know about it are acting kind of weird, right?"
Larson does not come off well in this story, but she did not pretend not to know about the kidney donation, and acknowledged it when Dorland asked if she knew. If someone adds me to their facebook group or posts on facebook or whatever, any lack of participation on my part doesn't constitute "lurking," it means I'm choosing not to engage.
posted by cakelite at 2:12 PM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
I mean, idk, who cares about strange if you save someone's life?"
To me this position ignores basic social conventions. I'm trying to think of a good deed that would reach the kind of heights where I would tolerate someone I'm not close with talking about it incessantly and needling me for approval and I can't. Someone could rescue a bunch of children from a burning orphanage and it would still be pretty fucking weird for them to bring it up as much as this lady brought up donating a kidney - particularly when it's to people who aren't even your close friends!
"Because people who would lurk on kidney donation posts and not comment and then pretend they don't know about it are acting kind of weird, right?"
Larson does not come off well in this story, but she did not pretend not to know about the kidney donation, and acknowledged it when Dorland asked if she knew. If someone adds me to their facebook group or posts on facebook or whatever, any lack of participation on my part doesn't constitute "lurking," it means I'm choosing not to engage.
posted by cakelite at 2:12 PM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
Actually I take it back. Please, let's make donating kidneys the coolest, most self involved trend seeking behavior in the world.
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:13 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:13 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yes, but no matter what you would do in a different situation, Larson was lurking and mocking the content to her friends.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:14 PM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:14 PM on October 6, 2021 [11 favorites]
It's not really all that embarrassing to be good.
It's not. ("Cringe" to me is for silly things only, like why some older folks don't understand how most young people don't worship Mick Jagger.) But...running around to people not particularly connected to the good action to demand to know why they haven't praised you for it is rude. And does make you look more invested in social gain from the action, much more than if you just rambled on about it a lot, which probably would get tedious to your actual friends, but, again, donated a kidney, how upset can you be. I wouldn't wish serious abdominal surgery on my worst enemy. The first night after mine was possibly the worst night of my life, and certainly the most painful.
posted by praemunire at 2:17 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
It's not. ("Cringe" to me is for silly things only, like why some older folks don't understand how most young people don't worship Mick Jagger.) But...running around to people not particularly connected to the good action to demand to know why they haven't praised you for it is rude. And does make you look more invested in social gain from the action, much more than if you just rambled on about it a lot, which probably would get tedious to your actual friends, but, again, donated a kidney, how upset can you be. I wouldn't wish serious abdominal surgery on my worst enemy. The first night after mine was possibly the worst night of my life, and certainly the most painful.
posted by praemunire at 2:17 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
"But...running around to people not particularly connected to the good action to demand to know why they haven't praised you for it is rude." Rude and quite possibly takes away from the social support the kidney patient needs, because the situation is about them.*
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:19 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:19 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
As a public service announcement, 18 people die every day waiting for a kidney, and the ones waiting for transplant are the lucky ones because they are determined to be healthy enough to survive the surgery and transplant living. Many other patients don't qualify or they qualify but while they're waiting years for their match, they get too sick to stay on the list. I often had dialysis friends whose chairs would be empty because they died waiting. The next session, a new patient would fill their seat.
Live donation is a thing. Altruistic donation is a thing. There's a special need for O- and O+ donors, who are universal. O recipients like me have longer wait times. My dad waited nine years. My brother is at eight and counting.
The surgery to donate... I mean it's surgery, so of course it's medically invasive. I've had a nephrectomy to make room for the new organ, and the whole process was kind of along the lines of recovery as every other abdominal surgery I've had. Donor surgeries are typically laparoscopic, but it's not nothing.
There's a hefty screening process, and lots of people get turned away, as my two living donor volunteers did. The transplant teams pick very strong and healthy people, and those people typically go on to live long, healthy lives because they were pretty healthy to begin with. There's no such thing as no risk with this, but if you end up needing a kidney yourself, you get placed at the top of the list.
It's an enormous decision, and an enormous ask, but it's an enormous gift.
posted by mochapickle at 2:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [39 favorites]
Live donation is a thing. Altruistic donation is a thing. There's a special need for O- and O+ donors, who are universal. O recipients like me have longer wait times. My dad waited nine years. My brother is at eight and counting.
The surgery to donate... I mean it's surgery, so of course it's medically invasive. I've had a nephrectomy to make room for the new organ, and the whole process was kind of along the lines of recovery as every other abdominal surgery I've had. Donor surgeries are typically laparoscopic, but it's not nothing.
There's a hefty screening process, and lots of people get turned away, as my two living donor volunteers did. The transplant teams pick very strong and healthy people, and those people typically go on to live long, healthy lives because they were pretty healthy to begin with. There's no such thing as no risk with this, but if you end up needing a kidney yourself, you get placed at the top of the list.
It's an enormous decision, and an enormous ask, but it's an enormous gift.
posted by mochapickle at 2:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [39 favorites]
This article has forced me to confront aspects of myself that are probably less than ideal. My initial reaction to this piece, while thinking that Dorland is probably A LOT to be around, was that Larson was clearly in the wrong, and frankly found it confusing that anyone could possibly view it otherwise. Everything about Larson here was off-putting from her “Oh, that post, barely noticed it” which was obviously gaslighting, to her Mean Girl burn book behavior right up to having her own Gretchen Weiners to circle the wagons in her defense. Trying to frame this as “White Woman Crying” when she was the one with all the privilege here was an especially bad look.
And yet. I have a snarky text chain with a co-worker which we mainly use to commiserate over work nonsense, but do occasionally use to collectively roll our eyes at an industry colleague whose social media presence tends to exclusively consist of “HEY, EVERYBODY, PLEASE TAKE NOTE AND COMMENT WHAT A WONDERFUL, AMAZING, ALTRUISTIC PERSON I AM” content. Including, ironically enough, this past week, multiple posts about donating her kidney to a stranger. Interesting how your own behavior that you’ve never really given a second thought to can come across so poorly when you see it reflected in someone else. (I’ve never tried to write a short story about her though).
posted by The Gooch at 2:29 PM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
And yet. I have a snarky text chain with a co-worker which we mainly use to commiserate over work nonsense, but do occasionally use to collectively roll our eyes at an industry colleague whose social media presence tends to exclusively consist of “HEY, EVERYBODY, PLEASE TAKE NOTE AND COMMENT WHAT A WONDERFUL, AMAZING, ALTRUISTIC PERSON I AM” content. Including, ironically enough, this past week, multiple posts about donating her kidney to a stranger. Interesting how your own behavior that you’ve never really given a second thought to can come across so poorly when you see it reflected in someone else. (I’ve never tried to write a short story about her though).
posted by The Gooch at 2:29 PM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
Larson was lurking and mocking the content to her friends.
I'm not sure that not commenting on material that someone hands you unsolicited, even if you read it, is some form of sinister "lurking"; I'm quite sure that if someone says things to you unsolicited it does not impose the same standards of care, so to speak, that would apply if the person were a good friend making a confidence.
In that context, an interesting comment I've seen from some Black people on Twitter is that Dorland seemed to be assuming a much greater degree of intimacy with Larson than actually existed, which is definitely a thing that white women can tend to do to Black women.
posted by praemunire at 2:36 PM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'm not sure that not commenting on material that someone hands you unsolicited, even if you read it, is some form of sinister "lurking"; I'm quite sure that if someone says things to you unsolicited it does not impose the same standards of care, so to speak, that would apply if the person were a good friend making a confidence.
In that context, an interesting comment I've seen from some Black people on Twitter is that Dorland seemed to be assuming a much greater degree of intimacy with Larson than actually existed, which is definitely a thing that white women can tend to do to Black women.
posted by praemunire at 2:36 PM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'm not sure that not commenting on material that someone hands you unsolicited, even if you read it, is some form of sinister "lurking"
Lurking is, by definition, reading things and not commenting on them.
Because as a weirdo neurodivergent I know internet etiquette way better than regular etiquette, for what it's worth this sort of lurking behavior was at least at one point considered pretty socially off, at least as off as ... crowing about donating organs (???). But regardless, Larson was not just lurking but admitted to her own friends she knew it wasn't great behavior. It feels funny to me, the people defending it, but I also get that I am a weird dinosaur about this one internet etiquette thing and also an ADHD traumatized prison given to talking to much, being too much, and oversharing.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:44 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Lurking is, by definition, reading things and not commenting on them.
Because as a weirdo neurodivergent I know internet etiquette way better than regular etiquette, for what it's worth this sort of lurking behavior was at least at one point considered pretty socially off, at least as off as ... crowing about donating organs (???). But regardless, Larson was not just lurking but admitted to her own friends she knew it wasn't great behavior. It feels funny to me, the people defending it, but I also get that I am a weird dinosaur about this one internet etiquette thing and also an ADHD traumatized prison given to talking to much, being too much, and oversharing.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:44 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
There's a lot of people in here saying nice things about Dorland as if her kidney donation helped a total stranger, and they couldn't miss the point more. From the article:
As a so-called nondirected donation, her kidney was not meant for anyone in particular but instead was part of a donation chain, coordinated by surgeons to provide a kidney to a recipient who may otherwise have no other living donor.
Someone who needs a kidney (let's call them Abdul) might have type A blood, and they ask their friends and family if they can donate. There might be someone who can donate (that is, they are willing and healthy), but they have type B blood, which makes their kidney incompatible, and they can't donate a kidney to Abdul. Because most people who donate kidneys are spurred on by a desire to help their ailing loved ones and very few people are willing to donate a kidney to a stranger, that would normally be the end of the story. Quite possibly, literally the end of Abdul's story, write his obituary and print his tombstone.
But then there's paired donations. Say there's someone else (say Becky) who needs a kidney with type B blood. Abdel's donor (let's say Ana) could give their kidney to Becky, but most people aren't motivated to help out a total stranger. Instead, suppose that Becky has a loved one with an incompatible kidney, who can give their kidney to Abdul instead. Now both donors can donate their kidneys, and their loved ones will get a kidney -- just a little more indirectly. This is a tradeoff a lot of people who won't donate to a total stranger can be convinced to make.
This can be extended into a donation chain, where Becky's donor Bill isn't compatible for Abdul but is compatible for Celia, and Celia's donor is compatible for Dave, and so on. A chain like this could help a lot of people. The problem is that it ultimately rests on Ernesto's loved one or Francine's loved one or someone having a kidney compatible back with Abdul to complete the loop. And that would be unlikely; the coordination is very difficult.
So what happens more usually to start this sort of donation chain is for a very rare someone to donate a kidney to a total stranger in an undirected donation; now that Abdul is getting a kidney from a total stranger, Ana will give her kidney to Becky, Bill to Celia and so on down the line. An undirected kidney donation in this context isn't an isolated act, it's the first domino in a chain that might result in several, dozens or more dominos falling down the line.
So don't think of Dorland as someone who just donated her kidney to help a single stranger; think of her as someone who donated her kidney to help any number of strangers get donor kidneys. Thinking of her as someone who helped a single stranger might easily be underestimating the impact of her generosity by an order of magnitude.
posted by Superilla at 2:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [89 favorites]
As a so-called nondirected donation, her kidney was not meant for anyone in particular but instead was part of a donation chain, coordinated by surgeons to provide a kidney to a recipient who may otherwise have no other living donor.
Someone who needs a kidney (let's call them Abdul) might have type A blood, and they ask their friends and family if they can donate. There might be someone who can donate (that is, they are willing and healthy), but they have type B blood, which makes their kidney incompatible, and they can't donate a kidney to Abdul. Because most people who donate kidneys are spurred on by a desire to help their ailing loved ones and very few people are willing to donate a kidney to a stranger, that would normally be the end of the story. Quite possibly, literally the end of Abdul's story, write his obituary and print his tombstone.
But then there's paired donations. Say there's someone else (say Becky) who needs a kidney with type B blood. Abdel's donor (let's say Ana) could give their kidney to Becky, but most people aren't motivated to help out a total stranger. Instead, suppose that Becky has a loved one with an incompatible kidney, who can give their kidney to Abdul instead. Now both donors can donate their kidneys, and their loved ones will get a kidney -- just a little more indirectly. This is a tradeoff a lot of people who won't donate to a total stranger can be convinced to make.
This can be extended into a donation chain, where Becky's donor Bill isn't compatible for Abdul but is compatible for Celia, and Celia's donor is compatible for Dave, and so on. A chain like this could help a lot of people. The problem is that it ultimately rests on Ernesto's loved one or Francine's loved one or someone having a kidney compatible back with Abdul to complete the loop. And that would be unlikely; the coordination is very difficult.
So what happens more usually to start this sort of donation chain is for a very rare someone to donate a kidney to a total stranger in an undirected donation; now that Abdul is getting a kidney from a total stranger, Ana will give her kidney to Becky, Bill to Celia and so on down the line. An undirected kidney donation in this context isn't an isolated act, it's the first domino in a chain that might result in several, dozens or more dominos falling down the line.
So don't think of Dorland as someone who just donated her kidney to help a single stranger; think of her as someone who donated her kidney to help any number of strangers get donor kidneys. Thinking of her as someone who helped a single stranger might easily be underestimating the impact of her generosity by an order of magnitude.
posted by Superilla at 2:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [89 favorites]
PS: I got a kidney 15 years ago last Thursday. I've taken their kidney to all 6 inhabited continents, onto the stage to get my Master's and down the aisle to marry my wife. I don't know what my donor's social media presence was like.
posted by Superilla at 2:52 PM on October 6, 2021 [43 favorites]
posted by Superilla at 2:52 PM on October 6, 2021 [43 favorites]
Because as a weirdo neurodivergent I know internet etiquette way better than regular etiquette, for what it's worth this sort of lurking behavior was at least at one point considered pretty socially off, at least as off as
Come now. My Internet career started in the early 90s on Usenet. In most contexts, lurking is a morally neutral act. (The lurkers support me in email!) There have been over the years various specific forums with participation rules for various reasons, which is also fine, but not the default. The number of people who've lurked on Mefi itself over the years must be thousands and thousands!
Anyway, I seriously hope that you're not going to suggest that if Larson had contacted Dorland and asked her to take her out of the facebook group, etc., the resulting meltdown wouldn't have been visible from space?
posted by praemunire at 2:54 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Come now. My Internet career started in the early 90s on Usenet. In most contexts, lurking is a morally neutral act. (The lurkers support me in email!) There have been over the years various specific forums with participation rules for various reasons, which is also fine, but not the default. The number of people who've lurked on Mefi itself over the years must be thousands and thousands!
Anyway, I seriously hope that you're not going to suggest that if Larson had contacted Dorland and asked her to take her out of the facebook group, etc., the resulting meltdown wouldn't have been visible from space?
posted by praemunire at 2:54 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
In most contexts, lurking is a morally neutral act.
Nah, was never seen that way in the places I was around. Regardless this instance of lurking was malicious and Dorland was absolutely right in her suspicions and I hope she took away a good lesson about her own discomfort and how it can be trusted in the future.
if Larson had contacted Dorland and asked her to take her out of the facebook group, etc., the resulting meltdown wouldn't have been visible from space
She could have taken herself out, as I do on the regular from all the multilevel marketing essential oil groups folks from facebook add me to! It's not hard. And I doubt it would have been drama.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:02 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
Nah, was never seen that way in the places I was around. Regardless this instance of lurking was malicious and Dorland was absolutely right in her suspicions and I hope she took away a good lesson about her own discomfort and how it can be trusted in the future.
if Larson had contacted Dorland and asked her to take her out of the facebook group, etc., the resulting meltdown wouldn't have been visible from space
She could have taken herself out, as I do on the regular from all the multilevel marketing essential oil groups folks from facebook add me to! It's not hard. And I doubt it would have been drama.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:02 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
I was surprised to see this debate turn into something about organ donations. The problem that I had with Dorland is that her demanding intimacy from people read as possibly dangerous -- a sort of pre-stalker activity. So, you avoid people like that. BUT Larsen didn't avoid; she became a commentator on this other person, thus providing a connection that could have been avoided. So, I wouldn't hang out with either one of them.
posted by CCBC at 3:27 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by CCBC at 3:27 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
I would like to read a science fiction story about a society which has Emotional Courts.
James Branch Cabell complained that he had problems making love (old idiom, I think it means seduction/necking) to women because he'd write them into stories and then they'd be angry at him. This story could be worse, or at least differently bad. (Cabell was a fantasy and mainstream fiction writer from the early 1900s.)
Dianna Wynne Jones told me about how she'd write things that came true. She wrote a story about an infuriating man she knew, and to be on the safe side, she put her character in a cardigan he' d never wear. The next time she saw him, he was wearing a cardigan.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:42 PM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
James Branch Cabell complained that he had problems making love (old idiom, I think it means seduction/necking) to women because he'd write them into stories and then they'd be angry at him. This story could be worse, or at least differently bad. (Cabell was a fantasy and mainstream fiction writer from the early 1900s.)
Dianna Wynne Jones told me about how she'd write things that came true. She wrote a story about an infuriating man she knew, and to be on the safe side, she put her character in a cardigan he' d never wear. The next time she saw him, he was wearing a cardigan.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 3:42 PM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
hades: "If so, it's interesting to see how a hyperbolic comment talking about "all of the most narcissistic able-bodied people on earth" turned into a serious proposal about "all of us" and is now about "everyone"."
Lest people get the idea that I am in favor of forcing someone to donate their organs if they're really annoying, I should point out that I was speaking philosophically within a hypothetical construct where free will doesn't exist and I am omnipotent. Neither of those things is true, so we're all safe from my thought experiments for now, and I continue to be militantly pro-choice.
Just in case it comes up: I also don't think that people should be compelled to allow themselves to be pushed into the path of an oncoming trolley.
posted by savetheclocktower at 4:28 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Lest people get the idea that I am in favor of forcing someone to donate their organs if they're really annoying, I should point out that I was speaking philosophically within a hypothetical construct where free will doesn't exist and I am omnipotent. Neither of those things is true, so we're all safe from my thought experiments for now, and I continue to be militantly pro-choice.
Just in case it comes up: I also don't think that people should be compelled to allow themselves to be pushed into the path of an oncoming trolley.
posted by savetheclocktower at 4:28 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
I can't wait to read Chuck Tingle's take:
Pounded in the Butt By the Handsome Sentient Manifestation of the Mefi Thread About That Kidney Donation Short Fiction Kerfuffle
posted by signal at 4:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
Pounded in the Butt By the Handsome Sentient Manifestation of the Mefi Thread About That Kidney Donation Short Fiction Kerfuffle
posted by signal at 4:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
creepy
posted by firstdaffodils at 4:58 PM on October 6, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 4:58 PM on October 6, 2021
Hey, the paywalless version doesn't have audio access, does it? I want to listen.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:03 PM on October 6, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:03 PM on October 6, 2021
Dianna Wynne Jones told me about how she'd write things that came true.
I mean, Diana Wynne Jones also had the moxie to write an entire book set at an SFF conference in which at least one main character is widely acknowledged to be based roughly on Neil Gaiman, so... seems to have worked out for her?
Not that I'm aware of who the more unflattering SFF author characters in that book might be based on, of course, so that might be the trick.
posted by sciatrix at 5:03 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
I mean, Diana Wynne Jones also had the moxie to write an entire book set at an SFF conference in which at least one main character is widely acknowledged to be based roughly on Neil Gaiman, so... seems to have worked out for her?
Not that I'm aware of who the more unflattering SFF author characters in that book might be based on, of course, so that might be the trick.
posted by sciatrix at 5:03 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't think there will be a Tingler about this, he's read the article but finds all the behavior mystifying.
posted by rewil at 5:11 PM on October 6, 2021
posted by rewil at 5:11 PM on October 6, 2021
To get to the frivolous - the character in Deep Secret isn't based on Gaiman, it's the character's "funny" behavior at breakfast, and apparently that behavior alone (the character in question is pretty awful, parentifies his sister and...is sixteen, so I'm assuming we're not really meant to think it a portrait of the then-37-year-old Gaiman). Deep Secret is a funny book but also has some pretty serious stuff about awful, selfish people who do or do not change. As usual with DWJ, she has a Problem with fat people and a Problem with middle aged women, but if you can get past that, it's very engaging.
~~~
But what I wanted to say:
Where the fuck do all of you think that fiction comes from? Do you genuinely imagine that all the books you've been loving and reading your whole lives were birthed without causing anyone pain?
Actually, most of the books I've read where the focus of the story is a widely recognized and extremely negative portrait of someone were intended to hurt that person and they usually did - breaking up friendships, marriages, political orgs and social circles. I mean, okay, yes, if you really feel that you need to write an incredibly unkind and recognizable portrait of someone, you go ahead with your artistic vision, sometimes it's great, sure, fine. But don't shrink back and say "oh it's just a story, if people are really angry at me for humiliating and insulting them then they are the ones who are wrong, no one should mind". If an issue or a vision or whatever is important enough to write a cruel and recognizable portrait, then it's important enough for the writer to accept that people rarely enjoy being treated cruelly.
To that point: When DWJ portrays Gaiman, she portrays one aspect of his behavior. The character isn't a dark-haired white guy in his late thirties who always wears sort of post-goth clothes and writes fantasy comics and selfishly expects others to manage his sleep schedule and basic needs. I had no idea until today that the scene in question had anything to do with Gaiman, but I think I'd have picked up on it if the character looked like Gaiman and was speaking about his comics at the convention - because that would have been a widely recognzable portrait.
posted by Frowner at 5:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [20 favorites]
~~~
But what I wanted to say:
Where the fuck do all of you think that fiction comes from? Do you genuinely imagine that all the books you've been loving and reading your whole lives were birthed without causing anyone pain?
Actually, most of the books I've read where the focus of the story is a widely recognized and extremely negative portrait of someone were intended to hurt that person and they usually did - breaking up friendships, marriages, political orgs and social circles. I mean, okay, yes, if you really feel that you need to write an incredibly unkind and recognizable portrait of someone, you go ahead with your artistic vision, sometimes it's great, sure, fine. But don't shrink back and say "oh it's just a story, if people are really angry at me for humiliating and insulting them then they are the ones who are wrong, no one should mind". If an issue or a vision or whatever is important enough to write a cruel and recognizable portrait, then it's important enough for the writer to accept that people rarely enjoy being treated cruelly.
To that point: When DWJ portrays Gaiman, she portrays one aspect of his behavior. The character isn't a dark-haired white guy in his late thirties who always wears sort of post-goth clothes and writes fantasy comics and selfishly expects others to manage his sleep schedule and basic needs. I had no idea until today that the scene in question had anything to do with Gaiman, but I think I'd have picked up on it if the character looked like Gaiman and was speaking about his comics at the convention - because that would have been a widely recognzable portrait.
posted by Frowner at 5:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [20 favorites]
Here’s the thing: nobody is judging Dorland for donating her kidney. Everyone, even Sonya Larson I’m sure, understands that’s an act that’s socially desirable and personally commendable. But that’s not a Get Out of Being Creepy Free card. She can be both a generous organ donor and a narcissistic creep at the same time. Had she done something illegal, “but I’m an organ donor!” isn’t a valid defense. It’s ludicrous to suggest that we shouldn’t send organ donors who steal cars to jail because incarceration might deter others from donating. They still have to face the consequences of their non-donation actions, just like Dormand has to here. I don’t think it’s wrong that Larson called her out for being creepy. To the extent that Larson did something wrong, it’s being catty with the other Mean Girls behind Dormand’s back and plagiarizing her letter; that is, doing it unartfully.
posted by kevinbelt at 5:28 PM on October 6, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 5:28 PM on October 6, 2021 [21 favorites]
"where the fuck do people think fictional writing stems from-" so much of art draws directly from life.
If anyone is getting extra meta on this (have seems posts referring to writing lately), this looks good.
https://medium.com/writelikethis-wednesday/5-writing-lessons-from-who-is-the-bad-art-friend-61008235143a
Still looking for free audio.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:32 PM on October 6, 2021
If anyone is getting extra meta on this (have seems posts referring to writing lately), this looks good.
https://medium.com/writelikethis-wednesday/5-writing-lessons-from-who-is-the-bad-art-friend-61008235143a
Still looking for free audio.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:32 PM on October 6, 2021
Okay, dipping out of here.
This is getting funny. Vogue: "What precisely, is going on with the NYTs kidney story?"
Enjoy!
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is getting funny. Vogue: "What precisely, is going on with the NYTs kidney story?"
Enjoy!
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
> Everyone, even Sonya Larson I’m sure, understands that’s an act that’s socially desirable and personally commendable.
No idea about Larson, but I think this is underestimating how much people can resent others who sacrifice to do the right thing, even if they say nothing about it, because it makes people feel morally attacked.
posted by No One Ever Does at 5:41 PM on October 6, 2021 [24 favorites]
No idea about Larson, but I think this is underestimating how much people can resent others who sacrifice to do the right thing, even if they say nothing about it, because it makes people feel morally attacked.
posted by No One Ever Does at 5:41 PM on October 6, 2021 [24 favorites]
However, it seems that she tried to use that act of generosity to seek validation from a specific group
Yeah, I finally finished dredging through the entire story and while I concur with a lot of people that everyone sucks here, it's just uncomfortable and bothersome that someone is using "I donated a kidney" as a "PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEE." Like I kinda can't blame the Cheeky Monkeys for finding someone like that irritating because well, l would. Like, great for you, but it's kinda up there with people begging for clicks/likes/attention and other people not exactly enjoying being forced to say "Good for you!" and be forced to give that attention to you when they weren't genuinely feeling inclined to do so.
That said, god knows I wouldn't write a story about it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:56 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I finally finished dredging through the entire story and while I concur with a lot of people that everyone sucks here, it's just uncomfortable and bothersome that someone is using "I donated a kidney" as a "PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEE." Like I kinda can't blame the Cheeky Monkeys for finding someone like that irritating because well, l would. Like, great for you, but it's kinda up there with people begging for clicks/likes/attention and other people not exactly enjoying being forced to say "Good for you!" and be forced to give that attention to you when they weren't genuinely feeling inclined to do so.
That said, god knows I wouldn't write a story about it.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:56 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
I have started and deleted at least five incredibly long comments.
But honestly, I can't possibly be eloquent enough to convince people who don't want to be convinced, so I will content myself with this.
You Are All So Fucking Neurotypical.
also li'l bit ableist how people just seem to be glossing over the multiple clarifications from dialysis survivors etc that actually what she did really IS a big deal and she probably should get to dine out on it for a while.
also can I point out that she thought they were friends and no one told her otherwise. starting a private facebook group to talk about this huge major impactful decision and life event with your friends is a normal thing! wondering why they accepted the invite but never seem to respond or care is a normal thing! going absolutely nuclear upon discovering that they not only never considered you a friend but have been mocking you behind your back in a private sneer club is a completely normal and proportionate reaction! especially when it got to the point of viciously and untruthfully caricaturing you in a story about one of their awesome OC's explaining to the audience that you're a miserable covert narcissist who can't see that she's just The Worst.
I know at least some people have read the twitter thread on mobbing because I first read it when it was linked here but I'm linking it again so we can all read it and reflect on the full sequence of events, from Dorland's first interactions with Larsen & Friends to the current ugly mess.
I will also directly quote what I think are the most relevant parts.
"The victim grows increasingly isolated, confused, and may become very upset, supporting a narrative that they are unstable and impossible to engage with—further preventing the flow of information, and further preventing any constructive resolution."
Good grief. Heaven forbid someone who was already off-kilter be further destabilized by a brutal gut punch like she received... absolutely none of this would have happened if Larsen & Friends had, at any point, decided to be grown adult humans and simply blocked and slow-faded Dorland like one traditionally does when someone is just too much.
So this post got away from me a bit, but I'm keeping it; it ain't eloquent but it's honest.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 6:17 PM on October 6, 2021 [57 favorites]
But honestly, I can't possibly be eloquent enough to convince people who don't want to be convinced, so I will content myself with this.
You Are All So Fucking Neurotypical.
also li'l bit ableist how people just seem to be glossing over the multiple clarifications from dialysis survivors etc that actually what she did really IS a big deal and she probably should get to dine out on it for a while.
also can I point out that she thought they were friends and no one told her otherwise. starting a private facebook group to talk about this huge major impactful decision and life event with your friends is a normal thing! wondering why they accepted the invite but never seem to respond or care is a normal thing! going absolutely nuclear upon discovering that they not only never considered you a friend but have been mocking you behind your back in a private sneer club is a completely normal and proportionate reaction! especially when it got to the point of viciously and untruthfully caricaturing you in a story about one of their awesome OC's explaining to the audience that you're a miserable covert narcissist who can't see that she's just The Worst.
I know at least some people have read the twitter thread on mobbing because I first read it when it was linked here but I'm linking it again so we can all read it and reflect on the full sequence of events, from Dorland's first interactions with Larsen & Friends to the current ugly mess.
I will also directly quote what I think are the most relevant parts.
"The victim grows increasingly isolated, confused, and may become very upset, supporting a narrative that they are unstable and impossible to engage with—further preventing the flow of information, and further preventing any constructive resolution."
Good grief. Heaven forbid someone who was already off-kilter be further destabilized by a brutal gut punch like she received... absolutely none of this would have happened if Larsen & Friends had, at any point, decided to be grown adult humans and simply blocked and slow-faded Dorland like one traditionally does when someone is just too much.
So this post got away from me a bit, but I'm keeping it; it ain't eloquent but it's honest.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 6:17 PM on October 6, 2021 [57 favorites]
"-explaining to the audience that you're a miserable covert narcissist who can't see that she's just The Worst." Collectively calling someone out as a narcissist who just donated a kidney is definitely very weird.
..I'm waiting for the film on this as well, now.
posted by firstdaffodils at 6:25 PM on October 6, 2021
..I'm waiting for the film on this as well, now.
posted by firstdaffodils at 6:25 PM on October 6, 2021
Dorland was absolutely right in her suspicions and I hope she took away a good lesson about her own discomfort and how it can be trusted in the future.
Unless I have misunderstood this story, Larsen did not pretend to be Dorland's friend, nor did she solicit being brought into Dorland's narrative. You can avoid having to feel suspicious or uncomfortable about how others might be responding to your thoughts by not insisting on bringing them into the loop in the first place. Trying to force trust on people can be its own form of abusiveness--I don't think it reaches that level here, but it is absolutely a technique used to manipulate and control people.
She could have taken herself out, as I do on the regular from all the multilevel marketing essential oil groups folks from facebook add me to! It's not hard. And I doubt it would have been drama.
This is a person who literally followed up on her posts to see who liked them and then reached out to people who didn't to find out why! She pitched the story of her own humiliation to the NYT, thereby making it a national story! You think she's not going to notice who removed themselves from her group and confront them over it? This is a deeply needy, deeply insecure person who generates drama as a substitute for positive attention. She's also someone who did a very generous thing, but let's be real, there is no non-dramatic way of being socially adjacent to a person like this unless you are willing to meet their every emotional demand. You can admire someone's actions without wanting to be within fifty social feet of them.
posted by praemunire at 6:30 PM on October 6, 2021 [25 favorites]
Unless I have misunderstood this story, Larsen did not pretend to be Dorland's friend, nor did she solicit being brought into Dorland's narrative. You can avoid having to feel suspicious or uncomfortable about how others might be responding to your thoughts by not insisting on bringing them into the loop in the first place. Trying to force trust on people can be its own form of abusiveness--I don't think it reaches that level here, but it is absolutely a technique used to manipulate and control people.
She could have taken herself out, as I do on the regular from all the multilevel marketing essential oil groups folks from facebook add me to! It's not hard. And I doubt it would have been drama.
This is a person who literally followed up on her posts to see who liked them and then reached out to people who didn't to find out why! She pitched the story of her own humiliation to the NYT, thereby making it a national story! You think she's not going to notice who removed themselves from her group and confront them over it? This is a deeply needy, deeply insecure person who generates drama as a substitute for positive attention. She's also someone who did a very generous thing, but let's be real, there is no non-dramatic way of being socially adjacent to a person like this unless you are willing to meet their every emotional demand. You can admire someone's actions without wanting to be within fifty social feet of them.
posted by praemunire at 6:30 PM on October 6, 2021 [25 favorites]
Interesting take on this from a kidney donor:
It's easy to ridicule Dorland when one doesn't understand how little the transplant industry protects or respects living donors.posted by airmail at 6:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
They have NO comprehensive long-term data LDs even though they've been taking our organs since 1954!
They resist every effort to strengthen evaluation standards (because that would reduce # of LD organs and $$)
And they offer NO psychological aftercare even knowing some of us end up with depression, anxiety, ptsd etc
It's easy to ridicule someone like Dorland if you never ask yourself what kind of system would ignore her egotism/fragile self-image just to get her kidney.
We're all working off imperfect info here, but -- and I don't want to say your reading is wrong and mine is right, but there are also other reasonable interpretations.
also can I point out that she thought they were friends and no one told her otherwise.
I don't go around telling people they aren't my friend either. She didn't tell them she thought they were friends, she just acted as if they were friends; they didn't tell her they thought she wasn't a friend, they just acted as if they weren't.
starting a private facebook group to talk about this huge major impactful decision and life event with your friends is a normal thing!
I admit I don't use facebook a lot, but sure, that seems reasonable..
wondering why they accepted the invite but never seem to respond or care is a normal thing!
At the time, you could just be automatically added (now you need to accept an invite), so it's not clear if she invited everyone she knew or she added them all. Those two options make the story really different. But even if she invited and they accepted, then didn't comment -- wondering about why they didn't would be normal. Messaging them to ask is a lot less normal.
going absolutely nuclear upon discovering that they not only never considered you a friend but have been mocking you behind your back in a private sneer club is a completely normal and proportionate reaction!
I read the group as a friend/writer group chat that was already in existence but did also mock Dorland, not a group made after the facebook group was created to specifically mock her. Also, she found out they were mocking her after she subpoenad the chat, well after she went nuclear. Being very hurt by that is proportionate, but also she searched it out. I am sure there are people who have and do mock me behind my back, and there's a reason I don't want to know the details. I have friends I trust to tell me things, I don't want to hear about it from others.
I'm not saying mocking her was nice, just that she searched this out, they weren't posting this stuff in comments on her facebook posts or indeed anywhere she could see it without a court order.
None of this is about the very amazing thing she did about donating a kidney! The kidney is, in a way, a macguffin. She did a great thing, for whatever motives she had which I do not care about at all, because the generosity of that outstrips any baser motives she might have had. (Which are also fine, we're all humans full of good and bad motivations to do things; I fall on the side of impact, not intent.)
posted by jeather at 6:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
also can I point out that she thought they were friends and no one told her otherwise.
I don't go around telling people they aren't my friend either. She didn't tell them she thought they were friends, she just acted as if they were friends; they didn't tell her they thought she wasn't a friend, they just acted as if they weren't.
starting a private facebook group to talk about this huge major impactful decision and life event with your friends is a normal thing!
I admit I don't use facebook a lot, but sure, that seems reasonable..
wondering why they accepted the invite but never seem to respond or care is a normal thing!
At the time, you could just be automatically added (now you need to accept an invite), so it's not clear if she invited everyone she knew or she added them all. Those two options make the story really different. But even if she invited and they accepted, then didn't comment -- wondering about why they didn't would be normal. Messaging them to ask is a lot less normal.
going absolutely nuclear upon discovering that they not only never considered you a friend but have been mocking you behind your back in a private sneer club is a completely normal and proportionate reaction!
I read the group as a friend/writer group chat that was already in existence but did also mock Dorland, not a group made after the facebook group was created to specifically mock her. Also, she found out they were mocking her after she subpoenad the chat, well after she went nuclear. Being very hurt by that is proportionate, but also she searched it out. I am sure there are people who have and do mock me behind my back, and there's a reason I don't want to know the details. I have friends I trust to tell me things, I don't want to hear about it from others.
I'm not saying mocking her was nice, just that she searched this out, they weren't posting this stuff in comments on her facebook posts or indeed anywhere she could see it without a court order.
None of this is about the very amazing thing she did about donating a kidney! The kidney is, in a way, a macguffin. She did a great thing, for whatever motives she had which I do not care about at all, because the generosity of that outstrips any baser motives she might have had. (Which are also fine, we're all humans full of good and bad motivations to do things; I fall on the side of impact, not intent.)
posted by jeather at 6:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
I guess another thing that occurs to me is that, contra the movies and American morality, the people who get mobbed and socially victimized are rarely really nice, sweet, lovely people who are friendly and charming and really good at social cues.
Like, I was bulled a lot as a kid - pretty epic and life-altering stuff that went on for years. I was definitely talked about. I was so famous as a weird little outcast that some girl I'd never met and didn't even go to my school came up to me one time and asked me, basically, if I was actually that one. People I'd never met could pick me out of a crowd to bully. Now, on the one hand, the big issues were that I was poorish in a very affluent town, fat and a smart little kid during the Reagan eighties. But I was also a weirdo who couldn't read social cues. I was perpetually surprised that others couldn't read as fast as I did and didn't know the various things I knew. I talked funny in a high weird voice and didn't sound anything like the people around me. I basically couldn't recognize how outfits were supposed to work - I remember very clearly that when I was about fifteen it was like I got a new sense, I could actually see my hair and clothes and start to make some decisions that weren't "this fabric is soft, let's wear this".
Further, after I'd been bullied for a couple of years, I decided that my classmates were all dumb and boring and rude and I let them know that I thought this. I was a total snob about their lack of reading skills, etc.
My point being, I was objectively annoying and weird and cringe and kind of the Worst, and it took me until I was in my early twenties to be non-annoying enough to really, truly make friends. I was bullied because I was weird and cringe and the worst and unselfaware, etc etc.
And yet! Everyone around me - including the teachers who also victimized me - had the option of just...not. Not saying cruel and gross things to me, not telling each other about how weird I was, not taking my stuff or pushing me, etc. They could just have frozen me out because I was an unattractive little freak.
We should not be surprised when the people who get mobbed and bullied are not the most lovable and socially desirable ones. People really tend to go to, "it's only weird and wrong to bully someone if they are nice and get social cues" pretty fast. Everyone always has the option of just...not. Building fun friendship activities around being cruel to someone else is a choice, not an inevitability, even if the someone else is in fact the Worst.
posted by Frowner at 6:44 PM on October 6, 2021 [66 favorites]
Like, I was bulled a lot as a kid - pretty epic and life-altering stuff that went on for years. I was definitely talked about. I was so famous as a weird little outcast that some girl I'd never met and didn't even go to my school came up to me one time and asked me, basically, if I was actually that one. People I'd never met could pick me out of a crowd to bully. Now, on the one hand, the big issues were that I was poorish in a very affluent town, fat and a smart little kid during the Reagan eighties. But I was also a weirdo who couldn't read social cues. I was perpetually surprised that others couldn't read as fast as I did and didn't know the various things I knew. I talked funny in a high weird voice and didn't sound anything like the people around me. I basically couldn't recognize how outfits were supposed to work - I remember very clearly that when I was about fifteen it was like I got a new sense, I could actually see my hair and clothes and start to make some decisions that weren't "this fabric is soft, let's wear this".
Further, after I'd been bullied for a couple of years, I decided that my classmates were all dumb and boring and rude and I let them know that I thought this. I was a total snob about their lack of reading skills, etc.
My point being, I was objectively annoying and weird and cringe and kind of the Worst, and it took me until I was in my early twenties to be non-annoying enough to really, truly make friends. I was bullied because I was weird and cringe and the worst and unselfaware, etc etc.
And yet! Everyone around me - including the teachers who also victimized me - had the option of just...not. Not saying cruel and gross things to me, not telling each other about how weird I was, not taking my stuff or pushing me, etc. They could just have frozen me out because I was an unattractive little freak.
We should not be surprised when the people who get mobbed and bullied are not the most lovable and socially desirable ones. People really tend to go to, "it's only weird and wrong to bully someone if they are nice and get social cues" pretty fast. Everyone always has the option of just...not. Building fun friendship activities around being cruel to someone else is a choice, not an inevitability, even if the someone else is in fact the Worst.
posted by Frowner at 6:44 PM on October 6, 2021 [66 favorites]
"We should not be surprised when the people who get mobbed and bullied are not the most lovable and socially desirable ones. People really tend to go to, "it's only weird and wrong to bully someone if they are nice and get social cues" pretty fast. Everyone always has the option of just...not. Building fun friendship activities around being cruel to someone else is a choice, not an inevitability, even if the someone else is in fact the Worst."
Meh. "Destructive group dynamic/Bullying" happens for lots of reasons, and arguably, to most people at some level. Well liked people are occasionally treated like total garage and just mask the experiences. I actually think 'normative,' people are semi frequently bullied (sometimes for being "normal.") There is definitely no camp of bullied and not-bullied. People as described above are definitely probably ostracized more often.
Large, significant cultural waves of people acting like assholes is a special kind.
posted by firstdaffodils at 6:49 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Meh. "Destructive group dynamic/Bullying" happens for lots of reasons, and arguably, to most people at some level. Well liked people are occasionally treated like total garage and just mask the experiences. I actually think 'normative,' people are semi frequently bullied (sometimes for being "normal.") There is definitely no camp of bullied and not-bullied. People as described above are definitely probably ostracized more often.
Large, significant cultural waves of people acting like assholes is a special kind.
posted by firstdaffodils at 6:49 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
going absolutely nuclear upon discovering that they not only never considered you a friend but have been mocking you behind your back in a private sneer club is a completely normal and proportionate reaction!
I mean, yeah...when you're 15.
When you're an adult, you're horribly mortified, you get drunk, maybe you write a really nasty email to them that you do or maybe even don't regret later, you get your actual friends/family to tell you repeatedly how awful all those people are, you block all of them with extreme prejudice, and you hope to God that someday it's just a vaguely embarrassing memory. Ideally, in therapy/with a faith community leader, you process the painful emotions and try to figure out how to avoid similar situations again. You don't proceed, over months, to litigation (which is how she even found out about the group, because she literally compelled them to hand over the chats) and trying to get the Times on your side--and I repeat, I don't think either her lawyer or the author of the article did her any favors in prolonging and publicizing her story. If it had ended with the story, this would have been a humiliating episode for her, but limited in scope (how many people would ever have known about it?), and she would have had a perfectly respectable argument for thinking of herself as having the moral high ground.
I don't know if there are people posting here who haven't had the experience of finding out that people who you thought liked you didn't like you at all, btw. I think it's a very common experience. If we define it down to "makes at least occasional comments about you you wouldn't like," it's probably happening to most, if not all, of us in the present day. You can't control people's interpretations of your actions. You can't even make them be in good faith about it. That's why most people prefer to leave a veil over certain realities.
posted by praemunire at 6:51 PM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
I mean, yeah...when you're 15.
When you're an adult, you're horribly mortified, you get drunk, maybe you write a really nasty email to them that you do or maybe even don't regret later, you get your actual friends/family to tell you repeatedly how awful all those people are, you block all of them with extreme prejudice, and you hope to God that someday it's just a vaguely embarrassing memory. Ideally, in therapy/with a faith community leader, you process the painful emotions and try to figure out how to avoid similar situations again. You don't proceed, over months, to litigation (which is how she even found out about the group, because she literally compelled them to hand over the chats) and trying to get the Times on your side--and I repeat, I don't think either her lawyer or the author of the article did her any favors in prolonging and publicizing her story. If it had ended with the story, this would have been a humiliating episode for her, but limited in scope (how many people would ever have known about it?), and she would have had a perfectly respectable argument for thinking of herself as having the moral high ground.
I don't know if there are people posting here who haven't had the experience of finding out that people who you thought liked you didn't like you at all, btw. I think it's a very common experience. If we define it down to "makes at least occasional comments about you you wouldn't like," it's probably happening to most, if not all, of us in the present day. You can't control people's interpretations of your actions. You can't even make them be in good faith about it. That's why most people prefer to leave a veil over certain realities.
posted by praemunire at 6:51 PM on October 6, 2021 [14 favorites]
Actually I take it back. Please, let's make donating kidneys the coolest, most self involved trend seeking behavior in the world.
That was my thought as well, but then I wonder how that intersects with the pretty widespread recognition that offering people money to donate kidneys would be a bad idea.
Nobody should be coerced into donating a kidney. If someone with an extraordinary need for praise donates a kidney hoping to get praised, that starts to feel a little bit like waving money in front of a poor person to get them to donate.
Also, people in this thread have alluded to the idea that someone bragging about donating a kidney can start to feel coercive. Am I obliged to donate a kidney?
posted by straight at 7:00 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
That was my thought as well, but then I wonder how that intersects with the pretty widespread recognition that offering people money to donate kidneys would be a bad idea.
Nobody should be coerced into donating a kidney. If someone with an extraordinary need for praise donates a kidney hoping to get praised, that starts to feel a little bit like waving money in front of a poor person to get them to donate.
Also, people in this thread have alluded to the idea that someone bragging about donating a kidney can start to feel coercive. Am I obliged to donate a kidney?
posted by straight at 7:00 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
They could just have frozen me out because I was an unattractive little freak.
Yes, I always say that I don't hold anything against people from my school days who just didn't like me, as I was indeed very hard to like; it's the people who went out of their way to torment me that I wouldn't care to know now.
But, at the same time, talking about someone behind their back may not be attractive behavior, and is questionably ethical at best (I think we do have to allow for venting in the most minimally harmful ways, but you can get carried away with it); I'm not sure it amounts to bullying. There's lots of undesirable human social behavior that doesn't fit into that category.
I should add, although I wouldn't want to be socially adjacent to Dormond, I don't think that the ethics of Larsen's writing the story depend on Dormond's degree of likeability or the social appropriateness of her behavior.
posted by praemunire at 7:00 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
Yes, I always say that I don't hold anything against people from my school days who just didn't like me, as I was indeed very hard to like; it's the people who went out of their way to torment me that I wouldn't care to know now.
But, at the same time, talking about someone behind their back may not be attractive behavior, and is questionably ethical at best (I think we do have to allow for venting in the most minimally harmful ways, but you can get carried away with it); I'm not sure it amounts to bullying. There's lots of undesirable human social behavior that doesn't fit into that category.
I should add, although I wouldn't want to be socially adjacent to Dormond, I don't think that the ethics of Larsen's writing the story depend on Dormond's degree of likeability or the social appropriateness of her behavior.
posted by praemunire at 7:00 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
"That was my thought as well, but then I wonder how that intersects with the pretty widespread recognition that offering people money to donate kidneys would be a bad idea."
"Am I obliged.."
Well, you must donate your organs to be a good person.
Aside the joke, these thoughts are why nuanced thoughts in the entire donation process are important. People can tease metafilter for acting salty about people bragging about donating organs, but here's the deal: bragging really hard (like way harder than texting your boss) about a theoretically altruistic activity does* tend to detract from the objective of the activity and the emphasis on the kidney-recipient the activity should have. MF is ok to growl.
It starts to contradict the process altogether. While it won't, like all the other nonsense in the story, it's just really poor form.
And yea, let's stop coercing the poor. They need more money and probably all of their organs.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:13 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Am I obliged.."
Well, you must donate your organs to be a good person.
Aside the joke, these thoughts are why nuanced thoughts in the entire donation process are important. People can tease metafilter for acting salty about people bragging about donating organs, but here's the deal: bragging really hard (like way harder than texting your boss) about a theoretically altruistic activity does* tend to detract from the objective of the activity and the emphasis on the kidney-recipient the activity should have. MF is ok to growl.
It starts to contradict the process altogether. While it won't, like all the other nonsense in the story, it's just really poor form.
And yea, let's stop coercing the poor. They need more money and probably all of their organs.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:13 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Look, you can invent reasons why this bullying isn't bullying and this mobbing isn't mobbing and this person actually deserved it til the kingdom come. One of the reasons I gave up trying to be eloquent is that there are simply too many ways to wiggle around the truth of the matter and throw up your hands saying "but we can never really know!!!!," or insist that it's just not possible to be decent to people who commit the terrible crime of being unable to read a room. Like, whoever is up there going "they couldn't have told her they weren't friends because no one says that" - okay, so do a slow fade and don't join her private facebooks, christ. Or leave them if you're auto-added. Block the woman, if you absolutely cannot muster the emotional energy to write a polite message explaining that you're not interested in a personal connection.
The facts are, and remain, that in a world where Larson doesn't write the story, none of this happens. There is no discovery process revealing the catty groupchats; no festivals expel anyone; no court cases are brought; no NYT article is written. The only thing that changes is that Larson doesn't get to write a story making fun of a woman she knows. And to be perfectly clear, I don't accept that the story as she wrote it wasn't the culmination of many hours spent giggling with her friends about how terrible Dorland is, and fundamentally about getting to write viciously and publically about it. The reason I do not believe it is that Larson basically tells us herself. "I'm not doing this as a takedown of Dawn, I don't care about Dawn" is pretty weak after aaaaaaaaaaall those texts about Dawn and how awful Dawn is and how Dawn is way too obsessed with her kidney donation, what does she expect me to do, DONATE AN ORGAN????
Like. Come on.
As for "mature adults don't respond the way Dorland did" - mature adults don't act the way Larson did, either! What exactly did Dorland do to her other than be socially awkward? I refer you once again to the thread on mobbing.
"The “degradation narrative” often involves half-truths, gross exaggerations of harm, trivial transgressions compounded into a supposed mortal sin ... The key to avoiding mobbing is insisting on getting clear on the supposed offense, especially before participating."
What was the transgression that warranted their behavior towards her, which culminated in the writing of the story and then a significant period of actively lying to her about it? What was the specific, severe transgression which warranted her being cast as a white savior trying to steal POC stories for objecting to the use of her own words in a story meant in part to mock her. What was it. Please point it out. Perhaps I am too autistic to see it.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2021 [53 favorites]
The facts are, and remain, that in a world where Larson doesn't write the story, none of this happens. There is no discovery process revealing the catty groupchats; no festivals expel anyone; no court cases are brought; no NYT article is written. The only thing that changes is that Larson doesn't get to write a story making fun of a woman she knows. And to be perfectly clear, I don't accept that the story as she wrote it wasn't the culmination of many hours spent giggling with her friends about how terrible Dorland is, and fundamentally about getting to write viciously and publically about it. The reason I do not believe it is that Larson basically tells us herself. "I'm not doing this as a takedown of Dawn, I don't care about Dawn" is pretty weak after aaaaaaaaaaall those texts about Dawn and how awful Dawn is and how Dawn is way too obsessed with her kidney donation, what does she expect me to do, DONATE AN ORGAN????
Like. Come on.
As for "mature adults don't respond the way Dorland did" - mature adults don't act the way Larson did, either! What exactly did Dorland do to her other than be socially awkward? I refer you once again to the thread on mobbing.
"The “degradation narrative” often involves half-truths, gross exaggerations of harm, trivial transgressions compounded into a supposed mortal sin ... The key to avoiding mobbing is insisting on getting clear on the supposed offense, especially before participating."
What was the transgression that warranted their behavior towards her, which culminated in the writing of the story and then a significant period of actively lying to her about it? What was the specific, severe transgression which warranted her being cast as a white savior trying to steal POC stories for objecting to the use of her own words in a story meant in part to mock her. What was it. Please point it out. Perhaps I am too autistic to see it.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2021 [53 favorites]
Firstdaffodils: How can talking up your non-directed donation "remove focus from the kidney-recipient"? In this case, there isn't an overlap.
It's definitely not "poor form", at least not to the degree that it's like, a sin or something. It's just gauche, which is forgivable.
And if a kidney is donated at the end of it, I'm not sure how it "contradict[s] the process".
posted by sagc at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's definitely not "poor form", at least not to the degree that it's like, a sin or something. It's just gauche, which is forgivable.
And if a kidney is donated at the end of it, I'm not sure how it "contradict[s] the process".
posted by sagc at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
And if a kidney is donated at the end of it, I'm not sure how it "contradict[s] the process" - Ultimately have to agree, as mentioned.
Firstdaffodils: How can talking up your non-directed donation "remove focus from the kidney-recipient"? In this case, there isn't an overlap."
I feel there is. This is about a person receiving a kidney first, and a person giving a kidney second, if that makes sense.
At the end of the experience, these qualities are qualities I'm not* going to passionately argue for, because the most important part was the donation. I don't necessarily fault you for those views, mine are just slightly different.
My point is, if people primarily make kidney donation about themselves and not the patient, what will that ultimately bring to the culture of organ donation and those patient's needs?
Btw, I'd consider gauche and poor form in the center of the same venn diagram.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:20 PM on October 6, 2021
Firstdaffodils: How can talking up your non-directed donation "remove focus from the kidney-recipient"? In this case, there isn't an overlap."
I feel there is. This is about a person receiving a kidney first, and a person giving a kidney second, if that makes sense.
At the end of the experience, these qualities are qualities I'm not* going to passionately argue for, because the most important part was the donation. I don't necessarily fault you for those views, mine are just slightly different.
My point is, if people primarily make kidney donation about themselves and not the patient, what will that ultimately bring to the culture of organ donation and those patient's needs?
Btw, I'd consider gauche and poor form in the center of the same venn diagram.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:20 PM on October 6, 2021
Presumably more donations? I don't know, I'm not sure there's a correlation between "level of societal bragging about organ donations" and "number of organs donated", but publicizing it seems good.
posted by sagc at 7:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by sagc at 7:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
As for "mature adults don't respond the way Dorland did" - mature adults don't act the way Larson did, either! What exactly did Dorland do to her other than be socially awkward? I refer you once again to the thread on mobbing."
I think for Dorland, there's a threshold to when a person can only respond gracefully so many times, before their response is eventually, "PLEASE STOP."
So much internet speculation.
Also, sagc, in all sincerity, I can barely argue with what you're saying. 🙂
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:30 PM on October 6, 2021
I think for Dorland, there's a threshold to when a person can only respond gracefully so many times, before their response is eventually, "PLEASE STOP."
So much internet speculation.
Also, sagc, in all sincerity, I can barely argue with what you're saying. 🙂
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:30 PM on October 6, 2021
I think for Dorland, there's a threshold to when a person can only respond gracefully so many times, before their response is eventually, "PLEASE STOP."
And when did Larson say that? Before or after she started talking behind Dorland's back? Did she ever actually say it? Because the facts we're presented with indicate that she did not, that she in fact kept leaning on the idea of their being mutual respect and trust between them to explain to Dorland why she shouldn't be offended by the story - saying that "honoring another's artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship, and of trust."
Nobody put a gun to Larson's head and MADE her keep responding to Dorland's communications. Nothing compelled her to stay in that facebook group. No relatives were being threatened with death if she didn't write a mean story. Larson could have prevented this entire thing at any time by simply choosing to Not. The worst thing that would happen is that an awkward and oblivious person would have continued to be awkward and oblivious, and sometimes done so at Larson.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 7:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
And when did Larson say that? Before or after she started talking behind Dorland's back? Did she ever actually say it? Because the facts we're presented with indicate that she did not, that she in fact kept leaning on the idea of their being mutual respect and trust between them to explain to Dorland why she shouldn't be offended by the story - saying that "honoring another's artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship, and of trust."
Nobody put a gun to Larson's head and MADE her keep responding to Dorland's communications. Nothing compelled her to stay in that facebook group. No relatives were being threatened with death if she didn't write a mean story. Larson could have prevented this entire thing at any time by simply choosing to Not. The worst thing that would happen is that an awkward and oblivious person would have continued to be awkward and oblivious, and sometimes done so at Larson.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 7:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [16 favorites]
I have seen multiple posters say that the recipient of a kidney is more important than the donor and that the emphasis and attention should be on the recipient. Why? Not a rhetorical question. This isn’t a billionaire donating a fraction of their fortune, this is a healthy person voluntarily undergoing major surgery and likely knocking months to a year off their life expectancy. How are they not deserving of attention, emphasis, focus, whatever?
posted by bq at 7:42 PM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by bq at 7:42 PM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
Trust me, I have been in camp, "let's not," for a little while now.
I still think they're both eyerollers, I will defend Dorland a dash more than her counterpart, certainly.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:42 PM on October 6, 2021
I still think they're both eyerollers, I will defend Dorland a dash more than her counterpart, certainly.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:42 PM on October 6, 2021
Bq, they are deserving of those things.
This comes from a personal philosophy similar to preferring a doctor more interested in the patients concerns then interested in their activities as accomplishments. I'd like to have or be a physician (theoretically, I'm not in medicine), who is focused on the medicine and not themselves.
"I have seen multiple posters say that the recipient of a kidney is more important than the donor and that the emphasis and attention should be on the recipient. Why?"
In the grand scheme of things, it's minutiae in comparison to so much else.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:44 PM on October 6, 2021
This comes from a personal philosophy similar to preferring a doctor more interested in the patients concerns then interested in their activities as accomplishments. I'd like to have or be a physician (theoretically, I'm not in medicine), who is focused on the medicine and not themselves.
"I have seen multiple posters say that the recipient of a kidney is more important than the donor and that the emphasis and attention should be on the recipient. Why?"
In the grand scheme of things, it's minutiae in comparison to so much else.
posted by firstdaffodils at 7:44 PM on October 6, 2021
do you think that it's super weird to check in with a friend to obliquely see if what you see as a lack of engagement on a thing you thought they'd engage with is a sign of some deeper problem in your relationship
The moment someone's policing my engagement is the moment I make sure they don't get any more read receipts or any other 'signal of engagement'. That's *deeply* uncomfortable behavior, right there.
posted by CrystalDave at 7:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
The moment someone's policing my engagement is the moment I make sure they don't get any more read receipts or any other 'signal of engagement'. That's *deeply* uncomfortable behavior, right there.
posted by CrystalDave at 7:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm quite curious how you got "policing engagement" from the description you quoted. She didn't demand to know why no response was received, she mentioned it along with a bunch of other things in a general life update message. You're not actually addressing any of the points hades raised, you're just sort of sniffing about how "WELL her behavior was BEYOND THE PALE" when the point of the post was that, in terms of the facts we have, it doesn't seem like it actually was - unless you're already primed to view Dorland as a pathological covert narcissist with no other possible or reasonable explanation for her behavior.
If Dorland was a toxic person, don't you think Larson would have more dirt? As it is, all she really seems to have is "Dorland got mad that I wrote a story about how she's a covert narcissist white savior after performing an act of charity that I think she should have been humbler about. also she's super lame and annoying and doesn't stop trying to make friends and network even though we're OBVIOUSLY cutting her out" Someone cue up Britney Spears.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:03 PM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
If Dorland was a toxic person, don't you think Larson would have more dirt? As it is, all she really seems to have is "Dorland got mad that I wrote a story about how she's a covert narcissist white savior after performing an act of charity that I think she should have been humbler about. also she's super lame and annoying and doesn't stop trying to make friends and network even though we're OBVIOUSLY cutting her out" Someone cue up Britney Spears.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:03 PM on October 6, 2021 [17 favorites]
Dorland didn’t have an inkling that there was a story until July 2016, a few months after the trade conference (spring 2016) where she wondered why no one brought up the surgery, which occurred in June 2015. (Note to Larson asking after her engagement in the FB group in July 2015.)
She wouldn’t know about the private group chat comments until after the litigation started.
I don’t believe there’s any record of bullying comments to her face before that point that we know of.
posted by rewil at 8:04 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
She wouldn’t know about the private group chat comments until after the litigation started.
I don’t believe there’s any record of bullying comments to her face before that point that we know of.
posted by rewil at 8:04 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
.
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:06 PM on October 6, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:06 PM on October 6, 2021
When my dad died, my oldest friend didn't "engage" with my FB post. Was it policing engagement to notice that? Was it policing engagement to reach out to her, rather than stew in my own hurt feelings? She hadn't seen it. People don't see things on FB all the time. Dorland thought they were friends. Larson strung her along.
posted by Mavri at 8:07 PM on October 6, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by Mavri at 8:07 PM on October 6, 2021 [18 favorites]
do you think that it's super weird to check in with a friend to obliquely see if what you see as a lack of engagement on a thing you thought they'd engage with is a sign of some deeper problem in your relationship, do you think that everything which happened later is so bonkers that it reaches into the past and renders all her actions weird and creepy? What am I missing?
I think, at the start, it was a disconnect between the two about what kind of friendship they had: see meese's comment. From Dorland's perspective, mortifyingly embarrassing, and I really sympathize - it's a social anxiety nightmare to find out someone you thought you was a close friend with just considers you a distant acquaintance. From Larson's perspective, Dorland was way overreaching, and I also really sympathize - so many women have stories of being mildly polite to a man and him thinking that he's now entitled to her attention, and this situation has echoes of it. I would rate the story at this point as just awkward; no one has wronged anyone yet. But we, as readers in the distant future, know how bonkers it gets, and retroactively evaluate Dorland's actions based on that.
posted by airmail at 8:12 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think, at the start, it was a disconnect between the two about what kind of friendship they had: see meese's comment. From Dorland's perspective, mortifyingly embarrassing, and I really sympathize - it's a social anxiety nightmare to find out someone you thought you was a close friend with just considers you a distant acquaintance. From Larson's perspective, Dorland was way overreaching, and I also really sympathize - so many women have stories of being mildly polite to a man and him thinking that he's now entitled to her attention, and this situation has echoes of it. I would rate the story at this point as just awkward; no one has wronged anyone yet. But we, as readers in the distant future, know how bonkers it gets, and retroactively evaluate Dorland's actions based on that.
posted by airmail at 8:12 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think you're mistaking me for someone else; I wasn't aiming to address the points hades raised, it was one point in there that stood out as "Nope, that's definitely a bridge too far (for me)". That there's entire rituals around "putting someone on read" and other complications around signaling information without saying any of it further demonstrates that it's a lossy social channel & not one I wish to engage with.
If someone tells me something, I've heard it & can respond. If you're sending a message out where some algorithm might eat it, or posting it to a platform I might only check once in a blue moon... you didn't tell me anything.
posted by CrystalDave at 8:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
If someone tells me something, I've heard it & can respond. If you're sending a message out where some algorithm might eat it, or posting it to a platform I might only check once in a blue moon... you didn't tell me anything.
posted by CrystalDave at 8:22 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
If you're sending a message out where some algorithm might eat it, or posting it to a platform I might only check once in a blue moon... you didn't tell me anything.
But you just said emailing someone to check in that they are aware of something you thought they might want to know about, as your friend, is "policing engagement" and you won't have it. So basically, if they don't communicate with you specifically you won't pay attention, and if they DO communicate with you specifically they're "policing engagement" which is "deeply uncomfortable behavior."
Out of curiosity, how IS a friend supposed to check in with you, then? Are they supposed to never email you about things they've also put on their socials, even though they know you don't always check those and might not see it? Are they supposed to mass email their contact book instead? I'm genuinely confused, and inclined to politely yet firmly suggest you re-read the post which you just admitted to cherry-picking from.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:31 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
But you just said emailing someone to check in that they are aware of something you thought they might want to know about, as your friend, is "policing engagement" and you won't have it. So basically, if they don't communicate with you specifically you won't pay attention, and if they DO communicate with you specifically they're "policing engagement" which is "deeply uncomfortable behavior."
Out of curiosity, how IS a friend supposed to check in with you, then? Are they supposed to never email you about things they've also put on their socials, even though they know you don't always check those and might not see it? Are they supposed to mass email their contact book instead? I'm genuinely confused, and inclined to politely yet firmly suggest you re-read the post which you just admitted to cherry-picking from.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:31 PM on October 6, 2021 [8 favorites]
(esh?)
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:32 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:32 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
"everyone sucks here", a common acronym on the "Am I the Asshole" subreddit.
posted by that girl at 8:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by that girl at 8:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
(ah, ty. v sophisticated. Esh, true)
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:39 PM on October 6, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:39 PM on October 6, 2021
I have seen multiple posters say that the recipient of a kidney is more important than the donor and that the emphasis and attention should be on the recipient. Why?
bq, that's a good question. I think I can help answer it, because (as I mentioned upthread) I was on the wrong side of this, having been the donor who was seeking the attention.
Others upthread have described the perils of kidney disease. From liminal_shadows: "People die without donated kidneys, horrible, wildly painful, drawn-out deaths, with lives that grow smaller as their bodies poison them, sometimes for years and years on dialysis." From mochapickle: "18 people die every day waiting for a kidney, and the ones waiting for transplant are the lucky ones because they are determined to be healthy enough to survive the surgery and transplant living. Many other patients don't qualify or they qualify but while they're waiting years for their match, they get too sick to stay on the list. I often had dialysis friends whose chairs would be empty because they died waiting. The next session, a new patient would fill their seat."
The kidney patient is in a slow march towards organ failue and death; the dialysis kills you while keeping you alive. My wife would sometimes keen in pain at night, trying to find the strength to live another day while clutching my arm and sobbing. I cannot fathom the strength it took for her to survive. That's where the attention and the support deserves to be.
Maybe a good analogy would be Jerry Lewis and the MDA telethon? Everyone who was watching TV before 2010 remembers those shows around Labor Day with a tearful Jerry Lewis and the "You'll Never Walk Alone" and the guest stars and the reaction shots of the crowd when another poster child took the stage, but the attention was really on Jerry Lewis and how moved he was by "Jerry's Kids" and that's really not at all where the attention should have been, right?
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 8:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
bq, that's a good question. I think I can help answer it, because (as I mentioned upthread) I was on the wrong side of this, having been the donor who was seeking the attention.
Others upthread have described the perils of kidney disease. From liminal_shadows: "People die without donated kidneys, horrible, wildly painful, drawn-out deaths, with lives that grow smaller as their bodies poison them, sometimes for years and years on dialysis." From mochapickle: "18 people die every day waiting for a kidney, and the ones waiting for transplant are the lucky ones because they are determined to be healthy enough to survive the surgery and transplant living. Many other patients don't qualify or they qualify but while they're waiting years for their match, they get too sick to stay on the list. I often had dialysis friends whose chairs would be empty because they died waiting. The next session, a new patient would fill their seat."
The kidney patient is in a slow march towards organ failue and death; the dialysis kills you while keeping you alive. My wife would sometimes keen in pain at night, trying to find the strength to live another day while clutching my arm and sobbing. I cannot fathom the strength it took for her to survive. That's where the attention and the support deserves to be.
Maybe a good analogy would be Jerry Lewis and the MDA telethon? Everyone who was watching TV before 2010 remembers those shows around Labor Day with a tearful Jerry Lewis and the "You'll Never Walk Alone" and the guest stars and the reaction shots of the crowd when another poster child took the stage, but the attention was really on Jerry Lewis and how moved he was by "Jerry's Kids" and that's really not at all where the attention should have been, right?
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 8:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [12 favorites]
Thank you Sock.
In a bizarre closure to this, maybe D. can find some catharsis in donor awareness in this utterly bizarre experience.. and she's certainly getting exposure, now. 🤦🤷
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:47 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
In a bizarre closure to this, maybe D. can find some catharsis in donor awareness in this utterly bizarre experience.. and she's certainly getting exposure, now. 🤦🤷
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:47 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
When my dad died, my oldest friend didn't "engage" with my FB post. Was it policing engagement to notice that? Was it policing engagement to reach out to her, rather than stew in my own hurt feelings? She hadn't seen it. People don't see things on FB all the time. Dorland thought they were friends. Larson strung her along.
When a friend died, and I missed the Facebook posts about it (we only had so many mutual friends, and I might not have been on Facebook that week) nobody told me. Actually, this has happened twice. I learned about both deaths months after the fact, by accident. It felt like shit, but then I can't really blame anyone because, after all, it was seen widely among the decedents' non-mutual friends. Facebook just does this sometimes.
It would not be weird to bring up any other kind of major surgery with someone you considered a friend if you suspected your posts about it had been eaten by the Facebook algorithm. In fact, I suggest you do that, because Facebook's algorithm does not act in your best interests.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
When a friend died, and I missed the Facebook posts about it (we only had so many mutual friends, and I might not have been on Facebook that week) nobody told me. Actually, this has happened twice. I learned about both deaths months after the fact, by accident. It felt like shit, but then I can't really blame anyone because, after all, it was seen widely among the decedents' non-mutual friends. Facebook just does this sometimes.
It would not be weird to bring up any other kind of major surgery with someone you considered a friend if you suspected your posts about it had been eaten by the Facebook algorithm. In fact, I suggest you do that, because Facebook's algorithm does not act in your best interests.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [13 favorites]
That is to say: Facebook is really good at turning insecure people into giant sucking holes of insecurity. I can both understand not engaging with someone who is being too much on Facebook, but I also feel for someone who is putting stuff out there about themselves and getting squat back.
Does it matter that she was expecting praise back, rather than sympathy or something else? Yes, I suppose it does. We mostly understand asking for sympathy, but asking for praise is cringe. But I can see why someone would go to great lengths to receive acknowledgement if they felt like people were ignoring them. On the gripping hand, I wouldn't know how to even begin to acknowledge something like an undirected kidney donation by an acquaintance; I'd probably leave a "like" or a "wow" and move on, because (as noted upthread) this sort of thing makes people uncomfortable.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:00 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Does it matter that she was expecting praise back, rather than sympathy or something else? Yes, I suppose it does. We mostly understand asking for sympathy, but asking for praise is cringe. But I can see why someone would go to great lengths to receive acknowledgement if they felt like people were ignoring them. On the gripping hand, I wouldn't know how to even begin to acknowledge something like an undirected kidney donation by an acquaintance; I'd probably leave a "like" or a "wow" and move on, because (as noted upthread) this sort of thing makes people uncomfortable.
posted by BungaDunga at 9:00 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm interested to know how this story got solicited/published in the first place. Robert Kolker is not a NYT guy, I think? His genre seems to be "people who didn't get credit for what they did," which is fine.
posted by lauranesson at 9:33 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by lauranesson at 9:33 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
(For the record, I think Kolker seems to be a really good writer. He did not need this affirmation.)
posted by lauranesson at 9:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by lauranesson at 9:37 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
I was interested in Kolkers work as well. Not so much the other two. ("Chunky monkeys..?" Not sold.)
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by firstdaffodils at 9:48 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
the people who get mobbed and socially victimized are rarely really nice, sweet, lovely people who are friendly and charming and really good at social cues.
I identify strongly with this comment; I was also bullied as a kid in a life-changing way, and the hardest lesson to learn all these years later is how much my inept reaction to it fed the situation. FWIW I have felt the same mobbing dynamic here on MF, without knowing what I was doing wrong. It's too glib to assuming folks on team Larson are all former members of bully cliques, and those of us who lean Dorland are all former bullying victims, but I'm sure it's at least partly true.
Everyone around me - including the teachers who also victimized me - had the option of just...not.
This is the thing I don't see acknowledged by any of the Team Larson people -- the same ones who dismiss Dorland because of her lack of social graces. The more popular (and theoretically more normal) people could even offer a suggestion on how to behave to D., or at least not mock her both publicly and privately.
A good story along these lines is comedian Jackie Kashian's "Spooky Reading Girl" bit. The later version on Live From Here includes a gym teacher who is not a saint, doesn't do anything particularly epic but simply offers her a much needed clue. "Are you friendly?" Maybe consider helping someone improve social skills instead of mocking them, since the cool kids are also not 15 any more.
posted by msalt at 9:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
I identify strongly with this comment; I was also bullied as a kid in a life-changing way, and the hardest lesson to learn all these years later is how much my inept reaction to it fed the situation. FWIW I have felt the same mobbing dynamic here on MF, without knowing what I was doing wrong. It's too glib to assuming folks on team Larson are all former members of bully cliques, and those of us who lean Dorland are all former bullying victims, but I'm sure it's at least partly true.
Everyone around me - including the teachers who also victimized me - had the option of just...not.
This is the thing I don't see acknowledged by any of the Team Larson people -- the same ones who dismiss Dorland because of her lack of social graces. The more popular (and theoretically more normal) people could even offer a suggestion on how to behave to D., or at least not mock her both publicly and privately.
A good story along these lines is comedian Jackie Kashian's "Spooky Reading Girl" bit. The later version on Live From Here includes a gym teacher who is not a saint, doesn't do anything particularly epic but simply offers her a much needed clue. "Are you friendly?" Maybe consider helping someone improve social skills instead of mocking them, since the cool kids are also not 15 any more.
posted by msalt at 9:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [19 favorites]
Has anyone here read Larson’s story?
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by TWinbrook8 at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Jean Hannah Edelstein, @jhedelstein on Twitter: This morning I think it’s about two female writers getting stuck in a war of attrition over a $425 short story while a man got paid about $20K to write about it
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:01 PM on October 6, 2021 [26 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:01 PM on October 6, 2021 [26 favorites]
Wow (above.) To be fair.. I like his work!
Also. "This is the thing I don't see acknowledged by any of the Team Larson people -- the same ones who dismiss Dorland because of her lack of social graces. The more popular (and theoretically more normal) people could even offer a suggestion on how to behave to D., or at least not mock her both publicly and privately."
If you have a sense of social sophistication (true sophistication, not a backhanded mimicry), lend the person a hand or neutrally pass by. 1+1=2. You don't look "soft," you're doing literally everyone a favor by fostering less awkward moments.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:04 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Also. "This is the thing I don't see acknowledged by any of the Team Larson people -- the same ones who dismiss Dorland because of her lack of social graces. The more popular (and theoretically more normal) people could even offer a suggestion on how to behave to D., or at least not mock her both publicly and privately."
If you have a sense of social sophistication (true sophistication, not a backhanded mimicry), lend the person a hand or neutrally pass by. 1+1=2. You don't look "soft," you're doing literally everyone a favor by fostering less awkward moments.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:04 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Some of those theoretically from each side, perhaps tend toward team "ehs." Eventually many of us grow into adults and realize either "side" is BS and "let's just not."
"It's too glib to assuming folks on team Larson are all former members of bully cliques, and those of us who lean Dorland are all former bullying victims, but I'm sure it's at least partly true."
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:08 PM on October 6, 2021
"It's too glib to assuming folks on team Larson are all former members of bully cliques, and those of us who lean Dorland are all former bullying victims, but I'm sure it's at least partly true."
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:08 PM on October 6, 2021
I have nothing to add, but: I just read the original article after seeing it constantly referenced on Twitter, thought "huh, I bet Metafilter will have some interesting perspectives on this," and man, you all did not disappoint.
posted by coffeecat at 10:10 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 10:10 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
“So, long story short, but it turns out that my kidney donor has taken someone to court over accusations of plagiarism.” pic.twitter.com/FYv4oMRcWa— Daniel Sugarman (@Daniel_Sugarman) October 6, 2021
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Looks like the world isn’t ready to systematically apply social justice theory to neurodivergent folks and or trauma survivors. I make no ND diagnosis but have a gut feeling about Dorland, and she (bravely) acknowledges being a survivor of childhood trauma.
Here’s how it looks to me. If you want to follow along, put your AskMe head on.
Dorland bravely donates a kidney
She’s got a history of being ostracised, but like many ND women and trauma survivors, she doesn’t have a community to give her “the talk” of how many aspects of community cohesion evilly don’t apply to her, how discrimination works against her, what double standards she needs to be aware of
She makes a Facebook group about her kidney donation and adds people she thinks are in her community (this is a normal thing to do, I get added to these for charity fundraisers a couple of times a year, sometimes I stay, sometimes I interact, sometimes I unsubscribe! There are many people that are socially allowed to do this, Dorland doesn’t know that the rules don’t apply to her in this case and she’s not socially allowed)
Dorland probably hasn’t had the chance to build the social skills to understand not to chase after folks, or to understand the difference between the para social relationships on Facebook and actual social relationships, or is perhaps starved of actual social relationships, or was stressed or trauma triggered and so reached out to Larson one day. That was a mistake, and years ago, before I learned not to, is the kind of thing I would have done
Dorland saw Larson’s story and got a gut feeling that this was targeted at her, and that there was bullying going on
Dorland, bravely, admirably, stood the fuck up for herself, using the only mechanisms she could
Discovery eventually showed that Dorland was right, about the bullying and antipathy from Larson and team
There is evidence Dorland stood up for herself using similar mechanisms in the past and that’s used to crucify her? Some folks really don’t like it when we defend ourselves, eh?
NT and non traumatised …. Folks? I’ll go with folks.. have a double standard for us. The rules don’t apply for us and you won’t tell us how. Every tom dick and harry has misapprehended a friendship but you know what? We ND/traumatised folks, particularly women, don’t get to make a mistake. One mistake and a vicious chat circle starts, and we can SMELL it, but god forbid we fight back.
I felt catharsis reading this article. I think Dorland got what she wanted, because the article was for people like me. I can print it out and highlight bits and show people the evanescent evidential scraps of discrimination because of how we are treated.
Fellow women trauma survivors and fellow neurodivergent women, we exist. We are a WE. Social justice discourse ALSO applies to us. Class analysis ALSO applies to us.
Ms Dorland, I believe you, and it is not your fault. Thank you for your courage.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:38 AM on October 7, 2021 [32 favorites]
Here’s how it looks to me. If you want to follow along, put your AskMe head on.
Dorland bravely donates a kidney
She’s got a history of being ostracised, but like many ND women and trauma survivors, she doesn’t have a community to give her “the talk” of how many aspects of community cohesion evilly don’t apply to her, how discrimination works against her, what double standards she needs to be aware of
She makes a Facebook group about her kidney donation and adds people she thinks are in her community (this is a normal thing to do, I get added to these for charity fundraisers a couple of times a year, sometimes I stay, sometimes I interact, sometimes I unsubscribe! There are many people that are socially allowed to do this, Dorland doesn’t know that the rules don’t apply to her in this case and she’s not socially allowed)
Dorland probably hasn’t had the chance to build the social skills to understand not to chase after folks, or to understand the difference between the para social relationships on Facebook and actual social relationships, or is perhaps starved of actual social relationships, or was stressed or trauma triggered and so reached out to Larson one day. That was a mistake, and years ago, before I learned not to, is the kind of thing I would have done
Dorland saw Larson’s story and got a gut feeling that this was targeted at her, and that there was bullying going on
Dorland, bravely, admirably, stood the fuck up for herself, using the only mechanisms she could
Discovery eventually showed that Dorland was right, about the bullying and antipathy from Larson and team
There is evidence Dorland stood up for herself using similar mechanisms in the past and that’s used to crucify her? Some folks really don’t like it when we defend ourselves, eh?
NT and non traumatised …. Folks? I’ll go with folks.. have a double standard for us. The rules don’t apply for us and you won’t tell us how. Every tom dick and harry has misapprehended a friendship but you know what? We ND/traumatised folks, particularly women, don’t get to make a mistake. One mistake and a vicious chat circle starts, and we can SMELL it, but god forbid we fight back.
I felt catharsis reading this article. I think Dorland got what she wanted, because the article was for people like me. I can print it out and highlight bits and show people the evanescent evidential scraps of discrimination because of how we are treated.
Fellow women trauma survivors and fellow neurodivergent women, we exist. We are a WE. Social justice discourse ALSO applies to us. Class analysis ALSO applies to us.
Ms Dorland, I believe you, and it is not your fault. Thank you for your courage.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:38 AM on October 7, 2021 [32 favorites]
Also, a lot of us keep our mouths shut about some far more cut and dried instances of discrimination because 90 percent of the time the community response is like the response to this article - at best “a pox on both your houses”. If you want to make the world a better place for neurodivergent and trauma survivor women, stop and think when you have an inchoate disquiet about a woman, when you don’t include her, when you make decisions based on friendship rather than merit. Apply your social justice head. Evaluate rigorously, and if that disquiet has no actual fact behind it, consider whether NT/nontraumatised privilege is at play. Sometimes it isn’t - sometimes disquiet has a just cause - but sometimes, all of us can carry unconscious bias.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [16 favorites]
By the way I’ve been treated like hot buttered shit for the last several years and when well meaning friends say why don’t you write about it, the broad public response to this article is a good example as to why I don’t. I am SO grateful to have this article and I am SO proud of Dawn for standing up for herself against being lied to, gaslit and plagiarised from. Could she benefit from some therapy? Probably. I thought that social justice discourse warned against victim blaming, though, hey? One day, when there is a shrine of justice for us, a history of us, this article will be there. I am now off to find Dawn Dorland and offer her a donation of money.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:57 AM on October 7, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 3:57 AM on October 7, 2021 [9 favorites]
(I want to say I’m very heartened by many of the responses in this thread, that people are seeing this gives me hope that discourse is slowly changing and making space for these kinds of issues!)
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:27 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:27 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Sonya Larson's website is really focusing on this story and highlighting it as being primarily about race. I would guess her new notoriety is working out for her. I won't be reading the story.
posted by FencingGal at 5:12 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 5:12 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
......... Ew.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:25 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:25 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
>>>“So, long story short, but it turns out that my kidney donor has taken someone to court over accusations of plagiarism.” pic.twitter.com/FYv4oMRcWa— Daniel Sugarman (@Daniel_Sugarman) October 6, 2021
Sigh. Dawn Dorland made accusations of plagiarism. and Dawn Dorland pitched the story to The New York Times. But Sonya Larson initiated legal action.
As FencingGal pointed out, signal-boosting relevant information and clearing up a common misconception:
Sigh. Dawn Dorland made accusations of plagiarism. and Dawn Dorland pitched the story to The New York Times. But Sonya Larson initiated legal action.
As FencingGal pointed out, signal-boosting relevant information and clearing up a common misconception:
Just to be clear, Larson was the first to file a lawsuit:posted by virago at 5:40 AM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
From the article:
"On Dec. 26, Dorland emailed (Andrew) Epstein, asking if he was the right person to accept the papers when she filed a lawsuit. As it happened, Larson beat her to the courthouse. On Jan. 30, 2019, Dorland and her lawyer, (Jeffrey) Cohen, were both sued in federal court, accused of defamation and tortious interference — that is, spreading lies about Larson and trying to tank her career."
They appear to have hired lawyers at about the same time.
When Larson discusses “The Kindest” now, the idea that it’s about a kidney donation at all seems almost irrelevant. If that hadn’t formed the story’s pretext, she believes, it would have been something else. “It’s like saying that ‘Moby Dick’ is a book about whales,” she said.I have not read Moby Dick (nor "The Kindest"). If you have read Moby Dick: I get the impression that the book is not primarily about whales, but that if it didn't use whaling as its setting and a whale as a major character, it would be a pretty different book? Is that right?
posted by brainwane at 5:43 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yes, Moby Dick uses whaling as setting. But, it's not that hard to imagine translating it a different setting (eg small group hunting a rhino) because the story is about the people. The name the whale is given is the title of the book, so people famously think / are believed to think that the book is about the whale itself (who IIRC doesn't actually appear that much).
posted by plonkee at 6:16 AM on October 7, 2021
posted by plonkee at 6:16 AM on October 7, 2021
(I want to say I’m very heartened by many of the responses in this thread, that people are seeing this gives me hope that discourse is slowly changing and making space for these kinds of issues!)
Thank you for speaking up about all of this.
I think it's part of why it hit me so hard to see folks, among other things, analyzing Dorland's eye contact on twitter as supposed-proof that she's a narcissist (saying it seemed "calculated" and "staged" during a reading event). Because so many of her "too-much" traits are symptoms of neurodivergence and trauma. I, too, have trouble with neurotypical eye contact. I, too, talk too much, and about the wrong things.
The notion that we are not supposed to talk about the good things we've done strikes me as so deeply enmeshed with our notions of what healthy community look like. Dorland doesn't have a family who will talk for her. If she talks about the bad things in her life, she's overburdening people. If she talks about the good things, she's full of herself. It's a lose-lose, when you don't have a family, because in our way society still sees the isolation that comes from stepping away from an abusive family of origin as a bad thing even if there's lipservice otherwise and surely any normal person would have been able to maintain that community, and keep quiet about bad things in a family. People who talk about their trauma are disruptors, and they're scary to people. I had folks tell me that my family history made them think that I expected everyone to go no contact with their parents, because they had experienced worse and were fine. Okay, so I'll act fine. When I started talking instead about my successes - re-parenting myself - I was told I was too full of myself and I really should be quiet about it.
Even though there are so many vicious things being said about Dorland now, I imagine on some level it was vindicating to get those transcripts. There was cold hard proof that her suspicions were correct, that her instincts were right, that people were really being malicious actors. We talk about closure coming within but when you come from a history of gaslighting, and live in a society that gaslights, tangible proof that the hurt happened is invaluable.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:18 AM on October 7, 2021 [38 favorites]
Thank you for speaking up about all of this.
I think it's part of why it hit me so hard to see folks, among other things, analyzing Dorland's eye contact on twitter as supposed-proof that she's a narcissist (saying it seemed "calculated" and "staged" during a reading event). Because so many of her "too-much" traits are symptoms of neurodivergence and trauma. I, too, have trouble with neurotypical eye contact. I, too, talk too much, and about the wrong things.
The notion that we are not supposed to talk about the good things we've done strikes me as so deeply enmeshed with our notions of what healthy community look like. Dorland doesn't have a family who will talk for her. If she talks about the bad things in her life, she's overburdening people. If she talks about the good things, she's full of herself. It's a lose-lose, when you don't have a family, because in our way society still sees the isolation that comes from stepping away from an abusive family of origin as a bad thing even if there's lipservice otherwise and surely any normal person would have been able to maintain that community, and keep quiet about bad things in a family. People who talk about their trauma are disruptors, and they're scary to people. I had folks tell me that my family history made them think that I expected everyone to go no contact with their parents, because they had experienced worse and were fine. Okay, so I'll act fine. When I started talking instead about my successes - re-parenting myself - I was told I was too full of myself and I really should be quiet about it.
Even though there are so many vicious things being said about Dorland now, I imagine on some level it was vindicating to get those transcripts. There was cold hard proof that her suspicions were correct, that her instincts were right, that people were really being malicious actors. We talk about closure coming within but when you come from a history of gaslighting, and live in a society that gaslights, tangible proof that the hurt happened is invaluable.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 6:18 AM on October 7, 2021 [38 favorites]
plonkee: "But, it's not that hard to imagine translating it a different setting (eg small group hunting a rhino) because the story is about the people. The name the whale is given is the title of the book, so people famously think / are believed to think that the book is about the whale itself "
It's not hard to imagine but that would be a very different book.
Half of the book's chapters are about whales and whaling and its history specifically. It's not just a 'metaphor' that could be switched out for any other metaphor, it's the fabric of the book itself.
posted by signal at 6:22 AM on October 7, 2021 [20 favorites]
It's not hard to imagine but that would be a very different book.
Half of the book's chapters are about whales and whaling and its history specifically. It's not just a 'metaphor' that could be switched out for any other metaphor, it's the fabric of the book itself.
posted by signal at 6:22 AM on October 7, 2021 [20 favorites]
I mean...if you reached out and were like "hey my dad died" that would be normal and reasonable but if you reached out and were like "you didn't like my post" that would be different.
Team ESH btw
It's unfortunate for me that I suck, I guess.
This is the thing. Some people are willing to be so mean to people who are awkward, or who struggle with social cues, or are insecure or needy. If you think someone sucks because they didn't reach out in the precise way you think is "normal," then perhaps you could engage in some self-reflection. A lot of people could be kinder.
I appreciate everyone who raised bullying. My first thought on this story was that some people attract bullies and Dorland is one of them. She's not "normal and reasonable." She's painfully vulnerable. She's socially awkward. That's like blood in the water for some people.
posted by Mavri at 6:25 AM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Team ESH btw
It's unfortunate for me that I suck, I guess.
This is the thing. Some people are willing to be so mean to people who are awkward, or who struggle with social cues, or are insecure or needy. If you think someone sucks because they didn't reach out in the precise way you think is "normal," then perhaps you could engage in some self-reflection. A lot of people could be kinder.
I appreciate everyone who raised bullying. My first thought on this story was that some people attract bullies and Dorland is one of them. She's not "normal and reasonable." She's painfully vulnerable. She's socially awkward. That's like blood in the water for some people.
posted by Mavri at 6:25 AM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Half of the book's chapters are about whales and whaling and its history specifically. It's not just a 'metaphor' that could be switched out for any other metaphor, it's the fabric of the book itself.
Just to emphasize this, these chapters are literally nothing but facts about whales that do not have any content whatsoever relating specifically to the characters or plot.
I'm not going to read Larson's story, but it's hard to imagine anything really comparable to being a living kidney donor if she wants to write about problematic altruism. This is literally risking death and giving a part of your body to another person. And there are long-term risks as well. I have a type of cancer that sometimes attacks the kidneys, so right now I'm really, really glad I have two.
It seems to me that Larson is trying to justify her theft of Dorland's work now by saying she didn't really need Dorland's story anyway. I think that's bullshit, but even if it weren't, Moby Dick was a poor choice for a comparison.
posted by FencingGal at 6:37 AM on October 7, 2021 [9 favorites]
Just to emphasize this, these chapters are literally nothing but facts about whales that do not have any content whatsoever relating specifically to the characters or plot.
I'm not going to read Larson's story, but it's hard to imagine anything really comparable to being a living kidney donor if she wants to write about problematic altruism. This is literally risking death and giving a part of your body to another person. And there are long-term risks as well. I have a type of cancer that sometimes attacks the kidneys, so right now I'm really, really glad I have two.
It seems to me that Larson is trying to justify her theft of Dorland's work now by saying she didn't really need Dorland's story anyway. I think that's bullshit, but even if it weren't, Moby Dick was a poor choice for a comparison.
posted by FencingGal at 6:37 AM on October 7, 2021 [9 favorites]
I mean, you said ESH about someone who didn't react in a "normal and reasonable" way. I did not react in what you deem a normal and reasonable way, sooooo.
posted by Mavri at 7:05 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Mavri at 7:05 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Then how do you know it's not primarily about race?
I don't, and I did not say I did.
I'd caution people to avoid jumping too quickly on the assumption that race has nothing to do with this or that it's being brought up as a pretext.
Perhaps you should be cautioned about jumping too quickly to assumptions. Or at least limit your criticisms to what people actually say.
posted by FencingGal at 7:09 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't, and I did not say I did.
I'd caution people to avoid jumping too quickly on the assumption that race has nothing to do with this or that it's being brought up as a pretext.
Perhaps you should be cautioned about jumping too quickly to assumptions. Or at least limit your criticisms to what people actually say.
posted by FencingGal at 7:09 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Half of the book's chapters are about whales and whaling and its history specifically. It's not just a 'metaphor' that could be switched out for any other metaphor, it's the fabric of the book itself.
Just to emphasize this, these chapters are literally nothing but facts about whales that do not have any content whatsoever relating specifically to the characters or plot.
Those chapters contain a lot of "facts" already known by science at the time to be wrong, presented in an overconfident voice, as a way of portraying the narrator's POV and critiquing the arrogance of humans and the imperfection of their knowledge.
This is actually an interesting comparable, though not for the reasons Larson thinks. Moby-Dick is based in part on real events in Melville's life. He sailed as a hand in 1841 aboard the whaleship Acushnet, under Captain Valentine Pease, by all accounts a decent fellow. 18 months later, he and a pal deserted in the Marquesas and had a tropical holiday, ending when a local community imprisoned them. They were rescued when an Australian whaleship, the Lucy Ann, arrived. Melville and pal joined the crew and remained aboard for some months, but its Captain, Aldrich, was apparently a tyrant. Men refused duty, staged a "sick out," and openly defied the Captain, who put a number of them in irons or put them ashore, abandoned. Melville finally got caught up in a mutiny and was held by British authorities, with 10 others, in Tahiti. It's taken as a given that Aldrich was an influence on the character of Ahab.
But Melville's Ahab was not a character portrait, but a composite. Other influences include Captain George Pollard of the whaleship Essex, whose battle with a white whale and subsequent survival cannibalism also inspired Moby-Dick. Melville gathered story upon story of whaling life to add to his own experience (scholars have taken his archives apart down to the newspaper clipping and can substantiate the breadth of his sources, there's even a book). And more than that, the Ahab character was influenced by something you could call art - he envisioned the worst traits of an authoritarian captain magnified beyond all reality, and asked himself what could motivate such a bizarre psychology - and that became his story.
I haven't read Larson's story, but good creative writing is more than transcribing events that happened to some other individual while giving them a judgmental gloss. The descriptions of this story don't dwell on ways the character of Rose (anyone else suspect the Rose Bowl parade reference?) was built from multiple influences or crafted as a set of traits independent of reality, in the way Melville built the character of Ahab in such a way that it absolutely cannot be considered a portrait of any one individual.
I'm always disappointed in writers whose creativity seems to end at description and gloss, and is poor in imagination. Rehashing your life and people you know in literature isn't the kind of writing I personally hold up as great craft. The best works are drawn from life - how could they not be - but are put through a creative reimagination process that removes them from being thinly veiled relations of actual events. This is so common as to be one of the great failures of contemporary fiction, in my view, and the bizarre proliferation of MFA programs and odd networks like Grub Street has not done enough to encourage working harder at the art of it all.
posted by Miko at 7:30 AM on October 7, 2021 [27 favorites]
Just to emphasize this, these chapters are literally nothing but facts about whales that do not have any content whatsoever relating specifically to the characters or plot.
Those chapters contain a lot of "facts" already known by science at the time to be wrong, presented in an overconfident voice, as a way of portraying the narrator's POV and critiquing the arrogance of humans and the imperfection of their knowledge.
This is actually an interesting comparable, though not for the reasons Larson thinks. Moby-Dick is based in part on real events in Melville's life. He sailed as a hand in 1841 aboard the whaleship Acushnet, under Captain Valentine Pease, by all accounts a decent fellow. 18 months later, he and a pal deserted in the Marquesas and had a tropical holiday, ending when a local community imprisoned them. They were rescued when an Australian whaleship, the Lucy Ann, arrived. Melville and pal joined the crew and remained aboard for some months, but its Captain, Aldrich, was apparently a tyrant. Men refused duty, staged a "sick out," and openly defied the Captain, who put a number of them in irons or put them ashore, abandoned. Melville finally got caught up in a mutiny and was held by British authorities, with 10 others, in Tahiti. It's taken as a given that Aldrich was an influence on the character of Ahab.
But Melville's Ahab was not a character portrait, but a composite. Other influences include Captain George Pollard of the whaleship Essex, whose battle with a white whale and subsequent survival cannibalism also inspired Moby-Dick. Melville gathered story upon story of whaling life to add to his own experience (scholars have taken his archives apart down to the newspaper clipping and can substantiate the breadth of his sources, there's even a book). And more than that, the Ahab character was influenced by something you could call art - he envisioned the worst traits of an authoritarian captain magnified beyond all reality, and asked himself what could motivate such a bizarre psychology - and that became his story.
I haven't read Larson's story, but good creative writing is more than transcribing events that happened to some other individual while giving them a judgmental gloss. The descriptions of this story don't dwell on ways the character of Rose (anyone else suspect the Rose Bowl parade reference?) was built from multiple influences or crafted as a set of traits independent of reality, in the way Melville built the character of Ahab in such a way that it absolutely cannot be considered a portrait of any one individual.
I'm always disappointed in writers whose creativity seems to end at description and gloss, and is poor in imagination. Rehashing your life and people you know in literature isn't the kind of writing I personally hold up as great craft. The best works are drawn from life - how could they not be - but are put through a creative reimagination process that removes them from being thinly veiled relations of actual events. This is so common as to be one of the great failures of contemporary fiction, in my view, and the bizarre proliferation of MFA programs and odd networks like Grub Street has not done enough to encourage working harder at the art of it all.
posted by Miko at 7:30 AM on October 7, 2021 [27 favorites]
Okay, then why did you point out that she was highlighting that it was about race, state that her new notoriety was working out for her, then say you wouldn't be reading her story?
Sure. In my mind, these are three separate things.
I'll start with the easiest one. I'm not going to be reading her story because she is a plagiarist and seems like a terrible, mean person.
As far as the notoriety working out for her, a lot of people are defending her on Twitter, and many people who had no idea who she was now know about her. Many articles I've seen completely gloss over the fact that she committed plagiarism and act as if Dorland had no reason to act as she did. See today's Atlantic, which also manages to ignore the fact that Larson filed the first lawsuit in this mess. I don't know what Larson's website was like before, but an article about this particular story just blew up the internet, and the first page of her website is entirely focused on that story, which by now is pretty old. So I was just thinking about how many people are now going to be going to her website (I did) and will want to read this story. My point, which I agree I wasn't explicit about, was that becoming internet famous in this way is going to lead to a lot of attention to her writing. If she changed her website so it focuses on this story (and perhaps she didn't), then she's taking advantage of the attention the story will bring her. She's being smart about her career. I can't really blame her for that, but since I already think she's a terrible person, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I think it was clear in the NYT article that the story focused at least to some extent on racism and the idea of white saviors. But it also focused on a kind of pernicious altruism, and that was clear in Larson's comments in the article. On her website, the latter element isn't mentioned at all. The fact that she's not acknowledging the story's connection to altruism and kidney donation on her website (and again, I don't know if she changed it) makes it seem as if she's treating the story as if it's not about that at all and is really about racism. At the same time, racism is Larson and Ng's big complaint about Dorland. She is de-emphasizing the aspects of the story that connect to her plagiarism and emphasizing the aspects that relate to her complaint against the woman she plagiarized. It all seems a bit icky to me.
This is a genuine caution, which as I'm sure you know, can be provided when things haven't yet happened.
It immediate followed your criticism of me, so I don't think I was illogical in thinking the two were connected.
posted by FencingGal at 7:37 AM on October 7, 2021 [11 favorites]
Sure. In my mind, these are three separate things.
I'll start with the easiest one. I'm not going to be reading her story because she is a plagiarist and seems like a terrible, mean person.
As far as the notoriety working out for her, a lot of people are defending her on Twitter, and many people who had no idea who she was now know about her. Many articles I've seen completely gloss over the fact that she committed plagiarism and act as if Dorland had no reason to act as she did. See today's Atlantic, which also manages to ignore the fact that Larson filed the first lawsuit in this mess. I don't know what Larson's website was like before, but an article about this particular story just blew up the internet, and the first page of her website is entirely focused on that story, which by now is pretty old. So I was just thinking about how many people are now going to be going to her website (I did) and will want to read this story. My point, which I agree I wasn't explicit about, was that becoming internet famous in this way is going to lead to a lot of attention to her writing. If she changed her website so it focuses on this story (and perhaps she didn't), then she's taking advantage of the attention the story will bring her. She's being smart about her career. I can't really blame her for that, but since I already think she's a terrible person, it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I think it was clear in the NYT article that the story focused at least to some extent on racism and the idea of white saviors. But it also focused on a kind of pernicious altruism, and that was clear in Larson's comments in the article. On her website, the latter element isn't mentioned at all. The fact that she's not acknowledging the story's connection to altruism and kidney donation on her website (and again, I don't know if she changed it) makes it seem as if she's treating the story as if it's not about that at all and is really about racism. At the same time, racism is Larson and Ng's big complaint about Dorland. She is de-emphasizing the aspects of the story that connect to her plagiarism and emphasizing the aspects that relate to her complaint against the woman she plagiarized. It all seems a bit icky to me.
This is a genuine caution, which as I'm sure you know, can be provided when things haven't yet happened.
It immediate followed your criticism of me, so I don't think I was illogical in thinking the two were connected.
posted by FencingGal at 7:37 AM on October 7, 2021 [11 favorites]
Actually, most of the books I've read where the focus of the story is a widely recognized and extremely negative portrait of someone were intended to hurt that person and they usually did - breaking up friendships, marriages, political orgs and social circles. I mean, okay, yes, if you really feel that you need to write an incredibly unkind and recognizable portrait of someone, you go ahead with your artistic vision, sometimes it's great, sure, fine. But don't shrink back and say "oh it's just a story, if people are really angry at me for humiliating and insulting them then they are the ones who are wrong, no one should mind". If an issue or a vision or whatever is important enough to write a cruel and recognizable portrait, then it's important enough for the writer to accept that people rarely enjoy being treated cruelly.
To that point: When DWJ portrays Gaiman, she portrays one aspect of his behavior. The character isn't a dark-haired white guy in his late thirties who always wears sort of post-goth clothes and writes fantasy comics and selfishly expects others to manage his sleep schedule and basic needs. I had no idea until today that the scene in question had anything to do with Gaiman, but I think I'd have picked up on it if the character looked like Gaiman and was speaking about his comics at the convention - because that would have been a widely recognzable portrait.
But that's not at all what happened here. In that situation, Gaiman would have recognized himself in that portrait, and may have felt humiliated and betrayed and pained. The people sitting around the conference table would have recognized him. One of his friends at the table might have read Jones' book, and called him up, and said, "Can you believe what Diana did here? What a terrible person she is," and they both would have agreed to never speak to her again, and some of their friends would have sided with her, and some with him, but the vast, vast majority of readers would never have known that the character was connected to Gaiman at all.
To make this situation equivalent, Gaiman would have had to recognize himself in the portrait, and then go around broadcasting to thousands upon thousands of people who would otherwise have had no idea: "I AM THE PERSON IN THIS PORTRAIT, THIS CHARACTER IS ME." He would've had to elide all of the ways the character was different from him, all the ways Jones fictionalized that moment and wove it into a different, bigger story, and reduced it to a simple truth: he was the character, and the character was him, and to the extent the character was portrayed cruelly, it was Diana Wynn Jones being cruel to Neil Gaiman, and either you think Neil is a good person, and Diana is terrible, or you think Diana is good and Neil is terrible, and those are your choices, and probably it would be better if that book didn't exist, because it caused a person pain.
In the story, Larson didn't just change the character's physical appearance. She made up an entirely different story: it's told from the POV of an Asian donor recipient, who does not exist; she creates a series of interactions between her and the fictional donor, which never happened; the thematic core of the story was about its racial and gender politics, which is not true of the actual interaction between Dorland and her recipient, a Jewish man. She did not steal Dorland's story wholesale - she took a fragment of her story and built an entire work of fiction around it, but none of that matters; the conversation around the story elides everything that is fictional about it and makes it irrelevant because of that piece she took from real life.
I don't expect Dorland not to feel hurt by the portrait, of course she does. Hurting the people around you is one of the hazards of the profession. It's not that Dorland is right and Larson is wrong, or vice versa. It's that in the past, this would have been between the two of them, and played out on a human scale. The way Larson handled the moral aftermath would have been her business, not ours. But in a world where you can't put even a fragment of a person you know into a short story without a round of vitriolic public shaming, the landscape of fiction is going to fundamentally change. And maybe that's what some people want: a scrubbed-clean public space, culture produced without a whiff of harm. But what's changed isn't the amount of harm writers are causing to the people in their social circles; it's the extent to which we have instant access to that information, and feel both entitled and enabled to stand in moral judgment on people we do not know.
posted by Merricat Blackwood at 8:25 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
To that point: When DWJ portrays Gaiman, she portrays one aspect of his behavior. The character isn't a dark-haired white guy in his late thirties who always wears sort of post-goth clothes and writes fantasy comics and selfishly expects others to manage his sleep schedule and basic needs. I had no idea until today that the scene in question had anything to do with Gaiman, but I think I'd have picked up on it if the character looked like Gaiman and was speaking about his comics at the convention - because that would have been a widely recognzable portrait.
But that's not at all what happened here. In that situation, Gaiman would have recognized himself in that portrait, and may have felt humiliated and betrayed and pained. The people sitting around the conference table would have recognized him. One of his friends at the table might have read Jones' book, and called him up, and said, "Can you believe what Diana did here? What a terrible person she is," and they both would have agreed to never speak to her again, and some of their friends would have sided with her, and some with him, but the vast, vast majority of readers would never have known that the character was connected to Gaiman at all.
To make this situation equivalent, Gaiman would have had to recognize himself in the portrait, and then go around broadcasting to thousands upon thousands of people who would otherwise have had no idea: "I AM THE PERSON IN THIS PORTRAIT, THIS CHARACTER IS ME." He would've had to elide all of the ways the character was different from him, all the ways Jones fictionalized that moment and wove it into a different, bigger story, and reduced it to a simple truth: he was the character, and the character was him, and to the extent the character was portrayed cruelly, it was Diana Wynn Jones being cruel to Neil Gaiman, and either you think Neil is a good person, and Diana is terrible, or you think Diana is good and Neil is terrible, and those are your choices, and probably it would be better if that book didn't exist, because it caused a person pain.
In the story, Larson didn't just change the character's physical appearance. She made up an entirely different story: it's told from the POV of an Asian donor recipient, who does not exist; she creates a series of interactions between her and the fictional donor, which never happened; the thematic core of the story was about its racial and gender politics, which is not true of the actual interaction between Dorland and her recipient, a Jewish man. She did not steal Dorland's story wholesale - she took a fragment of her story and built an entire work of fiction around it, but none of that matters; the conversation around the story elides everything that is fictional about it and makes it irrelevant because of that piece she took from real life.
I don't expect Dorland not to feel hurt by the portrait, of course she does. Hurting the people around you is one of the hazards of the profession. It's not that Dorland is right and Larson is wrong, or vice versa. It's that in the past, this would have been between the two of them, and played out on a human scale. The way Larson handled the moral aftermath would have been her business, not ours. But in a world where you can't put even a fragment of a person you know into a short story without a round of vitriolic public shaming, the landscape of fiction is going to fundamentally change. And maybe that's what some people want: a scrubbed-clean public space, culture produced without a whiff of harm. But what's changed isn't the amount of harm writers are causing to the people in their social circles; it's the extent to which we have instant access to that information, and feel both entitled and enabled to stand in moral judgment on people we do not know.
posted by Merricat Blackwood at 8:25 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
I've discussed this story now in 3 separate discords, and every one has a different take. It truly is the white dress / blue dress of literary drama reporting, which is what makes it interesting.
In the first discord: Is the kidney donor white? She really has that special brand of white cluelessness. Venting about someone like that in private is normal and expected, however Larson does seem like a mean girl and maybe a gaslighter, especially when she's asked about the story directly and just lies to Dorland about it. This discord is (mainly) my Chinese American literary friends. We're all used to stories like this, usually it's very messy interpersonal drama where there isn't a clear hero or villain.
In the second discord: Dorland seems to have a very distorted view of reality, and an inability to realize how she is being read by others. Clearly the lawsuit isn't something she'll win and is an outlet for her personal feelings, with the lawyers maybe egging her on (yes sure you have a case and meanwhile, she's out tens of thousands in legal fees over a story worth $465). But on the other hand, being mocked behind your back truly sucks and we have personal feelings about that that make us dislike how Larson handled things. This discord is mainly my fandom friends, we're again all used to stories like this, but usually with lower stakes (just internet drama) though sometimes they do involve lawsuits,
In the third discord: God we all viscerally hate Dorland, she sounds absolutely insufferable. OTOH Larson doesn't seem like a catty mean girl, she seems like someone who's never going to admit she was wrong because from the very beginning she was viewing their relationship from this fictionalized racial power lens when in point of fact they seem to be peers with no money and Larson has more social currency. Also it was very stupid to publish a story about someone in the same writer's group without even filing the serial numbers off, clearly she didn't think she'd face any social (or legal!) consequences for doing this. This is again another fandom discord, but the fans in this one are older.
posted by subdee at 8:32 AM on October 7, 2021 [22 favorites]
In the first discord: Is the kidney donor white? She really has that special brand of white cluelessness. Venting about someone like that in private is normal and expected, however Larson does seem like a mean girl and maybe a gaslighter, especially when she's asked about the story directly and just lies to Dorland about it. This discord is (mainly) my Chinese American literary friends. We're all used to stories like this, usually it's very messy interpersonal drama where there isn't a clear hero or villain.
In the second discord: Dorland seems to have a very distorted view of reality, and an inability to realize how she is being read by others. Clearly the lawsuit isn't something she'll win and is an outlet for her personal feelings, with the lawyers maybe egging her on (yes sure you have a case and meanwhile, she's out tens of thousands in legal fees over a story worth $465). But on the other hand, being mocked behind your back truly sucks and we have personal feelings about that that make us dislike how Larson handled things. This discord is mainly my fandom friends, we're again all used to stories like this, but usually with lower stakes (just internet drama) though sometimes they do involve lawsuits,
In the third discord: God we all viscerally hate Dorland, she sounds absolutely insufferable. OTOH Larson doesn't seem like a catty mean girl, she seems like someone who's never going to admit she was wrong because from the very beginning she was viewing their relationship from this fictionalized racial power lens when in point of fact they seem to be peers with no money and Larson has more social currency. Also it was very stupid to publish a story about someone in the same writer's group without even filing the serial numbers off, clearly she didn't think she'd face any social (or legal!) consequences for doing this. This is again another fandom discord, but the fans in this one are older.
posted by subdee at 8:32 AM on October 7, 2021 [22 favorites]
Anyway. ESH is pithy and doesn't capture all the nuances I don't see how it isn't essentially the true response. Esepecially since we are reacting to the NYT story as it was written, and it was deliberately written (and titled) as it was to lead us to this conclusion.
posted by subdee at 8:34 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by subdee at 8:34 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Can I just cut this derail off at the knees by pointing out that the portrayal of a breakfast-impeded character by Diana Wynne Jones seems affectionate and good-natured, by his own account she and Neil Gaiman were good friends, and the whole thing is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
posted by bq at 8:55 AM on October 7, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by bq at 8:55 AM on October 7, 2021 [7 favorites]
Miko, thank you for that comment which is so interesting! I have known for years that Moby Dick has many chapters full of whales/whaling facts, but I had no idea that:
* more likely to read Moby Dick
* more likely to be willing to donate a kidney to a relative
* slightly more likely to be willing to make an undirected kidney donation
* more likely to institute data retention policies for group chats I'm in
* more grateful for my circles of friends and colleagues, and for the fact that I have friends outside my profession
* less likely to misremember "Grub Street" as the publication Christopher Kimball started after his schism with America's Test Kitchen/Cooks Illustrated
* slightly more likely to spend idle moments trying to imagine -- in the manner of an "issue spotter" law school exam hypothetical situation -- a conflict with a greater number of fraught components/dimensions, that would contain even more rubbernecking/internet-arguing appeal than this one
posted by brainwane at 9:31 AM on October 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
Those chapters contain a lot of "facts" already known by science at the time to be wrong, presented in an overconfident voice, as a way of portraying the narrator's POV and critiquing the arrogance of humans and the imperfection of their knowledge.I am, as a result of the article and this discussion:
* more likely to read Moby Dick
* more likely to be willing to donate a kidney to a relative
* slightly more likely to be willing to make an undirected kidney donation
* more likely to institute data retention policies for group chats I'm in
* more grateful for my circles of friends and colleagues, and for the fact that I have friends outside my profession
* less likely to misremember "Grub Street" as the publication Christopher Kimball started after his schism with America's Test Kitchen/Cooks Illustrated
* slightly more likely to spend idle moments trying to imagine -- in the manner of an "issue spotter" law school exam hypothetical situation -- a conflict with a greater number of fraught components/dimensions, that would contain even more rubbernecking/internet-arguing appeal than this one
posted by brainwane at 9:31 AM on October 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
Wow. I haven't read all of the comments yet, but I have direct experience with this kind of situation in two ways. Three, if you count the fact that all of the comments saying that Larson is "weaponizing" her purported privilege by pointing out the white-women's tears issue are really boggling my mind, and reminding me why I so often feel uncomfortable interacting with Metafilter as a WOC.
For starters, six years ago a dear friend of mine received a liver transplant, literally just in time. Her liver disease, which she was born with, had progressed to the point that she was actively dying. Her skin and the whites of her eyes were bright yellow from jaundice. She was getting prepared to go into hospice (she was barely 30 years old at the time), but she got placed at the top of the transplant list and miraculously a liver appeared that was match. In the course of one hour she had to decide whether to go through with the transplant or proceed with accepting that death was knocking at the door quite loudly. She took the liver.
Her life since then has been a nightmare. While she is grateful to be alive, her body has been rejecting the new organ basically since day 1. She is on at least 20 different anti-rejection meds, steroid treatment, and is in constant pain. She wonders daily if she made the right decision. Being a transplant recipient is not always flowers and sunshine. If her donor or their family (presumably the donor had passed away) was crowing all over the place about the wonderful selfless thing they did, on social media, going to parades, and demanding to know why no one was praising them enough, she would be livid. She is also a WOC.
Did Dorland do a wonderful thing? Yes. She saved a life.
Did Dorland get wrapped up in her wonderful thing to the point of fixation, demanding to know why her community wasn't praising her to the sky? Yes.
Is that annoying? Sure. To some.
Did Larson do a good thing? No, she should not have plagiarized Dorland's note word for word in the early draft, and she should have worked hard to make sure the earlier Audible recording with the letter intact had been disappeared from distribution.
Did Larson write a story specifically to mock Dorland? I do not think so. The story she wrote, specifically, uses Dorland's donation and subsequent behavior as a way to discuss the way white women have unexamined privilege. The donor recipient in her story was a WOC, struggling with myriad demons. This is NOT Dorland's life.
Should Larson have disguised the letter better? Absolutely.
Is it mean that Larson shit-talked Dorland with her friends? Yes, but come on. I've done this. I think everyone has done this.
Finally, I have written a story, using an event that occurred to my best friend many years ago in a toxic relationship as a starting point for inspiration. Granted, unlike Larson, I talked to my friend before doing it and let her read it afterwards, and made edits to things she was uncomfortable with. But the story is NOT a chronicle of the event, verbatim. It's more of an excersize in "what if everyone had made a different choice when the catalyst occurred, what would that look like?" Like Larson, I changed the race of the protagonist and the setting of the story. I included backstory that has nothing to do with my friend, like Larson did. The story is NOT about my friend anymore. It's about something else. But the event in the toxic relationship is what got me thinking of writing the story. It's being published this fall.
Obviously, unlike Larson I was very careful to be respectful of my friend and didn't gaslight her. Larson should not have done that
But Dorland doesn't understand that Larson's story is NOT about her. It's about other people, other characters, an alcoholic WOC who needs a transplant, a rich white narcissist who donates a kidney and writes a self-aggrandizing letter. Dorland is not rich, her donor recipient is not a WOC grappling with huger issues (that we know of). Larson did not steal Dorland's life. She saw something, took inspiration, and then let her imagination go from there. The self-incriminating texts are cringey, but all of Dorland's behavior is far more cringey, including begging news outlets to write about this for THREE YEARS and finally succeeding with the NYT so she can get more attention. I find this unhinged, and totally indicative of clueless white lady privilege.
Ew that Larson sees this through a racial lens? Really? A WOC gets slandered by a person with hurt feelings, a person trying to destroy her career over hurt feelings, in court, and she sees it through a racial lens, and that's distasteful to people? Wow. You clearly have no idea what it's like to live in this world as WOC person or a WOC artist or a WOC writer. I feel bad that Dorland feels betrayed by a community she thought was hers, but her response is absolutely insane.
posted by nayantara at 9:39 AM on October 7, 2021 [40 favorites]
For starters, six years ago a dear friend of mine received a liver transplant, literally just in time. Her liver disease, which she was born with, had progressed to the point that she was actively dying. Her skin and the whites of her eyes were bright yellow from jaundice. She was getting prepared to go into hospice (she was barely 30 years old at the time), but she got placed at the top of the transplant list and miraculously a liver appeared that was match. In the course of one hour she had to decide whether to go through with the transplant or proceed with accepting that death was knocking at the door quite loudly. She took the liver.
Her life since then has been a nightmare. While she is grateful to be alive, her body has been rejecting the new organ basically since day 1. She is on at least 20 different anti-rejection meds, steroid treatment, and is in constant pain. She wonders daily if she made the right decision. Being a transplant recipient is not always flowers and sunshine. If her donor or their family (presumably the donor had passed away) was crowing all over the place about the wonderful selfless thing they did, on social media, going to parades, and demanding to know why no one was praising them enough, she would be livid. She is also a WOC.
Did Dorland do a wonderful thing? Yes. She saved a life.
Did Dorland get wrapped up in her wonderful thing to the point of fixation, demanding to know why her community wasn't praising her to the sky? Yes.
Is that annoying? Sure. To some.
Did Larson do a good thing? No, she should not have plagiarized Dorland's note word for word in the early draft, and she should have worked hard to make sure the earlier Audible recording with the letter intact had been disappeared from distribution.
Did Larson write a story specifically to mock Dorland? I do not think so. The story she wrote, specifically, uses Dorland's donation and subsequent behavior as a way to discuss the way white women have unexamined privilege. The donor recipient in her story was a WOC, struggling with myriad demons. This is NOT Dorland's life.
Should Larson have disguised the letter better? Absolutely.
Is it mean that Larson shit-talked Dorland with her friends? Yes, but come on. I've done this. I think everyone has done this.
Finally, I have written a story, using an event that occurred to my best friend many years ago in a toxic relationship as a starting point for inspiration. Granted, unlike Larson, I talked to my friend before doing it and let her read it afterwards, and made edits to things she was uncomfortable with. But the story is NOT a chronicle of the event, verbatim. It's more of an excersize in "what if everyone had made a different choice when the catalyst occurred, what would that look like?" Like Larson, I changed the race of the protagonist and the setting of the story. I included backstory that has nothing to do with my friend, like Larson did. The story is NOT about my friend anymore. It's about something else. But the event in the toxic relationship is what got me thinking of writing the story. It's being published this fall.
Obviously, unlike Larson I was very careful to be respectful of my friend and didn't gaslight her. Larson should not have done that
But Dorland doesn't understand that Larson's story is NOT about her. It's about other people, other characters, an alcoholic WOC who needs a transplant, a rich white narcissist who donates a kidney and writes a self-aggrandizing letter. Dorland is not rich, her donor recipient is not a WOC grappling with huger issues (that we know of). Larson did not steal Dorland's life. She saw something, took inspiration, and then let her imagination go from there. The self-incriminating texts are cringey, but all of Dorland's behavior is far more cringey, including begging news outlets to write about this for THREE YEARS and finally succeeding with the NYT so she can get more attention. I find this unhinged, and totally indicative of clueless white lady privilege.
Ew that Larson sees this through a racial lens? Really? A WOC gets slandered by a person with hurt feelings, a person trying to destroy her career over hurt feelings, in court, and she sees it through a racial lens, and that's distasteful to people? Wow. You clearly have no idea what it's like to live in this world as WOC person or a WOC artist or a WOC writer. I feel bad that Dorland feels betrayed by a community she thought was hers, but her response is absolutely insane.
posted by nayantara at 9:39 AM on October 7, 2021 [40 favorites]
Can you see how people might be taking offense to someone who failed to be like you: "Obviously, unlike Larson I was very careful to be respectful of my friend and didn't gaslight her. Larson should not have done that" (and also plagiarized without even bothering to take the effort of disguising it?)
Like, one is not the other, and I'd also try look at how Dorland might, actually, not have some sort of all-overruling white women's privilege here.
posted by sagc at 9:55 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Like, one is not the other, and I'd also try look at how Dorland might, actually, not have some sort of all-overruling white women's privilege here.
posted by sagc at 9:55 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
I need to catch up with some of the new posts, but that's the thing: Dorland isn't reported as having significant privilege.. they're the same, or theoretically, Larson had more social fluidity.
I actually hadn't realized until FencingGal mentioned it, but I'd just assumed Larson put the story away and wouldn't think to capitalize off of it.
Seeing it on the domain site, advertised for money, changes the experience or understanding of the person.
Now it looks like they preyed on a softer person for total advancement. ..the other detail, is this writer doesn't necessarily seem to be hyper acknowledged or widely successful, as noted by some previous commentors here. It makes it seem as though the person lambasted someone locally to enrich their local notoriety and money.
..which slightly makes everything feel a dash more insanely gross and/or petty. I personally did not find Dorland to be racist. At all. There is a lot* of reaching happening.
I'm going to look at Kolkers work today. His article collection looks great and widely published.
And I'm happy to be more familiar with nondirect donors.
I will say, I now feel less like Dorland is an awkward zealot, and more like a person who really wanted to connect and work. (..still, awkward zealot to many degrees, but continuing to sell the story seems so tasteless)
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:06 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
I actually hadn't realized until FencingGal mentioned it, but I'd just assumed Larson put the story away and wouldn't think to capitalize off of it.
Seeing it on the domain site, advertised for money, changes the experience or understanding of the person.
Now it looks like they preyed on a softer person for total advancement. ..the other detail, is this writer doesn't necessarily seem to be hyper acknowledged or widely successful, as noted by some previous commentors here. It makes it seem as though the person lambasted someone locally to enrich their local notoriety and money.
..which slightly makes everything feel a dash more insanely gross and/or petty. I personally did not find Dorland to be racist. At all. There is a lot* of reaching happening.
I'm going to look at Kolkers work today. His article collection looks great and widely published.
And I'm happy to be more familiar with nondirect donors.
I will say, I now feel less like Dorland is an awkward zealot, and more like a person who really wanted to connect and work. (..still, awkward zealot to many degrees, but continuing to sell the story seems so tasteless)
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:06 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
But in a world where you can't put even a fragment of a person you know into a short story without a round of vitriolic public shaming, the landscape of fiction is going to fundamentally change.
Enh, there's plenty of people who read the story and came to the conclusion that Dorland was the villain of the piece, or ESH. There are plenty of thick-skinned people in the world who operate under the "any publicity is good publicity" ethos, and the ones who are artists will not be deterred by this at all. Larson's story is going to get a lot more readers than it would otherwise.
If I were distilling lessons for writers from this debacle, it would be:
1) If you are writing something inspired by someone, do NOT use their exact words in your story.
2) If you are writing something inspired by someone who has a reputation for being a "feeler" or being a little "extra" about things, DO NOT use their exact words that (among other things) touch upon the trauma and abuse they experienced in their childhood--that is going to feel very personal to them.
3) If you have a private written confession that you are plagiarizing someone's words and should really change them, but feel that the words are necessary for your art, REALLY REALLY REALLY DO NOT sue the person whose words you plagiarized for defamation!
posted by creepygirl at 10:19 AM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Enh, there's plenty of people who read the story and came to the conclusion that Dorland was the villain of the piece, or ESH. There are plenty of thick-skinned people in the world who operate under the "any publicity is good publicity" ethos, and the ones who are artists will not be deterred by this at all. Larson's story is going to get a lot more readers than it would otherwise.
If I were distilling lessons for writers from this debacle, it would be:
1) If you are writing something inspired by someone, do NOT use their exact words in your story.
2) If you are writing something inspired by someone who has a reputation for being a "feeler" or being a little "extra" about things, DO NOT use their exact words that (among other things) touch upon the trauma and abuse they experienced in their childhood--that is going to feel very personal to them.
3) If you have a private written confession that you are plagiarizing someone's words and should really change them, but feel that the words are necessary for your art, REALLY REALLY REALLY DO NOT sue the person whose words you plagiarized for defamation!
posted by creepygirl at 10:19 AM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Can we all just agree that everybody, in the story, in this thread, in Metafilter as a whole, in the human race, in the multiverse, etc., sucks and just leave it at that?
posted by signal at 10:48 AM on October 7, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by signal at 10:48 AM on October 7, 2021 [7 favorites]
But Dorland doesn't understand that Larson's story is NOT about her.
Except she took her words and extrapolated them into a story where they were used as supporting evidence of the character being racist, an aspect that seems absent from Dorland's actual kidney donation.
It's not about her because it makes her look worse? I'm not sure where I lie on writing people into real life (some of my work is historical fiction with RL precedence so I'm more likely to excuse it) but I can definitely see why Dorland would be upset.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
Except she took her words and extrapolated them into a story where they were used as supporting evidence of the character being racist, an aspect that seems absent from Dorland's actual kidney donation.
It's not about her because it makes her look worse? I'm not sure where I lie on writing people into real life (some of my work is historical fiction with RL precedence so I'm more likely to excuse it) but I can definitely see why Dorland would be upset.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
"Can we all just agree that everybody, in the story, in this thread, in Metafilter as a whole, in the human race, in the multiverse, etc., sucks and just leave it at that?" No, no.. too much humility.
"It's not about her because it makes her look worse? I'm not sure where I lie on writing people into real life (some of my work is historical fiction with RL precedence so I'm more likely to excuse it) but I can definitely see why Dorland would be upset." Larson did too many things that were way, way left field and out of line. Especially in consideration of so many writers communities, which tend to need a hyper light touch and solid communication. Even if you hate** someone, you don't contribute this way.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:56 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
"It's not about her because it makes her look worse? I'm not sure where I lie on writing people into real life (some of my work is historical fiction with RL precedence so I'm more likely to excuse it) but I can definitely see why Dorland would be upset." Larson did too many things that were way, way left field and out of line. Especially in consideration of so many writers communities, which tend to need a hyper light touch and solid communication. Even if you hate** someone, you don't contribute this way.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:56 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I have a handful of cringey acquaintances in my life. One or two I'd even call friends. They can be embarrassing, they can be exhausting, they can cross lines past which I need to swiftly assert boundaries. And if they can't respect those boundaries, at some point or other they cease to be people I can afford to keep in my life.
I also have some snarky, catty friends. Being snarky and catty can be fun! At times, we have been known to talk about some of the more exhausting people who we know. It's a relief, honestly, and it can make enduring those difficult people a lot easier.
Is that great behavior? Nah. But it's private behavior, and it stays private—and, more than that, I'm a pretty firm believer that that sort of thing needs to come from a place of empathy, if not outright compassion or even love. I have known people who genuinely looked upon their so-called friends with genuine scorn, contempt, and disrespect; while those were people I tolerated when I was in a lonelier, more confused place in my life, I've increasingly realized how toxic it is to share space with people who genuinely don't seek out the wounded, tender humanity in people whose major crimes are being irritating and obnoxious, rather than intolerance in some major, explicit way.
Dorland crossed a bunch of lines here, and her reaction to basically everything that happened here had me going "Oh no no no no" out loud. Even before those lines were crossed, she strikes me as someone who, well, I might not like Facebook statuses by. But a friend of mine shared this story with a comment along the lines of "she should do the world a favor and donate the other kidney, too #whitewomen" and... honestly, I could not get over how Larson behaved to the point where I could start to see Dorland as "the bad guy" here.
What an insanely mean and gross thing to do. If you're gonna write the story about someone being obnoxious while doing a good deed, at least find some layer of removal from it that doesn't implicate your acquaintance.
And to steal her actual words?! Words that were talking about her childhood abuse?! While literally writing to people who she thought was friends, thanking them for giving her room to open up?!?! Mother of God.
I've been writing fiction, recently, and "people who suck in some way" is one of my favorite things to write about. I grew up loving mean-spirited, vicious comedy, and something about that "everybody's bad" way of writing really appeals to me. I'd be lying if I said I haven't thought about my difficult acquaintances more than once while putting my stories together. But it's important to me that those stories not be about those people, to the point that those people could read my story and genuinely laugh along with it. And it's important to me, too, that the part where people get treated as flawed and imperfect not overshadow the fact that, well, they're people. They deserve dignity, even amidst the clownery. And they deserve the suggestion that, unless they genuinely act so egregiously that they would need to seek some kind of repentance or forgiveness for their behavior, they ought to get some measure of compassion, some measure of care, some kind of love beneath the laughter.
The art we make reflects both the world as we see it and the world as we hope it might become. The fact that it's a writer who did this makes it worse, not better.
Anyway, I think my main takeaway from all this is that I'd at least like to know what it takes to donate a kidney, in case it's something I want to consider, so good on you, Dawn Dorland, for sharing yourself in messy-ass ways. Even if a part of me is still gritting my teeth over this whole thing.
posted by rorgy at 11:03 AM on October 7, 2021 [23 favorites]
I also have some snarky, catty friends. Being snarky and catty can be fun! At times, we have been known to talk about some of the more exhausting people who we know. It's a relief, honestly, and it can make enduring those difficult people a lot easier.
Is that great behavior? Nah. But it's private behavior, and it stays private—and, more than that, I'm a pretty firm believer that that sort of thing needs to come from a place of empathy, if not outright compassion or even love. I have known people who genuinely looked upon their so-called friends with genuine scorn, contempt, and disrespect; while those were people I tolerated when I was in a lonelier, more confused place in my life, I've increasingly realized how toxic it is to share space with people who genuinely don't seek out the wounded, tender humanity in people whose major crimes are being irritating and obnoxious, rather than intolerance in some major, explicit way.
Dorland crossed a bunch of lines here, and her reaction to basically everything that happened here had me going "Oh no no no no" out loud. Even before those lines were crossed, she strikes me as someone who, well, I might not like Facebook statuses by. But a friend of mine shared this story with a comment along the lines of "she should do the world a favor and donate the other kidney, too #whitewomen" and... honestly, I could not get over how Larson behaved to the point where I could start to see Dorland as "the bad guy" here.
What an insanely mean and gross thing to do. If you're gonna write the story about someone being obnoxious while doing a good deed, at least find some layer of removal from it that doesn't implicate your acquaintance.
And to steal her actual words?! Words that were talking about her childhood abuse?! While literally writing to people who she thought was friends, thanking them for giving her room to open up?!?! Mother of God.
I've been writing fiction, recently, and "people who suck in some way" is one of my favorite things to write about. I grew up loving mean-spirited, vicious comedy, and something about that "everybody's bad" way of writing really appeals to me. I'd be lying if I said I haven't thought about my difficult acquaintances more than once while putting my stories together. But it's important to me that those stories not be about those people, to the point that those people could read my story and genuinely laugh along with it. And it's important to me, too, that the part where people get treated as flawed and imperfect not overshadow the fact that, well, they're people. They deserve dignity, even amidst the clownery. And they deserve the suggestion that, unless they genuinely act so egregiously that they would need to seek some kind of repentance or forgiveness for their behavior, they ought to get some measure of compassion, some measure of care, some kind of love beneath the laughter.
The art we make reflects both the world as we see it and the world as we hope it might become. The fact that it's a writer who did this makes it worse, not better.
Anyway, I think my main takeaway from all this is that I'd at least like to know what it takes to donate a kidney, in case it's something I want to consider, so good on you, Dawn Dorland, for sharing yourself in messy-ass ways. Even if a part of me is still gritting my teeth over this whole thing.
posted by rorgy at 11:03 AM on October 7, 2021 [23 favorites]
I find the discussion in this thread that touches on "what the legal process can accomplish and what it cannot" to be especially interesting. It is surprising to me that nobody on this page has cited the relevant passage from Vonnegut's God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, so I reproduce it here:
One of his favorite Kilgore Trout books dealt with ingratitude and nothing else. It was called, The First District Court of Thankyou, which was a court you could take people to, if you felt they hadn’t been properly grateful for something you had done. If the defendant lost his case, the court gave him a choice between thanking the plaintiff in public, or going into solitary confinement on bread and water for a month. According to Trout, eighty per cent of those convicted chose the black hole.
posted by PaulVario at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2021 [20 favorites]
One of his favorite Kilgore Trout books dealt with ingratitude and nothing else. It was called, The First District Court of Thankyou, which was a court you could take people to, if you felt they hadn’t been properly grateful for something you had done. If the defendant lost his case, the court gave him a choice between thanking the plaintiff in public, or going into solitary confinement on bread and water for a month. According to Trout, eighty per cent of those convicted chose the black hole.
posted by PaulVario at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2021 [20 favorites]
But Dorland doesn't understand that Larson's story is NOT about her.
I disagree with this, and I think this gets to the heart of something I've been mulling over today....
At one point while reading the original article, I was reminded of the old adage, "write what you know." Of course, authors shouldn't be limited to what they know through lived experience (even if many authors do draw heavily on their own lives), that's why authors do background research all the time. Sonya Larson herself is currently soliciting interviews with "park rangers of color" for her next novel.
The problem though, and the reason I'm not inclined to read "The Kindest" is it doesn't appear she did any research about undirected donation besides her very subjective/knee-jerk reactions to Dorland's social media posts. Her excuse for this appears to be "but the story's not actually about organ donation," which, uh, as other people have pointed out, seems to be a pretty weak claim. If that was the case, why not pick a different type of charitable act?
Perhaps if she had done more research, she would have come across perspectives like that generously shared above by fuzzy.little.socks about donating to his wife. Perhaps if she had, she would have realized why undirected donation is not exactly the best example of the white-savior-complex.
Of course, white-saviorism exists, and it's toxic. And key to why it's inherently toxic is that the white person (couched in their privilege) is unable to see themselves as anything but the protagonist. And the one with the answer for people/societies/etc. that they know nothing about. It's saying "Oh, people in [x country] have a problem with [y]? Oh, not only must I help but I have the answer and only I can execute the answer." The toxic part isn't the wanting to help, it's the commitment to control/superiority. White-saviors also manage to never actually sacrifice anything but money - it's the Instagram picture of "roughing" it taken blocks from their five-star hotel.
So...an indirect kidney donation? Talk about giving up control. The donor doesn't even decide where the kidney goes, nor do they dictate what the person goes on to do with their life. And yeah, giving up an organ is a real sacrifice.
And this, I think, is what appears to have really upset Dorland. Sure, she feels bullied, but from the original article:
"But to Dorland, this was more than just material. She’d become a public voice in the campaign for live-organ donation, and she felt some responsibility for representing the subject in just the right way. The potential for saving lives, after all, matters more than any story. "
I believe Dorland when she says she genuinely cares about kidney donation. And it sounds like the donor character in "The Kindest" is a bit of 2D villain. Given what fuzzy.little.socks says above about this being such a life changing experience, I can see why it would be truly upsetting to her that her own advocacy had sparked such an off-based portrayal of donation. Has the extent to her response been a bit unhinged? Yes. Does she seem like someone I'd want to be friends with? No. But I have way more empathy for her than I do with Larson on this.
Finally, since some people sound hung up the $425 for the story, sure, that's nothing, but plenty of professions make money off of publications via speaking-fees/teaching/fellowships/grants/etc. So I'd say that's besides the point a bit here.
posted by coffeecat at 11:31 AM on October 7, 2021 [19 favorites]
I disagree with this, and I think this gets to the heart of something I've been mulling over today....
At one point while reading the original article, I was reminded of the old adage, "write what you know." Of course, authors shouldn't be limited to what they know through lived experience (even if many authors do draw heavily on their own lives), that's why authors do background research all the time. Sonya Larson herself is currently soliciting interviews with "park rangers of color" for her next novel.
The problem though, and the reason I'm not inclined to read "The Kindest" is it doesn't appear she did any research about undirected donation besides her very subjective/knee-jerk reactions to Dorland's social media posts. Her excuse for this appears to be "but the story's not actually about organ donation," which, uh, as other people have pointed out, seems to be a pretty weak claim. If that was the case, why not pick a different type of charitable act?
Perhaps if she had done more research, she would have come across perspectives like that generously shared above by fuzzy.little.socks about donating to his wife. Perhaps if she had, she would have realized why undirected donation is not exactly the best example of the white-savior-complex.
Of course, white-saviorism exists, and it's toxic. And key to why it's inherently toxic is that the white person (couched in their privilege) is unable to see themselves as anything but the protagonist. And the one with the answer for people/societies/etc. that they know nothing about. It's saying "Oh, people in [x country] have a problem with [y]? Oh, not only must I help but I have the answer and only I can execute the answer." The toxic part isn't the wanting to help, it's the commitment to control/superiority. White-saviors also manage to never actually sacrifice anything but money - it's the Instagram picture of "roughing" it taken blocks from their five-star hotel.
So...an indirect kidney donation? Talk about giving up control. The donor doesn't even decide where the kidney goes, nor do they dictate what the person goes on to do with their life. And yeah, giving up an organ is a real sacrifice.
And this, I think, is what appears to have really upset Dorland. Sure, she feels bullied, but from the original article:
"But to Dorland, this was more than just material. She’d become a public voice in the campaign for live-organ donation, and she felt some responsibility for representing the subject in just the right way. The potential for saving lives, after all, matters more than any story. "
I believe Dorland when she says she genuinely cares about kidney donation. And it sounds like the donor character in "The Kindest" is a bit of 2D villain. Given what fuzzy.little.socks says above about this being such a life changing experience, I can see why it would be truly upsetting to her that her own advocacy had sparked such an off-based portrayal of donation. Has the extent to her response been a bit unhinged? Yes. Does she seem like someone I'd want to be friends with? No. But I have way more empathy for her than I do with Larson on this.
Finally, since some people sound hung up the $425 for the story, sure, that's nothing, but plenty of professions make money off of publications via speaking-fees/teaching/fellowships/grants/etc. So I'd say that's besides the point a bit here.
posted by coffeecat at 11:31 AM on October 7, 2021 [19 favorites]
Right and look what Dorland's side was willing to settle for: " In July, Dorland’s lawyer suggested settling with the book festival for $5,000 (plus an attribution at the bottom of the story, or perhaps a referral link to a kidney-donor site). "
Emphasis mine.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:34 AM on October 7, 2021 [15 favorites]
Emphasis mine.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:34 AM on October 7, 2021 [15 favorites]
Wow, I don't know how I missed that essential line, as PhoBWanKenobi pointed out:
"In July, Dorland’s lawyer suggested settling with the book festival for $5,000 (plus an attribution at the bottom of the story, or perhaps a referral link to a kidney-donor site)."
I've got strong opinions on this matter (obviously) and even so I still find myself doing a little back-and-forth in my own mind as I read through everyone's great commentary, but wow, that quote really locks down for me that Dorland deserves lots of sympathy. Plenty of bad behavior all around, but even after the lawyers got involved one woman was willing to settle for greater awareness for organ donation while the other woman was continually gaslighting about plagiarism.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 11:51 AM on October 7, 2021 [19 favorites]
"In July, Dorland’s lawyer suggested settling with the book festival for $5,000 (plus an attribution at the bottom of the story, or perhaps a referral link to a kidney-donor site)."
I've got strong opinions on this matter (obviously) and even so I still find myself doing a little back-and-forth in my own mind as I read through everyone's great commentary, but wow, that quote really locks down for me that Dorland deserves lots of sympathy. Plenty of bad behavior all around, but even after the lawyers got involved one woman was willing to settle for greater awareness for organ donation while the other woman was continually gaslighting about plagiarism.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 11:51 AM on October 7, 2021 [19 favorites]
...I'm pretty sure that demanding $5000 from the book festival was not "settling for greater awareness for organ donation". That was proposed in addition and only as an alternate for textual credit.
posted by tavella at 12:10 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by tavella at 12:10 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
$5,000 strikes me as a pretty low settlement given the circumstances?
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:21 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:21 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Telling a WOC to try to not read a situation through a race lens is not OK. Particularly when discussing a story about a WOC.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:34 PM on October 7, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 12:34 PM on October 7, 2021 [18 favorites]
I notice from Larson's website that her next novel will be about park rangers who are people of color, and that she is looking to interview park rangers of color as background.
I wonder who will want to do that?
posted by Miko at 12:54 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I wonder who will want to do that?
posted by Miko at 12:54 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm back. I went to Larson's website. She includes three links to explain what she was trying to do with this story:
1) a video discussion about how race factors into the story
2) a video about violence against Asian Americans
3) a video about addiction and addictive behavior
I 100% agree that she should not have gaslit Dorland. She should not have plagiarized Dorland's letter verbatim. She should not have explicitly made the donor character an anonymous donor. She could have changed these things and still, probably, have told the story that she wanted to tell, as exemplified by the three links she posted.
She didn't. That sucks. I agree.
But now that Dorland has finally succeeded in browbeating a journalist to write about this story after three years of begging for more attention, not only has Dorland opened the door to people having a negative reaction to her behavior, but she is once again attempting to slander someone else's career because of her hurt feelings about not getting enough praise for her donation.
I grew up in a household where I experienced extreme trauma. I understand Dorland's impulse to look for validation; when trauma happens to a child and is not acknowledged or treated god yes, you want to find validation EVERYWHERE that you are a good person. That you didn't deserve what happened to you. I just asked a question in AskMe that is in part about my tendency to do this.
But it's not healthy behavior. When I do it, it actively crosses people's boundaries and has a negative effect on my interpersonal relationships. Dorland is not aware of her behavior having this effect on people. I want her to get therapy, I want her to find peace, I don't wish ill on her, and unlike some awful people on Twitter I have no desire to mock her for identifying as a writer without managing to get published anywhere. This is a hard world to break into.
I believe Dorland when she talks about her trauma. I believe her when she says she cares about organ donation. I believe that doing the donation was a transformative experience in her life.
I do not think that her response to Larson's story is appropriate, or proportional, or even sensical.
I also believe Larson. She says she wrote this story using the lens of race, specifically Asian Americans. There is an uptick in violence against East Asian Americans right now in this country because of COVID crazies. There is always violence happening to black people in this country. There is always violence happening against middle-eastern and brown-skinned Asians whenever something related to Iraq, Afghanistan, or 9/11 comes up again in the news cycle. I am a brown skinned Asian American. I think about this stuff A LOT. CONSTANTLY. EVERY DAMN DAY.
I believe Dorland. I believe Larson. Both can be true. But I can also say that I believe Dorland escalated this in a way that feels very strange, and the fact that she's been pitching this story for years to news outlets does not make her side of the story look great.
Lastly, I believe my friend, the one I wrote about who had the liver transplant, who often literally wonders if it would have been easier just to enter hospice and die in relative comfort than be in the kind of pain she is in every day due to her body's refusal to accept her donated organ. Organ transplantation is complicated. I want to hear from the guy who got Dorland's kidney. How is he doing? How does he feel about this? I want to know this because I watch my friend suffer every day due to something that quite literally saved her life. And so, to see Dorland trying desperately to win acclaim for her actions feels very distasteful to me.
That's it. Thanks for hearing me out.
posted by nayantara at 12:58 PM on October 7, 2021 [49 favorites]
1) a video discussion about how race factors into the story
2) a video about violence against Asian Americans
3) a video about addiction and addictive behavior
I 100% agree that she should not have gaslit Dorland. She should not have plagiarized Dorland's letter verbatim. She should not have explicitly made the donor character an anonymous donor. She could have changed these things and still, probably, have told the story that she wanted to tell, as exemplified by the three links she posted.
She didn't. That sucks. I agree.
But now that Dorland has finally succeeded in browbeating a journalist to write about this story after three years of begging for more attention, not only has Dorland opened the door to people having a negative reaction to her behavior, but she is once again attempting to slander someone else's career because of her hurt feelings about not getting enough praise for her donation.
I grew up in a household where I experienced extreme trauma. I understand Dorland's impulse to look for validation; when trauma happens to a child and is not acknowledged or treated god yes, you want to find validation EVERYWHERE that you are a good person. That you didn't deserve what happened to you. I just asked a question in AskMe that is in part about my tendency to do this.
But it's not healthy behavior. When I do it, it actively crosses people's boundaries and has a negative effect on my interpersonal relationships. Dorland is not aware of her behavior having this effect on people. I want her to get therapy, I want her to find peace, I don't wish ill on her, and unlike some awful people on Twitter I have no desire to mock her for identifying as a writer without managing to get published anywhere. This is a hard world to break into.
I believe Dorland when she talks about her trauma. I believe her when she says she cares about organ donation. I believe that doing the donation was a transformative experience in her life.
I do not think that her response to Larson's story is appropriate, or proportional, or even sensical.
I also believe Larson. She says she wrote this story using the lens of race, specifically Asian Americans. There is an uptick in violence against East Asian Americans right now in this country because of COVID crazies. There is always violence happening to black people in this country. There is always violence happening against middle-eastern and brown-skinned Asians whenever something related to Iraq, Afghanistan, or 9/11 comes up again in the news cycle. I am a brown skinned Asian American. I think about this stuff A LOT. CONSTANTLY. EVERY DAMN DAY.
I believe Dorland. I believe Larson. Both can be true. But I can also say that I believe Dorland escalated this in a way that feels very strange, and the fact that she's been pitching this story for years to news outlets does not make her side of the story look great.
Lastly, I believe my friend, the one I wrote about who had the liver transplant, who often literally wonders if it would have been easier just to enter hospice and die in relative comfort than be in the kind of pain she is in every day due to her body's refusal to accept her donated organ. Organ transplantation is complicated. I want to hear from the guy who got Dorland's kidney. How is he doing? How does he feel about this? I want to know this because I watch my friend suffer every day due to something that quite literally saved her life. And so, to see Dorland trying desperately to win acclaim for her actions feels very distasteful to me.
That's it. Thanks for hearing me out.
posted by nayantara at 12:58 PM on October 7, 2021 [49 favorites]
I notice from Larson's website that her next novel will be about park rangers who are people of color, and that she is looking to interview park rangers of color as background.
I wonder who will want to do that?
Not a park ranger, but I am a WOC. If Larson wanted to interview POC in my profession, I'd run away screaming. I have some thoughts about being a WOC in my industry, but there's no way in hell I'd go through the emotional labor of discussing fraught situations with someone like Larson. She lied so much over such a long period of time that I wouldn't trust her if she told me that the sky was blue. And if Larson had the gall to use Dorland's words about her childhood abuse and trauma in the way that she did, who knows what she'd do with my words about painful situations?
But--as I said above, other people view Larson very differently than I do, and maybe some of them are POC park rangers. Or are park rangers because they prefer being outdoors to reading long-form NYT articles and have no idea about this kerfuffle.
posted by creepygirl at 2:24 PM on October 7, 2021 [22 favorites]
I wonder who will want to do that?
Not a park ranger, but I am a WOC. If Larson wanted to interview POC in my profession, I'd run away screaming. I have some thoughts about being a WOC in my industry, but there's no way in hell I'd go through the emotional labor of discussing fraught situations with someone like Larson. She lied so much over such a long period of time that I wouldn't trust her if she told me that the sky was blue. And if Larson had the gall to use Dorland's words about her childhood abuse and trauma in the way that she did, who knows what she'd do with my words about painful situations?
But--as I said above, other people view Larson very differently than I do, and maybe some of them are POC park rangers. Or are park rangers because they prefer being outdoors to reading long-form NYT articles and have no idea about this kerfuffle.
posted by creepygirl at 2:24 PM on October 7, 2021 [22 favorites]
Larson will have to find park rangers who are people of color first: "Whites account for 79 percent of full-time permanent employees, and 62 percent of all employees are male. Black employees comprise almost 7 percent of the NPS’s permanent full-time workforce, significantly less than the 13.4 percent of African Americans in the national population. Hispanic employees also are underrepresented, making up 5.6 percent of the Park Service general workforce despite accounting for 18.5 percent of the population. Asian Americans encompass about 2.3 percent of employees compared to 5.9 percent of the national population.
"Only Native Americans at 2.5 percent of the workforce exceed their percentage of nationalwide [sic] population, which is 1.3 percent. Beginning with the Kennedy administration just before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, diversifying the workforce has been an NPS objective."-- National Park Service Continues To Grapple With Diversity In Workforce, July 5, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:13 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
"Only Native Americans at 2.5 percent of the workforce exceed their percentage of nationalwide [sic] population, which is 1.3 percent. Beginning with the Kennedy administration just before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, diversifying the workforce has been an NPS objective."-- National Park Service Continues To Grapple With Diversity In Workforce, July 5, 2020
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:13 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
As a neurodivergent woman (long-untreated, predominantly-hyperactive type ADHD), I took a lot of major humiliation and shaming early on that made me grow up to be a hypervigilant masker. As a result, I tend to have two reactions to people like Dorland, in this order:
1. Recognize that they have no clue how much emotional labor their behavior is requiring from others, and take on the responsibility of buffering for them out of empathy; try to help them illuminate and map the blind spots so life will be kinder to them (and they’ll be less unwittingly harmful to others).
2. Realize they’re not willing or able to do that. Gradually begin to resent them for having (apparently) escaped the treatment I endured. Identify some early-life privilege I didn’t have that might have spared them (e.g., male/rich/attractive). Resentment builds as I recognize they’ve been violating my boundaries and hurting/scaring/draining me. Some final straw lands on my back and I…snap.
As a white person, I have to imagine that women of color are tasked with exponentially more emotional labor on behalf of white people of any economic strata, any gender, and any level of neuro(a)typicality.
I like to think my version of “snapping” when I reach my breaking point is less cruel than Larson’s.
I…I like to think it.
The reason both these women scare me is probably that I recognize myself, and my tormentors, in both of them.
posted by armeowda at 4:40 PM on October 7, 2021 [19 favorites]
1. Recognize that they have no clue how much emotional labor their behavior is requiring from others, and take on the responsibility of buffering for them out of empathy; try to help them illuminate and map the blind spots so life will be kinder to them (and they’ll be less unwittingly harmful to others).
2. Realize they’re not willing or able to do that. Gradually begin to resent them for having (apparently) escaped the treatment I endured. Identify some early-life privilege I didn’t have that might have spared them (e.g., male/rich/attractive). Resentment builds as I recognize they’ve been violating my boundaries and hurting/scaring/draining me. Some final straw lands on my back and I…snap.
As a white person, I have to imagine that women of color are tasked with exponentially more emotional labor on behalf of white people of any economic strata, any gender, and any level of neuro(a)typicality.
I like to think my version of “snapping” when I reach my breaking point is less cruel than Larson’s.
I…I like to think it.
The reason both these women scare me is probably that I recognize myself, and my tormentors, in both of them.
posted by armeowda at 4:40 PM on October 7, 2021 [19 favorites]
On my Facebook feed today, a New Yorker cartoon carries on the story.
I felt ashamed that I read the NYTimes magazine story in the first place.
posted by apartment dweller at 4:52 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
I felt ashamed that I read the NYTimes magazine story in the first place.
posted by apartment dweller at 4:52 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Dorland needs hand someone her laptop and phone because she clearly can't stop.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 4:54 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 4:54 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Dorland needs hand someone her laptop and phone because she clearly can't stop.
Okay I have no dog in this fight but even I noticed some of the discrepancies she points out, just because I read the NYT article before the Gawker one. Is she... not supposed to correct them? This is a serious question.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:06 PM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Okay I have no dog in this fight but even I noticed some of the discrepancies she points out, just because I read the NYT article before the Gawker one. Is she... not supposed to correct them? This is a serious question.
posted by oneirodynia at 5:06 PM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
Dorland's corrections seem very reasonable to me. Gawker should have done a better job of fact-checking their posts about her. Instead, they hold her up to ridicule for asking them to make the corrections.
posted by orange swan at 5:10 PM on October 7, 2021 [23 favorites]
posted by orange swan at 5:10 PM on October 7, 2021 [23 favorites]
Assuming Dorland is telling the truth, the corrections she makes are pertinent. And we've seen misstatements even in this thread - especially in regard to who began litigation. Her corrections are totally reasonable as is her tone, but for the people already ridiculing her, this will only make her seem worse.
Poor Dorland. She's so naive she thinks the truth matters.
posted by FencingGal at 5:14 PM on October 7, 2021 [25 favorites]
Poor Dorland. She's so naive she thinks the truth matters.
posted by FencingGal at 5:14 PM on October 7, 2021 [25 favorites]
Every single correction in there seems pretty germane to ensuring that the facts are reported accurately in the story, especially since there is a persistent tendency to claim that Dorland initiated litigation (all over this thread, too!) and that she obsessively stalked Larson's literary presence.
posted by ChrisR at 5:15 PM on October 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by ChrisR at 5:15 PM on October 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
Yeah, honestly, the more I've read this, the more sympathetic to Dorland I've become. I started slightly on that side of the balance sheet, but the way that her own factually described actions and desire for people to represent her truthfully are being held up as further evidence of her flaws has cemented her as the victim in this narrative for me.
posted by ChrisR at 5:16 PM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
posted by ChrisR at 5:16 PM on October 7, 2021 [26 favorites]
How is not dropping this good for Dorland? How is emailing a gossipy website to correct two flippant posts going to make things right?
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 5:19 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 5:19 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Meh.
I'm with gawker now. Not on their allegiance to Dorland or Larson, but their attitude toward the investment of any more attention to the experience.
"If you’re unfamiliar with the story, I might recommend that you find something better to do with your time rather than get sucked into this black hole of mid-level literary beef and all its accompanying commentary." Vogue was right. A ceramics class is more relevant.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:20 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm with gawker now. Not on their allegiance to Dorland or Larson, but their attitude toward the investment of any more attention to the experience.
"If you’re unfamiliar with the story, I might recommend that you find something better to do with your time rather than get sucked into this black hole of mid-level literary beef and all its accompanying commentary." Vogue was right. A ceramics class is more relevant.
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:20 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Dawn Dorland reached out to Gawker and requested extensive corrections to the post"
Her lawyer ought to have done this, not Dorland herself, and much more concisely.
And Dorland closes the message, which I will bold in part:
My private/secret Facebook group was, ultimately, a place where I shared private medical information with a group of people whom I thought I could trust. It was also the only place I shared my letter to the recipient at the end of my donation chain, the copyright of which is at the center of this dispute.
Thanks again, everyone, for considering these corrections and context. Let me know if you have any questions at all.
Kindly,
Dawn Dorland, MTS, MFA
Los Angeles
I check email once daily at noon.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:32 PM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Her lawyer ought to have done this, not Dorland herself, and much more concisely.
And Dorland closes the message, which I will bold in part:
My private/secret Facebook group was, ultimately, a place where I shared private medical information with a group of people whom I thought I could trust. It was also the only place I shared my letter to the recipient at the end of my donation chain, the copyright of which is at the center of this dispute.
Thanks again, everyone, for considering these corrections and context. Let me know if you have any questions at all.
Kindly,
Dawn Dorland, MTS, MFA
Los Angeles
I check email once daily at noon.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:32 PM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
There were only 24ish people in the group?
Eesh. Above it was compared to being put in a group for an MLM, but this is much smaller. If I imagine being put into a tiny group like that by a coworker/acquaintance from a few years back, I can see how awkward it would be. It's a laudable thing that's happening! But it's entirely too intimate information and there's no gracious way to back out, you are trapped, you do not want to be the one person to say "I am not interested in taking on this particular emotional baggage."
Still. Probably better just to hit the like button a few times for courtesy's sake. (And yes 100 percent do not reuse the words from within.)
posted by rewil at 5:33 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
Eesh. Above it was compared to being put in a group for an MLM, but this is much smaller. If I imagine being put into a tiny group like that by a coworker/acquaintance from a few years back, I can see how awkward it would be. It's a laudable thing that's happening! But it's entirely too intimate information and there's no gracious way to back out, you are trapped, you do not want to be the one person to say "I am not interested in taking on this particular emotional baggage."
Still. Probably better just to hit the like button a few times for courtesy's sake. (And yes 100 percent do not reuse the words from within.)
posted by rewil at 5:33 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
Apparently it's a little too interesting.
This piece by the Atlantic, in the same fashion as Metafilter, has subtext at the bottom..
"In that sense, Dawn Dorland could be the patron saint of this god-awful, morally incomprehensible social-media age. Which isn’t to say this last portrait is an icon. It’s really more of a mirror.
This piece originally stated that Dorland sued Larson. In fact, she filed a counterclaim in response to a lawsuit filed by Larson.*"
The way it seems the story spread culturally, had been with people slamming Dorland (I also had been super skeptical), then picking up facts to realize or ask, "wait?"
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:55 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
This piece by the Atlantic, in the same fashion as Metafilter, has subtext at the bottom..
"In that sense, Dawn Dorland could be the patron saint of this god-awful, morally incomprehensible social-media age. Which isn’t to say this last portrait is an icon. It’s really more of a mirror.
This piece originally stated that Dorland sued Larson. In fact, she filed a counterclaim in response to a lawsuit filed by Larson.*"
The way it seems the story spread culturally, had been with people slamming Dorland (I also had been super skeptical), then picking up facts to realize or ask, "wait?"
posted by firstdaffodils at 5:55 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Team Dorland all the way. Having hundreds of texts disparaging a colleague in a group chat full of influential people isn't just about venting, it's about trying to get someone fired. This would be so clear if they all worked together as coworkers, at a regular people job. But noo, they're writers, so there's all this mystique around Art.
posted by coffeeand at 6:05 PM on October 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by coffeeand at 6:05 PM on October 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
Maybe a good analogy would be Jerry Lewis and the MDA telethon? Everyone who was watching TV before 2010 remembers those shows around Labor Day with a tearful Jerry Lewis and the "You'll Never Walk Alone" and the guest stars and the reaction shots of the crowd when another poster child took the stage, but the attention was really on Jerry Lewis and how moved he was by "Jerry's Kids" and that's really not at all where the attention should have been, right?
Oh, wow. No. I think that's a huge misunderstanding of how media works.
I don't think that was about getting everyone to pay attention to how great Jerry Lewis was. That was Jerry Lewis modeling giving a damn about kids that previously most people did not care much about.
The laugh track on a sitcom isn't there for you to admire how well the studio audience laughs. It's there to prompt you to laugh along with them, to be amused by what they think is funny. The camera zooms in on Jerry's tears in the hopes that it will help prompt you to feel something for those kids yourself.
posted by straight at 6:58 PM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Oh, wow. No. I think that's a huge misunderstanding of how media works.
I don't think that was about getting everyone to pay attention to how great Jerry Lewis was. That was Jerry Lewis modeling giving a damn about kids that previously most people did not care much about.
The laugh track on a sitcom isn't there for you to admire how well the studio audience laughs. It's there to prompt you to laugh along with them, to be amused by what they think is funny. The camera zooms in on Jerry's tears in the hopes that it will help prompt you to feel something for those kids yourself.
posted by straight at 6:58 PM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Does anyone know where?
From this 2015 release,
Dawn’s fiction appears in Green Mountains Review online, The Drum Literary Magazine, and is collected in Paragraph; her essays are available on the GrubStreet blog.
I could be wrong, but those sound fairly minimal?
Anyhow, the fact that the group was so small also seems to take out some of the steam of the "man, she's so needy for validation!" argument. I get she eventually had a public FB post, but it would appear even Dorland had the sense to keep her neediness contained to an inner-circle (which is what an inner-circle is for, ideally?), she just didn't have the sense to know who was actually a close friend. I do think the NYTimes article was a bit misleading there - I had the impression the FB group was much larger.
posted by coffeecat at 6:59 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
From this 2015 release,
Dawn’s fiction appears in Green Mountains Review online, The Drum Literary Magazine, and is collected in Paragraph; her essays are available on the GrubStreet blog.
I could be wrong, but those sound fairly minimal?
Anyhow, the fact that the group was so small also seems to take out some of the steam of the "man, she's so needy for validation!" argument. I get she eventually had a public FB post, but it would appear even Dorland had the sense to keep her neediness contained to an inner-circle (which is what an inner-circle is for, ideally?), she just didn't have the sense to know who was actually a close friend. I do think the NYTimes article was a bit misleading there - I had the impression the FB group was much larger.
posted by coffeecat at 6:59 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Mod note: firstdaffodils, you've made four times as many comments in this thread as anybody else. Please take a step back.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 7:08 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 7:08 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's not about her because it makes her look worse?
Because it's fiction, not nonfiction about Dorland?
Possibly the most disturbing thing about this discussion for me is how many people apparently have only one hermeneutic to bring to a text, regardless of what that text may be. This really gets to be a problem when issues of justice hinge on interpretation.
tangible proof that the hurt happened is invaluable.
Really? You think it's better for her to have read people who didn't like her mocking/judging her? It's clearly only fed her spiral. I'm not sure she's ever going to get better. Now she has even more strong feelings to try to inappropriately extract validation for from an even broader audience. This is why I blame her lawyer, a lot. Getting the plagiarized lines changed...fixes the actual harm. Unpacking that social situation...only aggravates everything and has your client looking for remedies that the courts simply can't award. (I don't have every detail to be certain, but as the letter, while copyrighted, almost certainly wasn't registered, Dormond would be entitled only to actual damages, and it's hard to imagine those exceeding the entire $450.)
It's not a question of being on one "team" or another, which is a weird way to look at life as opposed to genre TV. Larsen did something clearly wrong in lifting those lines. She did something more questionable in talking about Dormond in chat. (Some of this conversation seems to be taking the approach that one person's experience of harm is the only determinant of the justice of an action, which is I think one of the big errors modern social justice folk can fall into, but that's probably too big a tangent for here.) Dormond did something genuinely wonderful in donating a kidney. She did a lot of other super-socially-awkward things around that which were, at their outer limit, verging on harmful to others, albeit unintentionally. Her lack of skills and apparently unprocessed trauma then actually made the resulting conflict worse and prolonged it. The conflict inevitably took on a racial inflection due to Larsen's and Dormond's identities. It's like the worst possible synergy.
(For people demonstrating their own charity and broadmindedness by making assumptions about others' social experiences in this thread, I had an abusive, gaslighting relative who I ended up going effectively no-contact with. I was also a social outcast as a kid, in part because I was hugely socially inept. In life, I've been Dormond lite way more often than I've been a Larsen. But even as a social outcast, you can have the experience of needy people latching onto you inappropriately, enough to want to figure out how to avoid reproducing the dynamic yourself.)
posted by praemunire at 7:22 PM on October 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
Because it's fiction, not nonfiction about Dorland?
Possibly the most disturbing thing about this discussion for me is how many people apparently have only one hermeneutic to bring to a text, regardless of what that text may be. This really gets to be a problem when issues of justice hinge on interpretation.
tangible proof that the hurt happened is invaluable.
Really? You think it's better for her to have read people who didn't like her mocking/judging her? It's clearly only fed her spiral. I'm not sure she's ever going to get better. Now she has even more strong feelings to try to inappropriately extract validation for from an even broader audience. This is why I blame her lawyer, a lot. Getting the plagiarized lines changed...fixes the actual harm. Unpacking that social situation...only aggravates everything and has your client looking for remedies that the courts simply can't award. (I don't have every detail to be certain, but as the letter, while copyrighted, almost certainly wasn't registered, Dormond would be entitled only to actual damages, and it's hard to imagine those exceeding the entire $450.)
It's not a question of being on one "team" or another, which is a weird way to look at life as opposed to genre TV. Larsen did something clearly wrong in lifting those lines. She did something more questionable in talking about Dormond in chat. (Some of this conversation seems to be taking the approach that one person's experience of harm is the only determinant of the justice of an action, which is I think one of the big errors modern social justice folk can fall into, but that's probably too big a tangent for here.) Dormond did something genuinely wonderful in donating a kidney. She did a lot of other super-socially-awkward things around that which were, at their outer limit, verging on harmful to others, albeit unintentionally. Her lack of skills and apparently unprocessed trauma then actually made the resulting conflict worse and prolonged it. The conflict inevitably took on a racial inflection due to Larsen's and Dormond's identities. It's like the worst possible synergy.
(For people demonstrating their own charity and broadmindedness by making assumptions about others' social experiences in this thread, I had an abusive, gaslighting relative who I ended up going effectively no-contact with. I was also a social outcast as a kid, in part because I was hugely socially inept. In life, I've been Dormond lite way more often than I've been a Larsen. But even as a social outcast, you can have the experience of needy people latching onto you inappropriately, enough to want to figure out how to avoid reproducing the dynamic yourself.)
posted by praemunire at 7:22 PM on October 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
I take your point, but when a coworker or acquaintance from a few years back emails you, do you ask them "How have you been, my dear?", or do you respond with something less familiar which might signal to them that you don't particularly consider them a friend?
I don't think that initial response is particularly familiar? It sounds like common courtesy you might get from a diner waitress you see every month or so.
There must be something like an ask/guess culture divide at work, here.
Likewise, all we know about the email is the fact that there was an email. We don't know about the contents, whether perfectly innocuous or desperately needy, and what people are taking away from it probably says more about the craftsmanship of the reporter than whether the reader is inherently moral.
Gawker is right, it's best to go away at this point, I'm out.
posted by rewil at 7:27 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
rewil, it's about timing. Dorland reached out to mere-acquaintance Larson ultimately to inquire about Larson's lack of emotional tribute to Dorland's good deed. The kind of person who reaches out to someone who is basically a rando because they want attention tends to make themselves pretty transparent. It's obvious when the initial lead-in, even if it's innocuous, is just window dressing. Dorland either doesn't know or doesn't care that most people she'd interact with are astute enough to catch on.
Ultimately, most people don't really want to entertain someone coming out of the woodwork looking for a pat on the back.
posted by blerghamot at 7:38 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Ultimately, most people don't really want to entertain someone coming out of the woodwork looking for a pat on the back.
posted by blerghamot at 7:38 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
If her donor or their family (presumably the donor had passed away) was crowing all over the place about the wonderful selfless thing they did, on social media, going to parades, and demanding to know why no one was praising them enough, she would be livid.
Is this something she's told you? I don't understand that reaction in any way.
posted by bashing rocks together at 7:53 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Is this something she's told you? I don't understand that reaction in any way.
posted by bashing rocks together at 7:53 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Okay, doing some thinking and the person who comes off worst in this is Ng. Poor Larson. It's giving me a very vivid picture of how racist the publishing industry must be that Larson is required to vie for the approval of such a person to survive.
posted by coffeeand at 8:35 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeeand at 8:35 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
miko, thanks for the link to the book on Melville's sources and to that website offering out-of-print books pertaining to the sea.
posted by Orlop at 8:44 PM on October 7, 2021
posted by Orlop at 8:44 PM on October 7, 2021
Without meaning to derail the thread, I would like to say that if you're praising the Jerry Lewis telethons, you should probably read up on what the disabled people who were part of those shows as children have to say about it.
I'm not sure what to say about the idea of "Jerry's tears" leading to anything good, beyond "listen to disabled people" which tends to lead to "no".
posted by Lexica at 8:45 PM on October 7, 2021 [15 favorites]
I'm not sure what to say about the idea of "Jerry's tears" leading to anything good, beyond "listen to disabled people" which tends to lead to "no".
posted by Lexica at 8:45 PM on October 7, 2021 [15 favorites]
Just, um, dropping this here as well. https://twitter.com/aerielist/status/1445946041673605122
posted by coffeeand at 9:20 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by coffeeand at 9:20 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
TL/DR:
Doing something good — even something extraordinarily good — doesn’t make you a good person. Being subjected to a socially needy narcissist does not mean it’s okay to lie to or steal from them. Even if (especially if?) you’re “only” stealing their words.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:33 PM on October 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
Doing something good — even something extraordinarily good — doesn’t make you a good person. Being subjected to a socially needy narcissist does not mean it’s okay to lie to or steal from them. Even if (especially if?) you’re “only” stealing their words.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 9:33 PM on October 7, 2021 [13 favorites]
Not to comment again and point (narcissistically) at my own comment (lol) but the picture in that tweet tells me everything I need to know. Larson and Dorland are both being disposed of by people with far, far more social capital than both of them put together.
posted by coffeeand at 10:30 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by coffeeand at 10:30 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Gawker is right, it's best to go away at this point
Uh, Gawker has published 3 aggressively-biased articles on this kerfuffle in 5 days, despite doing no work whatsoever toward advancing the story. They're blatantly carrying water for Celeste Ng -- helping to distract everyone from Ng's documented viciousness here -- while refusing to acknowledge their own very real errors that Dorland pointed out in her letter to them.
Fuck Gawker and their hypocritical shilling for the worst-behaving person in this whole story.
posted by msalt at 11:06 PM on October 7, 2021 [22 favorites]
Uh, Gawker has published 3 aggressively-biased articles on this kerfuffle in 5 days, despite doing no work whatsoever toward advancing the story. They're blatantly carrying water for Celeste Ng -- helping to distract everyone from Ng's documented viciousness here -- while refusing to acknowledge their own very real errors that Dorland pointed out in her letter to them.
Fuck Gawker and their hypocritical shilling for the worst-behaving person in this whole story.
posted by msalt at 11:06 PM on October 7, 2021 [22 favorites]
I'm writing this up as a short story where I didn't read the article or most of the comments and dropped a hot take here -- I'm sure it's the story of our age where commenters' opinions are foremost over the drama of a we-could-share-more communal archetype vs will-exploit-common-resources-for-profit archetype. My lords, ladies and gentlemen, tonight I shall be your Idiot.
posted by k3ninho at 2:10 AM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by k3ninho at 2:10 AM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Fuck Gawker and their hypocritical shilling for the worst-behaving person in this whole story.
As a huge fan of old Gawker who always felt like old Gawker did some incredibly questionable things and had some incredibly questionable takes, I have (problematically) gotten really excited every time new Gawker posts something wild or contrarian or bafflingly thoughtless. Gawker's back, baby
posted by rorgy at 5:36 AM on October 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
As a huge fan of old Gawker who always felt like old Gawker did some incredibly questionable things and had some incredibly questionable takes, I have (problematically) gotten really excited every time new Gawker posts something wild or contrarian or bafflingly thoughtless. Gawker's back, baby
posted by rorgy at 5:36 AM on October 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
I don't think that initial response is particularly familiar? It sounds like common courtesy you might get from a diner waitress you see every month or so.
"My dear" is not how you address someone who is needy and who you want to back away from. I could see a waitress calling me dear, but that "my" makes a difference. I have a friend who uses an endearment like that when I'm dealing with bad news - it's a clear signal that she cares about me. It no longer seems odd to me that Dorland thought they were really friends. Larson encouraged her to think that.
I've changed from "everybody sucks" to thinking Dorland is the better person here. Dorland's corrections on Gawker contributed to that - she wanted mediation and Larson decided to sue. And some of the screenshots of the chat on Twitter are just awful. These aren't just people being catty, which I agree almost everyone does (but really - don't do it online). They are plotting to ruin someone for objecting to having her words plagiarized by a member of their in-group.
posted by FencingGal at 6:10 AM on October 8, 2021 [18 favorites]
"My dear" is not how you address someone who is needy and who you want to back away from. I could see a waitress calling me dear, but that "my" makes a difference. I have a friend who uses an endearment like that when I'm dealing with bad news - it's a clear signal that she cares about me. It no longer seems odd to me that Dorland thought they were really friends. Larson encouraged her to think that.
I've changed from "everybody sucks" to thinking Dorland is the better person here. Dorland's corrections on Gawker contributed to that - she wanted mediation and Larson decided to sue. And some of the screenshots of the chat on Twitter are just awful. These aren't just people being catty, which I agree almost everyone does (but really - don't do it online). They are plotting to ruin someone for objecting to having her words plagiarized by a member of their in-group.
posted by FencingGal at 6:10 AM on October 8, 2021 [18 favorites]
A bit more about what I've seen of writers talking about putting people they hate into their fiction-- it's usually not just to mock the target, it's to write about very bad things happening to them.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:42 AM on October 8, 2021
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:42 AM on October 8, 2021
My gut reactions here are identical to Frowner’s (sounds like we had the same childhood!). I don’t know how much use these gut reactions are as a moral compass, really, but I guess that’s where we all start.
I know of basically two little lifeboats for dealing with social anxiety. One is to find some way you can be of practical use to others. The other is to remind yourself, repeatedly, that most people are not talking about you behind your back, because most people don’t actually care about you enough to want to hurt you. Dorland’s experience here feels like a nightmare scenario to me in part because it’s like these two lifeboats crashed into each other in such a spectacular way.
I’ve sometimes sorta thoughtlessly described a feeling of gratitude for someone by saying, I’d give that guy a kidney. I won’t do that anymore — I realize from reading stories here how much that really trivializes the gift.
I also think we should remember that there are three writers here. TFA feels a bit like an Inception of profiting from others’ pain.
posted by eirias at 7:36 AM on October 8, 2021 [21 favorites]
I know of basically two little lifeboats for dealing with social anxiety. One is to find some way you can be of practical use to others. The other is to remind yourself, repeatedly, that most people are not talking about you behind your back, because most people don’t actually care about you enough to want to hurt you. Dorland’s experience here feels like a nightmare scenario to me in part because it’s like these two lifeboats crashed into each other in such a spectacular way.
I’ve sometimes sorta thoughtlessly described a feeling of gratitude for someone by saying, I’d give that guy a kidney. I won’t do that anymore — I realize from reading stories here how much that really trivializes the gift.
I also think we should remember that there are three writers here. TFA feels a bit like an Inception of profiting from others’ pain.
posted by eirias at 7:36 AM on October 8, 2021 [21 favorites]
Dorland's corrections to Gawker open a new question for me, as a non-FB Groups administrator. She said that the Group admin dashboard showed that Larson was consuming the content without interacting, and I guess I'd like to know more about that dashboard, because that makes Larson seem a little more sketchy and Dorland seem a lot less needy. It seems a lot more normal to ask someone what's going on when they're voraciously reading your posts but otherwise avoiding contact. The whole narrative here is that Dorland is somebody who needs acknowledgement. The Green is filled with questions of people whose friends have read texts/emails/etc. but not responded, and the usual advice is to reach out to the ghost-friend to see what's going on. If that's all Dorland did, she suddenly seems a lot more reasonable, and Larson seems a lot more unreasonable than she already did.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:11 AM on October 8, 2021 [17 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 8:11 AM on October 8, 2021 [17 favorites]
@moorehn on Twitter has a really good take on this issue, complete with receipts.
I'm coming around to the viewpoint that Larson is much more at fault here than Dorland, though initially I weighted them both more or less equally. Larson comes across as genuinely vicious, abusive, manipulative, and as someone who will tell whatever lies she has to in order to get what she wants. Ugh.
I'm realizing more and more that this is whole brou-ha-ha an eye-opener in where the lines are in drawing on other people's experience when writing. I get that writers can feel an idea is just too good to change. I've felt exactly that way. I'm working on a novel for which I wanted to name the main character Jean and have her change her name to Jeannie. But I had reasons why I believed I should change the name -- one of which was plagiarism, and the other was that I have an Aunt Jean whom I don't at all care to insult (my character is, um, literally a witch). It was really, really hard to let go of that name because it felt so perfect and right for my character -- she just was Jeannie -- and I couldn't think of another name pairing that was as good. But I did it. I even posted an AskMe thread asking for help in coming up with another ugly birth name/nice derivative name combo. First I thought I'd compromise by shifting to Eugenie/Jeannie, but then decided I really need to completely change it. Eventually I came up with the names Rubetta/Ruby, and I actually am really happy with it and have had some fun playing on the name a little in the novel.
Sometimes you need to kill your darlings because there are larger considerations at play, and I think "not savaging someone else's life experience" is one of them. Yes, an idea can feel too good to let go, but if you put in the work, you can come up with something as good or even better. It is fiction, after all. You're making that shit up. Nothing is set in stone, and any and all changes are possible.
posted by orange swan at 9:09 AM on October 8, 2021 [23 favorites]
I'm coming around to the viewpoint that Larson is much more at fault here than Dorland, though initially I weighted them both more or less equally. Larson comes across as genuinely vicious, abusive, manipulative, and as someone who will tell whatever lies she has to in order to get what she wants. Ugh.
I'm realizing more and more that this is whole brou-ha-ha an eye-opener in where the lines are in drawing on other people's experience when writing. I get that writers can feel an idea is just too good to change. I've felt exactly that way. I'm working on a novel for which I wanted to name the main character Jean and have her change her name to Jeannie. But I had reasons why I believed I should change the name -- one of which was plagiarism, and the other was that I have an Aunt Jean whom I don't at all care to insult (my character is, um, literally a witch). It was really, really hard to let go of that name because it felt so perfect and right for my character -- she just was Jeannie -- and I couldn't think of another name pairing that was as good. But I did it. I even posted an AskMe thread asking for help in coming up with another ugly birth name/nice derivative name combo. First I thought I'd compromise by shifting to Eugenie/Jeannie, but then decided I really need to completely change it. Eventually I came up with the names Rubetta/Ruby, and I actually am really happy with it and have had some fun playing on the name a little in the novel.
Sometimes you need to kill your darlings because there are larger considerations at play, and I think "not savaging someone else's life experience" is one of them. Yes, an idea can feel too good to let go, but if you put in the work, you can come up with something as good or even better. It is fiction, after all. You're making that shit up. Nothing is set in stone, and any and all changes are possible.
posted by orange swan at 9:09 AM on October 8, 2021 [23 favorites]
That is some thread.
It reminds me of when an activist project that I was part of broke apart. There was a lot going on with that dissolution, although in the grand scheme of things I was on the wrong side and it was truly one of the big learning experiences of my adulthood.
But both "sides" developed really unhealthy and mean dynamics around villifying the others (I saw it among my side and some of their emails came to light due to a forwarding error). It felt giddy and exciting and justified and funny in the moment and it was really ugly and messed up and left a very bad taste in my mouth. Secret conversations among a loosely linked group that revolve around how someone is just the Worst in every way are, I dunno, the ultraprocessed junk food of conversation - hard to limit, easy to overdo, make you feel a lot of malaise, better not to start.
posted by Frowner at 9:44 AM on October 8, 2021 [19 favorites]
It reminds me of when an activist project that I was part of broke apart. There was a lot going on with that dissolution, although in the grand scheme of things I was on the wrong side and it was truly one of the big learning experiences of my adulthood.
But both "sides" developed really unhealthy and mean dynamics around villifying the others (I saw it among my side and some of their emails came to light due to a forwarding error). It felt giddy and exciting and justified and funny in the moment and it was really ugly and messed up and left a very bad taste in my mouth. Secret conversations among a loosely linked group that revolve around how someone is just the Worst in every way are, I dunno, the ultraprocessed junk food of conversation - hard to limit, easy to overdo, make you feel a lot of malaise, better not to start.
posted by Frowner at 9:44 AM on October 8, 2021 [19 favorites]
What I find myself thinking about: we live in an age of ethics and of increasing insistence on standards of reciprocity and non-appropriation. This is in the process of deeply transforming my own field of cultural heritage, as it is transforming journalism, as it is transforming public service, as it is transforming social services.
Writers (and I suppose other artists, but writers especially) have long insisted on the need for their own freedom to use content that becomes accessible to them through living in their artistic work, without much expectation of ethical review. They have been able to pull the supposed supreme value of art creation over any ethical considerations of their content production. Is that value worthy of such exclusion from ethical concerns about impact on others? As someone from a family of writers, I've spent my life around the gleeful jokes about writers as "vampires" and the likes of "be careful what you say around her, you'll end up in her next piece...." Maybe it's time for emerging standards of reciprocity to be taken a little more seriously in writing, as well.
posted by Miko at 9:46 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
Writers (and I suppose other artists, but writers especially) have long insisted on the need for their own freedom to use content that becomes accessible to them through living in their artistic work, without much expectation of ethical review. They have been able to pull the supposed supreme value of art creation over any ethical considerations of their content production. Is that value worthy of such exclusion from ethical concerns about impact on others? As someone from a family of writers, I've spent my life around the gleeful jokes about writers as "vampires" and the likes of "be careful what you say around her, you'll end up in her next piece...." Maybe it's time for emerging standards of reciprocity to be taken a little more seriously in writing, as well.
posted by Miko at 9:46 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
That is REALLY some thread.
If you do nothing else, check out this further commentary by Dan Nguyen and in particular this screenshot from the thread, which is chilling in its off-hand mockery and derision.
Every additional detail I read about this case just reveals even more of the sheer malevolence of Sonya Larson.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 10:00 AM on October 8, 2021 [20 favorites]
If you do nothing else, check out this further commentary by Dan Nguyen and in particular this screenshot from the thread, which is chilling in its off-hand mockery and derision.
Every additional detail I read about this case just reveals even more of the sheer malevolence of Sonya Larson.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 10:00 AM on October 8, 2021 [20 favorites]
Here's the quick summary on Dan Nguyen's twitter thread:
-- Dorland suggested mediation/arbitration through a low-cost artist's dispute resolution service. In response, Larson sued -- and was thus obligated to volunteer the group chats. Dorland never subpoenaed them.
-- DD's private FB group was around 36 people, and Larson said she remembered joining it (in an email response to DD, who had sent her a message checking in to make sure she wanted to be in it)
-- Sonya told DD that she hadn't mentioned her story in progress to anyone -- when she had already recorded an audiobook of it and was already trying to re-record the plagiarized lines.
-- DD ignored the audible story, though she heard about it. A year later (June 2017) American Best Short Stories accepts it, Larson & friend are chatting "Do you think Dawn will come after me when she finds out about it? I will FIGHT BACK" (caps hers)
-- In same convo she decides to change the title to The Kindest -- pushing back against her publisher -- LOLing as her friend says "I like The Kindest only because it reminds me of Dawn's email signature."
Sonya Larson & Celeste Ng weren't just gaslighting Dawn Dorland through this piece, they're gaslighting all of us as they continue to trash DD.
posted by msalt at 10:38 AM on October 8, 2021 [36 favorites]
-- Dorland suggested mediation/arbitration through a low-cost artist's dispute resolution service. In response, Larson sued -- and was thus obligated to volunteer the group chats. Dorland never subpoenaed them.
-- DD's private FB group was around 36 people, and Larson said she remembered joining it (in an email response to DD, who had sent her a message checking in to make sure she wanted to be in it)
-- Sonya told DD that she hadn't mentioned her story in progress to anyone -- when she had already recorded an audiobook of it and was already trying to re-record the plagiarized lines.
-- DD ignored the audible story, though she heard about it. A year later (June 2017) American Best Short Stories accepts it, Larson & friend are chatting "Do you think Dawn will come after me when she finds out about it? I will FIGHT BACK" (caps hers)
-- In same convo she decides to change the title to The Kindest -- pushing back against her publisher -- LOLing as her friend says "I like The Kindest only because it reminds me of Dawn's email signature."
Sonya Larson & Celeste Ng weren't just gaslighting Dawn Dorland through this piece, they're gaslighting all of us as they continue to trash DD.
posted by msalt at 10:38 AM on October 8, 2021 [36 favorites]
I think it's really been revealed that Larson is just an awful person, but I can't help but picturing a very successful Larson ten years from now being interviewed by the New Yorker and talking about how it was a very tough time, but she learned a lot, mostly about herself.
posted by FencingGal at 10:44 AM on October 8, 2021 [33 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 10:44 AM on October 8, 2021 [33 favorites]
I'm more interested in how this story is written. The closest I can think of off hand that involved men is the Peter Nygard story, which is of course much more egregious.
I'm trying to figure out if I'm impressed with the coverage - the amount of space given to a dispute between two writers who are also women - or if it was written in a way that disempowers them where most story of male conflict are more clash-of-titans.
I can't imagine pitching a story of friend drama to the NYT, even if lawsuits were involved.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:59 AM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm trying to figure out if I'm impressed with the coverage - the amount of space given to a dispute between two writers who are also women - or if it was written in a way that disempowers them where most story of male conflict are more clash-of-titans.
I can't imagine pitching a story of friend drama to the NYT, even if lawsuits were involved.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:59 AM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
This story is making me paranoid about my real life relationships.
posted by bq at 11:43 AM on October 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by bq at 11:43 AM on October 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
To quote the previously mentioned Moby-Dick, "...to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."
That seems to be working out about as well for Dorland as it did for Ahab.
posted by Ragged Richard at 11:53 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
That seems to be working out about as well for Dorland as it did for Ahab.
posted by Ragged Richard at 11:53 AM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
I know that some don't want to read the story and letters and everyone's probably sick of this story by now, but they were helpful to me in understanding the level of plagiarism involved. Since they were tied to the court case, I found them online -- the letter that Dorland wrote (and the FB post), and the story (not entirely sure which version this is).
posted by sincerely yours at 11:58 AM on October 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by sincerely yours at 11:58 AM on October 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
That is some thread, thanks orange swan for linking.
I think so many of us have gotten in deep with this, because while it's ultimately a personal feud between two "friends," it also manages to touch on so many broader developments in contemporary society, particularly Internet culture. How much self-promotion is allowed? Does it matter what one is promoting? (Surely Larson announces various publications, speaking engagements, etc.?) In a span of about a decade so many people have essentially become their own personal PR manager, but most people don't really know what they're doing (I sure don't).
Another part that jumps out to me from a screenshot provided by Dan Nguyen, is the line in response to Dorland announcing how she's excited to be in the parade: " 'I'm thrilled to be part of their public face.' Why say it that way? I just can't help but think that she is feeding off of the whole thing, but her food isn't the good feelings from having donated an organ; her food is public admiration and praise."
So, that's a lot of extrapolation from a pretty benign/generic way of phrasing things. Sure, maybe it's a sign that Dorland was feeding off of praise, but maybe Dorland was just using a widely-available phrasing for communicating gratitude for being included? Like, maybe the exact phrasing "public face" doesn't actually mean much? (Also, um, are people not allowed to be excited about being asked to be in a parade?) As a society, I generally think we all assume everything must mean something far more than most things actually do (not only is everyone a critic these days, but everyone is crit lit critic), and we often have a tendency to assume things all have one meaning (i.e. it appears impossible for Larson to imagine that Dorland might have gotten a big high off of the attention and also have had good intentions). This happens all the time on the Internet - someone posts something that's perhaps thoughtless or sarcastic, it goes unexpectedly viral when someone with a following finds grievance with it based on meaning that may or may not be there, and the original poster has no chance in correcting how their words have been spun - as was pointed out upthread, the truth doesn't matter.
This story is making me paranoid about my real life relationships.
It's certainly affirming my own paranoia around social media.
posted by coffeecat at 12:17 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
I think so many of us have gotten in deep with this, because while it's ultimately a personal feud between two "friends," it also manages to touch on so many broader developments in contemporary society, particularly Internet culture. How much self-promotion is allowed? Does it matter what one is promoting? (Surely Larson announces various publications, speaking engagements, etc.?) In a span of about a decade so many people have essentially become their own personal PR manager, but most people don't really know what they're doing (I sure don't).
Another part that jumps out to me from a screenshot provided by Dan Nguyen, is the line in response to Dorland announcing how she's excited to be in the parade: " 'I'm thrilled to be part of their public face.' Why say it that way? I just can't help but think that she is feeding off of the whole thing, but her food isn't the good feelings from having donated an organ; her food is public admiration and praise."
So, that's a lot of extrapolation from a pretty benign/generic way of phrasing things. Sure, maybe it's a sign that Dorland was feeding off of praise, but maybe Dorland was just using a widely-available phrasing for communicating gratitude for being included? Like, maybe the exact phrasing "public face" doesn't actually mean much? (Also, um, are people not allowed to be excited about being asked to be in a parade?) As a society, I generally think we all assume everything must mean something far more than most things actually do (not only is everyone a critic these days, but everyone is crit lit critic), and we often have a tendency to assume things all have one meaning (i.e. it appears impossible for Larson to imagine that Dorland might have gotten a big high off of the attention and also have had good intentions). This happens all the time on the Internet - someone posts something that's perhaps thoughtless or sarcastic, it goes unexpectedly viral when someone with a following finds grievance with it based on meaning that may or may not be there, and the original poster has no chance in correcting how their words have been spun - as was pointed out upthread, the truth doesn't matter.
This story is making me paranoid about my real life relationships.
It's certainly affirming my own paranoia around social media.
posted by coffeecat at 12:17 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
Yes, an idea can feel too good to let go, but if you put in the work, you can come up with something as good or even better.
Definitely. Constraints are good for creativity. If someone can write an entire novel without using the letter 'e', you can write a story without using that detail that seems essential though it would hurt someone. Your story will probably be better when you're forced to revise without it.
posted by straight at 12:24 PM on October 8, 2021 [8 favorites]
Definitely. Constraints are good for creativity. If someone can write an entire novel without using the letter 'e', you can write a story without using that detail that seems essential though it would hurt someone. Your story will probably be better when you're forced to revise without it.
posted by straight at 12:24 PM on October 8, 2021 [8 favorites]
I'll pop back out of here, but we just learned during our recent US presidency, this, "the truth doesn't matter," isn't necessarily true. It matters to some and not to others. For Dorland, it'll probably matter to the people who matter to her most, and that's all she needs to be concerned about.
I hope she phases past this and develops as a very interesting writer.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:25 PM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
I hope she phases past this and develops as a very interesting writer.
posted by firstdaffodils at 12:25 PM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Any other trauma survivors / neurodivergent folks who are triggered by this whole thing and want some support please feel free to message
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 12:38 PM on October 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 12:38 PM on October 8, 2021 [10 favorites]
I know I sure am both triggered and also mournful—and a bit vindicated that my approach to life, which is nearly hermit like and unlikely to trust folks, and helping of others in a very self effacing way and never following up or trying to negotiate for more from anyone, is probably safest. Why don’t they give us loser-folk books and stories when we are kids explaining that our lives will be harder because we are different? The worst part of life for me is that I was raised to expect normal treatment and to believe it was my fault if I didn’t receive it. Now, I don’t try. I’m scrambling to exit the arena of life and wait on the sidelines until I pass away, because I can’t stomach one more bully. I have friends who are forced to stay in hostile situations to survive and holy hell am I glad that I can get out. One day, this will be different, thanks to folks like Dorland standing up, sticking up for themselves and staying the course, not being ground down as was expected by her tormentors.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 12:44 PM on October 8, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 12:44 PM on October 8, 2021 [14 favorites]
If her donor or their family (presumably the donor had passed away) was crowing all over the place about the wonderful selfless thing they did, on social media, going to parades, and demanding to know why no one was praising them enough, she would be livid.
Yes. She told me. We discussed the NYT article yesterday, I wanted to know her thoughts as a transplant-recipient. She cannot speak on behalf of all transplant-recipients, obviously, because her own transplant, while keeping her alive, is also keeping her in chronic pain 24/7. She had spent her whole life assuming that she would die young because of her disease. The donor liver was a surprise and she took the change and it hasn't worked out. She said that given her specific circumstances, she would be really bothered if her donor or someone connected to her donor was emailing people they knew demanding praise for their donation.
That's just her though. That's her experience. And that's why I am curious about the guy who received Dorland's kidney. Does he know about this situation? If he does, how does he feel about it? Maybe he's happy to let Dorland get all of the praise he feels she deserves for helping him live. Or maybe it's more complicated for him, and her behavior is making him uncomfortable. We just don't know, and that's because this narrative has become centered on Dorland.
posted by nayantara at 12:54 PM on October 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
Yes. She told me. We discussed the NYT article yesterday, I wanted to know her thoughts as a transplant-recipient. She cannot speak on behalf of all transplant-recipients, obviously, because her own transplant, while keeping her alive, is also keeping her in chronic pain 24/7. She had spent her whole life assuming that she would die young because of her disease. The donor liver was a surprise and she took the change and it hasn't worked out. She said that given her specific circumstances, she would be really bothered if her donor or someone connected to her donor was emailing people they knew demanding praise for their donation.
That's just her though. That's her experience. And that's why I am curious about the guy who received Dorland's kidney. Does he know about this situation? If he does, how does he feel about it? Maybe he's happy to let Dorland get all of the praise he feels she deserves for helping him live. Or maybe it's more complicated for him, and her behavior is making him uncomfortable. We just don't know, and that's because this narrative has become centered on Dorland.
posted by nayantara at 12:54 PM on October 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
Not a park ranger, but I am a WOC. If Larson wanted to interview POC in my profession, I'd run away screaming. I have some thoughts about being a WOC in my industry, but there's no way in hell I'd go through the emotional labor of discussing fraught situations with someone like Larson. She lied so much over such a long period of time that I wouldn't trust her if she told me that the sky was blue. And if Larson had the gall to use Dorland's words about her childhood abuse and trauma in the way that she did, who knows what she'd do with my words about painful situations?
Yeah, most of Larson's most ardent supporters seem to belong to the "white women are untrustworthy" school, but between Dorland and woman-of-color Larson, I know which one I'd be more guarded around.
posted by cinchona at 1:05 PM on October 8, 2021 [8 favorites]
Yeah, most of Larson's most ardent supporters seem to belong to the "white women are untrustworthy" school, but between Dorland and woman-of-color Larson, I know which one I'd be more guarded around.
posted by cinchona at 1:05 PM on October 8, 2021 [8 favorites]
I don't know that the corrections in the Gawker article really materially change much of anything, apart from the fact that Gawker got a hugely embarassing number of facts wrong and no one should take them seriously as journalists.
Dorland didn't "sue" first, but claiming legal ownership over her letter, lawyering up, contacting every place Larson sent the story to inquire about their plagiarism policy, and "suggesting" mediation, even if it is through "a low cost arts service" is still taking legal action.
(Also, while what Larson did was shitty, it's not clear to me that using Dorland's letter was plagiarism in a legal sense, since you could argue that by putting it in her story, she transformed it/it's a transformative use.)
In response, Larson filed for defamation and tort, which on the one hand it means she was the first to sue, and on the other hand most defamation cases don't go all the way because people tend to settle them. Though if we take her fighting words in the group chat at face value, perhaps she did have an inkling that there would be no settling in this case.
The part about Dorland being able to see that Larson had read the Facebook messages, but not reacted to them... I mean, if she thought Larson was lurking for the lols, she was right. But also, in the words of my friend... "girl stop digging."
To me it doesn't seem like Dorland is bravely saying her truth, but more like Dorland is good at toeing the exact line legally to not seem like she's starting shit, but she absolutely is starting shit (they both are).
IDK, cases like these, 9 times out of 10 it's messy interpersonal drama with no clear hero or victim. In fandom we see this kind of messy interpersonal drama all the time.
posted by subdee at 1:11 PM on October 8, 2021 [5 favorites]
Dorland didn't "sue" first, but claiming legal ownership over her letter, lawyering up, contacting every place Larson sent the story to inquire about their plagiarism policy, and "suggesting" mediation, even if it is through "a low cost arts service" is still taking legal action.
(Also, while what Larson did was shitty, it's not clear to me that using Dorland's letter was plagiarism in a legal sense, since you could argue that by putting it in her story, she transformed it/it's a transformative use.)
In response, Larson filed for defamation and tort, which on the one hand it means she was the first to sue, and on the other hand most defamation cases don't go all the way because people tend to settle them. Though if we take her fighting words in the group chat at face value, perhaps she did have an inkling that there would be no settling in this case.
The part about Dorland being able to see that Larson had read the Facebook messages, but not reacted to them... I mean, if she thought Larson was lurking for the lols, she was right. But also, in the words of my friend... "girl stop digging."
To me it doesn't seem like Dorland is bravely saying her truth, but more like Dorland is good at toeing the exact line legally to not seem like she's starting shit, but she absolutely is starting shit (they both are).
IDK, cases like these, 9 times out of 10 it's messy interpersonal drama with no clear hero or victim. In fandom we see this kind of messy interpersonal drama all the time.
posted by subdee at 1:11 PM on October 8, 2021 [5 favorites]
I read the version of the story posted above. The writing style is to a strained simile exactly what I expected after reading about Larson and her workshopping process.
posted by Miko at 1:19 PM on October 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Miko at 1:19 PM on October 8, 2021 [2 favorites]
Sure would be great if people would listen to what nd people in this thread have been saying about how bullying is in fact a social justice issue and a lot of the "well, you should just move on" stuff is kind of upsetting and insulting!
that would be really excellent. just fantastic.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:22 PM on October 8, 2021 [20 favorites]
that would be really excellent. just fantastic.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:22 PM on October 8, 2021 [20 favorites]
(above) yeah.. for many, there's unfortunately not a magical switch for that. It requires a little more. Not always, but not uncommonly. ("moving on")
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:25 PM on October 8, 2021
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:25 PM on October 8, 2021
BTW it's interesting to compare this story with the Cat Person story:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html
In the case of Cat Person, there's almost four years between when the story came out, and when the person whose life was mined for content wrote her own version of events... also, Alexis Nowicki is much more empathetic and generous, both to the writer who mined her experiences, and to the "villain" of the story, her ex-boyfriend (whose sudden death may have prompted her to finally write and publish her version of events).
What both cases have in common though is, as a friend says, that they're both stories that purport to speak truth to power, concerning the biggest issues of the day (white privilege in the Larson story, the #me too movement for the Cat Person story). But in both cases, the story that went viral is a simplification of the real story that irons out some of the nuances of the real situation.
So what does it mean that we can have this fiction that purports to speak truth to power, in a way that's politically popular, but doesn't capture the messiness of reality?
***
If Larson's main point is the need white people have to make it all about themselves though, honestly I don't see how what Dorland has been doing isn't making it all about herself.
posted by subdee at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2021 [5 favorites]
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html
In the case of Cat Person, there's almost four years between when the story came out, and when the person whose life was mined for content wrote her own version of events... also, Alexis Nowicki is much more empathetic and generous, both to the writer who mined her experiences, and to the "villain" of the story, her ex-boyfriend (whose sudden death may have prompted her to finally write and publish her version of events).
What both cases have in common though is, as a friend says, that they're both stories that purport to speak truth to power, concerning the biggest issues of the day (white privilege in the Larson story, the #me too movement for the Cat Person story). But in both cases, the story that went viral is a simplification of the real story that irons out some of the nuances of the real situation.
So what does it mean that we can have this fiction that purports to speak truth to power, in a way that's politically popular, but doesn't capture the messiness of reality?
***
If Larson's main point is the need white people have to make it all about themselves though, honestly I don't see how what Dorland has been doing isn't making it all about herself.
posted by subdee at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2021 [5 favorites]
@firstdaffodils, the story Cat Person story is just supremely relatable... I had a college relationship pretty similar to the one described in the story, and not just because I also went to the University of Michigan. But Alexis Nowicki is just a phenomenal writer and that piece is incredibly powerful, I agree.
posted by subdee at 1:38 PM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by subdee at 1:38 PM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
If someone plagiarizes you, and uses the plagiarized text to write a mean little story about how you're actually a covert narcissist white savior.
and brags about it in group texts to all their friends, who you thought were your friends, and they all cheer her on because you definitely deserved this.
when the only thing you actually did was think they were your friends, and worry that they might not be seeing your facebook posts/might not actually want to be part of the kidney thing. (cause dorland does do that! it's in the transcripts! she's all "hey if you're actually not comfortable with this but didn't want to be rude it is okay to leave."
and then that story becomes successful - this story which steals your words to cast you as a bad person
yeah. you don't have to move on from that shit. people should not experience personal gain from left and lies. Larson stole and lied, and then tried to frame the person she stole from and lied to as crazy for being upset that they were stolen from and lied to. She should not get to profit reputationally or financially from that act.
And one day, "well, it was bad that the bullying happened, but the target's reaction fed into/provoked the bullying so who can say who is really at fault" will die the death it deserves.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:40 PM on October 8, 2021 [31 favorites]
and brags about it in group texts to all their friends, who you thought were your friends, and they all cheer her on because you definitely deserved this.
when the only thing you actually did was think they were your friends, and worry that they might not be seeing your facebook posts/might not actually want to be part of the kidney thing. (cause dorland does do that! it's in the transcripts! she's all "hey if you're actually not comfortable with this but didn't want to be rude it is okay to leave."
and then that story becomes successful - this story which steals your words to cast you as a bad person
yeah. you don't have to move on from that shit. people should not experience personal gain from left and lies. Larson stole and lied, and then tried to frame the person she stole from and lied to as crazy for being upset that they were stolen from and lied to. She should not get to profit reputationally or financially from that act.
And one day, "well, it was bad that the bullying happened, but the target's reaction fed into/provoked the bullying so who can say who is really at fault" will die the death it deserves.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 1:40 PM on October 8, 2021 [31 favorites]
This thread has made me realize that I will never, ever feel safe interacting on Metafilter as a woman of color.
I'm not trying to use that as a huffy door slam/flounce moment. I just wanted to point out that as a trauma survivor, as someone with multiple mental illness diagnoses, and as a woman of color, this thread has made me realize which of those identities are safe for me to identify as here and which aren't.
I so wish the NYT hadn't published this story.
posted by nayantara at 1:40 PM on October 8, 2021 [17 favorites]
I'm not trying to use that as a huffy door slam/flounce moment. I just wanted to point out that as a trauma survivor, as someone with multiple mental illness diagnoses, and as a woman of color, this thread has made me realize which of those identities are safe for me to identify as here and which aren't.
I so wish the NYT hadn't published this story.
posted by nayantara at 1:40 PM on October 8, 2021 [17 favorites]
It’s great when someone can move on, but just like every other axis of marginalisation, with trauma survivors, it isn’t the place of anyone, particularly non trauma survivors, to tone police how they react when they have been injured. I cannot imagine how violated Dorland felt (and feels) in this situation, and I understand why she’s chosen to take this campaign forward. It’s not what I would have done, but that’s mostly because I know I don’t have the supports in place to be resilient over the marathon length of such a campaign.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 1:49 PM on October 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 1:49 PM on October 8, 2021 [9 favorites]
"If I wanted to write a story that was clearly based on a recognizable event in the life of my acquaintance I would simply change key details" - tumblr user tributary
posted by subdee at 1:54 PM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by subdee at 1:54 PM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
I want to thank you, The Last Sockpuppet, and other ND women and bullying survivors that have contributed here. It has given me a really valuable perspective and check, and I know it cannot have been easy to write. I have ... had to think about some relationships I have had in writing and the behavior I expect and have expected to tolerate. It's not reflecting great on me, maybe.
My standing joke is that I prevent myself from getting ripped off by being boring enough that nobody would make a character out of me. That's half the truth. The fact is that I hide things from other writers so instinctively that I forget that I'm doing it. And that makes it difficult to make close friends in a way that even I mistake for ordinary introversion. That, in turn, affects my career, as well as what I really understand about what's going on and how other people are living through it.
I can say that I do feel sorry for Grub Street, which surely didn't deserve this sort of publicity, and really is an irreplaceable resource for writers.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:43 PM on October 8, 2021 [14 favorites]
My standing joke is that I prevent myself from getting ripped off by being boring enough that nobody would make a character out of me. That's half the truth. The fact is that I hide things from other writers so instinctively that I forget that I'm doing it. And that makes it difficult to make close friends in a way that even I mistake for ordinary introversion. That, in turn, affects my career, as well as what I really understand about what's going on and how other people are living through it.
I can say that I do feel sorry for Grub Street, which surely didn't deserve this sort of publicity, and really is an irreplaceable resource for writers.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:43 PM on October 8, 2021 [14 favorites]
So Dorland wasn't harping all over social media. She created a small private group for people who she thought were friends for them to get updates throughout the whole donation process.
Larson joined the group, did not interact at all, and when Dorland noticed and gave her the out to leave then Larson acted buddy-buddy and refused--even while she was mining all of Dorland's posts to mock her with other writers in a group chat and plagiarizing her letter for her short story.
Larson writes a mean story that is about Dorland, and once it starts getting picked up places she attempts to change the plagiarized portion when she clearly realizes it would cause her trouble. This attempt to change things all happens BEFORE Dorland even knows the story existed.
Throughout the process Larson is shitting on Dorland, speculating with other writers about what Dorland's reaction will be if she ever discovers what Larson did, and then telling other writers that she will "FIGHT BACK" if Dorland responds negatively while the other writers promise to back her and give Larson suggestions on how to get ahead of the conflict (for example: one writer tells Larson to share the story with a WOC writer's group ahead of Dorland's discovery to get them to "draaaaag" Dorland).
Dorland hears the story may be about her but ignores it for TWO YEARS, only responding when she is made aware of the extent of the plagiarization. At which point she goes to Larson through a low cost mediation service for artists. Larson is the one to slap her with a lawsuit and bring in the lawyers. Larson spins the whole story as Dorland traipsing all over social media begging for adulation and confronting Larson when she felt Larson was not providing sufficient praise. But none of that happened!
I don't see how this is a "both sides" situation. Larson lurked in Dorland's group and obsessively stalked her posts and mined them for her group chat for the lulz. Then she turned the Mean Girl critiques into a story. Then when it started to get successful she attempted to cover her tracks, secured the backing of the other group chat people to build a social case against Dorland, and lied to the media about Dorland's behavior and her own. Dorland's sins were trusting Larson, keeping friends (or in the case of Larson, "friends") updated on the donation process, and then going in hard on trying to expose what Larson did.
I don't think this is a "both sides" situation at all.
posted by Anonymous at 2:45 PM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
Larson joined the group, did not interact at all, and when Dorland noticed and gave her the out to leave then Larson acted buddy-buddy and refused--even while she was mining all of Dorland's posts to mock her with other writers in a group chat and plagiarizing her letter for her short story.
Larson writes a mean story that is about Dorland, and once it starts getting picked up places she attempts to change the plagiarized portion when she clearly realizes it would cause her trouble. This attempt to change things all happens BEFORE Dorland even knows the story existed.
Throughout the process Larson is shitting on Dorland, speculating with other writers about what Dorland's reaction will be if she ever discovers what Larson did, and then telling other writers that she will "FIGHT BACK" if Dorland responds negatively while the other writers promise to back her and give Larson suggestions on how to get ahead of the conflict (for example: one writer tells Larson to share the story with a WOC writer's group ahead of Dorland's discovery to get them to "draaaaag" Dorland).
Dorland hears the story may be about her but ignores it for TWO YEARS, only responding when she is made aware of the extent of the plagiarization. At which point she goes to Larson through a low cost mediation service for artists. Larson is the one to slap her with a lawsuit and bring in the lawyers. Larson spins the whole story as Dorland traipsing all over social media begging for adulation and confronting Larson when she felt Larson was not providing sufficient praise. But none of that happened!
I don't see how this is a "both sides" situation. Larson lurked in Dorland's group and obsessively stalked her posts and mined them for her group chat for the lulz. Then she turned the Mean Girl critiques into a story. Then when it started to get successful she attempted to cover her tracks, secured the backing of the other group chat people to build a social case against Dorland, and lied to the media about Dorland's behavior and her own. Dorland's sins were trusting Larson, keeping friends (or in the case of Larson, "friends") updated on the donation process, and then going in hard on trying to expose what Larson did.
I don't think this is a "both sides" situation at all.
posted by Anonymous at 2:45 PM on October 8, 2021 [1 favorite]
When someone actually does a thorough or journalistic take in their approach to the material, no. It isn't, necessarily.
I also think more people should pay attention to coffeeand's photo link, above.
I was a person who initially thought, "ugh, esh," now I'm not entirely sure. I wouldn't be socially adjacent to either, but the way this was covered by news sources was also sometimes ridiculous.
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:51 PM on October 8, 2021
I also think more people should pay attention to coffeeand's photo link, above.
I was a person who initially thought, "ugh, esh," now I'm not entirely sure. I wouldn't be socially adjacent to either, but the way this was covered by news sources was also sometimes ridiculous.
posted by firstdaffodils at 2:51 PM on October 8, 2021
I'm actually not 100% sure what coffeeand's photo link was supposed to prove. I don't think anyone claimed that all the members of the Chunky Monkeys writing group were people of color. Larson claims that it's significant that Dorland is white and she's Asian-American. Whatever you make of that claim, I don't think it's invalidated because several members of Larson's writing group are white.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:32 PM on October 8, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:32 PM on October 8, 2021 [7 favorites]
Apropos of nothing, but just because it's been bouncing around in my head:
A couple times per week, often late at night when I'm in bed and staring at the ceiling, embarrassing memories rush in to fill the mental vacuum. Most of them are weird social interactions that happened at least twenty years ago — not recognizing someone I'd met several times before, or mishearing a question from somebody and delivering a complete non-sequitur answer that draws a few seconds of confused silence… you know. The greatest hits. So every few days I cringe at the memory of briefly being thought weird by another person, then I roll my eyes and get on with my day.
The fact that my brain has sorted those memories and is always primed to serve them up to me? That's a deeper thing I don't understand, and may never understand. But my brain also gives me the tools to hold my anxieties up to reality, and the reality is that nobody who briefly thought I was weird twenty years ago is lying in bed at night thinking about it the way I am. “People don't think about you as much as you fear” is a great comfort, and it has the benefit of being broadly true.
To discover that the exact opposite is happening, that people have a backchannel largely dedicated to riffing on how weird you are, would be devastating to a lot of people. I'm not saying that that's how Dawn feels — though I'm on her side, she does have some markers of narcissism, and it seems like she wouldn't feel much better about this if Sonya had just done it on her own without any encouragement from others.
But if I happened to find out that a few of my acquaintances had been joking behind my back about some of the very things that I was most preoccupied with, that'd be devastating. It'd undermine the most effective tool I have for putting occasional social anxieties into perspective.
posted by savetheclocktower at 4:00 PM on October 8, 2021 [24 favorites]
A couple times per week, often late at night when I'm in bed and staring at the ceiling, embarrassing memories rush in to fill the mental vacuum. Most of them are weird social interactions that happened at least twenty years ago — not recognizing someone I'd met several times before, or mishearing a question from somebody and delivering a complete non-sequitur answer that draws a few seconds of confused silence… you know. The greatest hits. So every few days I cringe at the memory of briefly being thought weird by another person, then I roll my eyes and get on with my day.
The fact that my brain has sorted those memories and is always primed to serve them up to me? That's a deeper thing I don't understand, and may never understand. But my brain also gives me the tools to hold my anxieties up to reality, and the reality is that nobody who briefly thought I was weird twenty years ago is lying in bed at night thinking about it the way I am. “People don't think about you as much as you fear” is a great comfort, and it has the benefit of being broadly true.
To discover that the exact opposite is happening, that people have a backchannel largely dedicated to riffing on how weird you are, would be devastating to a lot of people. I'm not saying that that's how Dawn feels — though I'm on her side, she does have some markers of narcissism, and it seems like she wouldn't feel much better about this if Sonya had just done it on her own without any encouragement from others.
But if I happened to find out that a few of my acquaintances had been joking behind my back about some of the very things that I was most preoccupied with, that'd be devastating. It'd undermine the most effective tool I have for putting occasional social anxieties into perspective.
posted by savetheclocktower at 4:00 PM on October 8, 2021 [24 favorites]
This thread by Dr. Ming Lauren Holden is thoughtful.
To quote from two successive tweets: Others have covered the fact that there aren't heroes here; no one behaved perfectly. And dunking, too, can and does do more than one thing. At times it's an important tool for oppressed people, exhausted people, underdogs, to use to create cohesion and empowerment. But I think those of us who are discomfited by the bullying from Larson and co are asking, in different ways: at what cost? And was this one of those times?
I agree with Rock 'em Sock 'em insofar that yeah, Dorland would probably be happier if she had just never read the story, unfriended, and moved on. But I also agree with everyone suggesting that one thing that this story and the reaction to it (including the scale/stickiness of attention) suggest we might benefit from nuanced explorations around bullying by adults. So much that's out there is geared around teens (i.e. Mean Girls), but adults engage in this kind of behavior all the time, and it seems to be getting worse now that it's possible to sneer remotely/invisibly (thanks Internet). That's worth taking seriously and not moving on from- we'd all be better for it (I mean, I don't think anyone actually wants to be a bully?)
posted by coffeecat at 4:03 PM on October 8, 2021 [13 favorites]
To quote from two successive tweets: Others have covered the fact that there aren't heroes here; no one behaved perfectly. And dunking, too, can and does do more than one thing. At times it's an important tool for oppressed people, exhausted people, underdogs, to use to create cohesion and empowerment. But I think those of us who are discomfited by the bullying from Larson and co are asking, in different ways: at what cost? And was this one of those times?
I agree with Rock 'em Sock 'em insofar that yeah, Dorland would probably be happier if she had just never read the story, unfriended, and moved on. But I also agree with everyone suggesting that one thing that this story and the reaction to it (including the scale/stickiness of attention) suggest we might benefit from nuanced explorations around bullying by adults. So much that's out there is geared around teens (i.e. Mean Girls), but adults engage in this kind of behavior all the time, and it seems to be getting worse now that it's possible to sneer remotely/invisibly (thanks Internet). That's worth taking seriously and not moving on from- we'd all be better for it (I mean, I don't think anyone actually wants to be a bully?)
posted by coffeecat at 4:03 PM on October 8, 2021 [13 favorites]
Because "fair use" and "transformative use" have come up: Section 107 of the Copyright Act. More Information on Fair Use, also at the U.S. Copyright Office. Stanford's explainer, Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors. Excerpted from this last link:
- [Y]ou will have a stronger case of fair use if you copy the material from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his or her expression.
- The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work.
- Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.
"The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use"
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being an important indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
- Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
- Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?
It seems:
Dorland (a writer) wrote the letter and she holds the copyright.
Dorland posted her letter in a private FB group she'd started and solely administered.
Larson (a writer) copied Dorland's letter verbatim and centered it in her own short story.
Larson made a small profit on the sale of her story.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:25 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
- [Y]ou will have a stronger case of fair use if you copy the material from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his or her expression.
- The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the “heart” of the work.
- Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work.
"The Transformative Factor: The Purpose and Character of Your Use"
In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being an important indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions:
- Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
- Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?
It seems:
Dorland (a writer) wrote the letter and she holds the copyright.
Dorland posted her letter in a private FB group she'd started and solely administered.
Larson (a writer) copied Dorland's letter verbatim and centered it in her own short story.
Larson made a small profit on the sale of her story.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:25 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
For the Love of Bad Art Friends (Emily Flamm for Jezebel.com, Oct. 8, 2021) I went to school with the kidney donor in the viral New York Times story, and the story fell loudly for many reasons.
1. Mind you, Flamm and Dorland weren't bosom friends: Long before Dawn Dorland, the kidney donor, came into my life, I counted among my close friends several women with whom I had been in direct competition – for jobs, for attention, for mentorship, for men. I remember the moments my affection for these women was forged: when we were both treated like garbage by the same love interest, the same professor, the same institution, the same editor. I instinctively bonded with these people, and it is a curiously persistent pattern.
Dorland inspired a different reaction, and I have never known why. Here was someone who was driven and passionate about many of the same things as me (writing, social justice, reproductive rights) but whose approach to those subjects made me feel insecure in ways I still find hard to pinpoint. We were friendly at first but the chemistry went sour. I shrank back, but there was so much I wanted to say. The wall of her intensity clammed me up, and I didn’t know how to handle this in a healthy way. The viability of a friendship can seem less reliant on shared values or interests, sometimes, than whether your insecurities are compatible.
2. Still, you'll never guess -- Dorland inspired Flamm to take pen in hand, too! No, besides this essay: Like Sonya Larson, the writer who used parts of Dorland’s letter to her kidney’s recipient as inspiration for a short story, I took these feelings and wrote a piece of fiction inspired by Dorland’s character.
Flamm's story: It had nothing to do with kidneys – it concerned the all-encompassing competition among women that often goes unspoken but manages to swallow broad swaths of our lives. I never published the story and I probably never will. It’s not great.
3) So MANY uncharitable thoughts hopscotching around in my head, starting with "fell loudly?" and rounding on, "Dorland-as-muse for indecent MFA-toting opportunists is awful, and I hope she barely remembers this person." Seriously, this is nauseating.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:03 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
1. Mind you, Flamm and Dorland weren't bosom friends: Long before Dawn Dorland, the kidney donor, came into my life, I counted among my close friends several women with whom I had been in direct competition – for jobs, for attention, for mentorship, for men. I remember the moments my affection for these women was forged: when we were both treated like garbage by the same love interest, the same professor, the same institution, the same editor. I instinctively bonded with these people, and it is a curiously persistent pattern.
Dorland inspired a different reaction, and I have never known why. Here was someone who was driven and passionate about many of the same things as me (writing, social justice, reproductive rights) but whose approach to those subjects made me feel insecure in ways I still find hard to pinpoint. We were friendly at first but the chemistry went sour. I shrank back, but there was so much I wanted to say. The wall of her intensity clammed me up, and I didn’t know how to handle this in a healthy way. The viability of a friendship can seem less reliant on shared values or interests, sometimes, than whether your insecurities are compatible.
2. Still, you'll never guess -- Dorland inspired Flamm to take pen in hand, too! No, besides this essay: Like Sonya Larson, the writer who used parts of Dorland’s letter to her kidney’s recipient as inspiration for a short story, I took these feelings and wrote a piece of fiction inspired by Dorland’s character.
Flamm's story: It had nothing to do with kidneys – it concerned the all-encompassing competition among women that often goes unspoken but manages to swallow broad swaths of our lives. I never published the story and I probably never will. It’s not great.
3) So MANY uncharitable thoughts hopscotching around in my head, starting with "fell loudly?" and rounding on, "Dorland-as-muse for indecent MFA-toting opportunists is awful, and I hope she barely remembers this person." Seriously, this is nauseating.
posted by Iris Gambol at 6:03 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
I'm actually not 100% sure what coffeeand's photo link was supposed to prove.
Not sure if it proves anything, but for me it made me a lot more sympathetic to Larson. Just about everyone egging her on in the group chat was more powerful and connected than she was, and many of them were white.
I'm sure it's a lot harder to back down from something you know deep down you shouldn't be doing when your boss (or the equivalent) is telling you it's okay, and encouraging you. Larson sounded remorseful in some of her texts, so maybe that's what was going for her. This is all just speculation though. (I still think this is a workplace drama! This is not Mean Girls, these people have professional reputations they're defending.)
posted by coffeeand at 6:51 PM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
Not sure if it proves anything, but for me it made me a lot more sympathetic to Larson. Just about everyone egging her on in the group chat was more powerful and connected than she was, and many of them were white.
I'm sure it's a lot harder to back down from something you know deep down you shouldn't be doing when your boss (or the equivalent) is telling you it's okay, and encouraging you. Larson sounded remorseful in some of her texts, so maybe that's what was going for her. This is all just speculation though. (I still think this is a workplace drama! This is not Mean Girls, these people have professional reputations they're defending.)
posted by coffeeand at 6:51 PM on October 8, 2021 [4 favorites]
Dorland inspired a different reaction, and I have never known why.
It's possible that coming up against earnest authenticity makes folks who are unsure about their own moral compass falter.
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on October 8, 2021 [22 favorites]
It's possible that coming up against earnest authenticity makes folks who are unsure about their own moral compass falter.
posted by Miko at 7:39 PM on October 8, 2021 [22 favorites]
Thank you, Iris Gambol, for the detailed breakdown on copyright law and fair use. It seems to make Larson's case for "fair use" extremely weak, especially when you consider this:
Dorland came to Grub Street as a newbie aspiring writer asking for help on how to turn her life experiences into publishable writing. Larson was not only an instructor there, she runs their annual conference (something and the muse).
It seems like the essence of those copyright standards is that you not take another [potential] writer's material away from them, especially not word for word, especially not unpublished material.. Emily Flamm has no concerns -- you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of idea. Larson? uh oh
posted by msalt at 8:01 PM on October 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
Dorland came to Grub Street as a newbie aspiring writer asking for help on how to turn her life experiences into publishable writing. Larson was not only an instructor there, she runs their annual conference (something and the muse).
It seems like the essence of those copyright standards is that you not take another [potential] writer's material away from them, especially not word for word, especially not unpublished material.. Emily Flamm has no concerns -- you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of idea. Larson? uh oh
posted by msalt at 8:01 PM on October 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
Deena Mohamed (twitter): to steal someone’s source of pride, satirize it, and then lie to their face about it, AND THEN SUE LMAO. thats a classique white man approach to literature as far as im concerned! decolonise lit baby!
posted by creepygirl at 9:47 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by creepygirl at 9:47 PM on October 8, 2021 [16 favorites]
Celeste Ng's Everything I Never Told You (2014), was "a New York Times bestseller, a New York Times Notable Book of 2014, Amazon’s #1 Best Book of 2014, and named a best book of the year by over a dozen publications." 2017's Little Fires Everywhere was also highly successful (miniseries last year). The less-recognizable names are writers and teachers, and not just at Grub Street. Quick examples:
Alex Marzano-Lesnevich, lawyer-turned-writer, is an English professor at Bowdoin; five years ago, they were teaching at The Harvard Kennedy School. Grace Talusan's memoir, The Body Papers, "won the Massachusetts Book Award in nonfiction, the Restless Books Prize for New Immigrant Writing, and was a New York Times Editors' Choice selection. [...] She taught writing for many years at Tufts University and Grub Street, and is currently the Fannie Hurst Writer-in-Residence at Brandeis University." Adam Stumacher "is an author and educator whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Granta, Narrative, The Kenyon Review, and others, was anthologized in Best New American Voices, and won a Nelson Algren Award and the Raymond Carver Short Story Award. Adam has taught at MIT, The Harvard Kennedy School, The University of Wisconsin, Grub Street, and elsewhere." Novelist Whitney Scharer "teaches fiction in the Boston area" and co-founded the Arlington Author Salon in 2014; "past featured authors include Margot Livesey, Richard Hoffman, Celeste Ng, Michael Blanding, Steve Almond, Michelle Hoover, Ron MacLean, Reggie Gibson, Val Wang, Lisa Borders, and many more."
More legal speculation, via Artnet: A recent ruling against the Andy Warhol Foundation may serve as a guide in determining fault in the viral kidney donation story. Here’s How a Recent Art Copyright Decision Could Shape the Outcome (Oct. 7)
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:51 PM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
Alex Marzano-Lesnevich, lawyer-turned-writer, is an English professor at Bowdoin; five years ago, they were teaching at The Harvard Kennedy School. Grace Talusan's memoir, The Body Papers, "won the Massachusetts Book Award in nonfiction, the Restless Books Prize for New Immigrant Writing, and was a New York Times Editors' Choice selection. [...] She taught writing for many years at Tufts University and Grub Street, and is currently the Fannie Hurst Writer-in-Residence at Brandeis University." Adam Stumacher "is an author and educator whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Granta, Narrative, The Kenyon Review, and others, was anthologized in Best New American Voices, and won a Nelson Algren Award and the Raymond Carver Short Story Award. Adam has taught at MIT, The Harvard Kennedy School, The University of Wisconsin, Grub Street, and elsewhere." Novelist Whitney Scharer "teaches fiction in the Boston area" and co-founded the Arlington Author Salon in 2014; "past featured authors include Margot Livesey, Richard Hoffman, Celeste Ng, Michael Blanding, Steve Almond, Michelle Hoover, Ron MacLean, Reggie Gibson, Val Wang, Lisa Borders, and many more."
More legal speculation, via Artnet: A recent ruling against the Andy Warhol Foundation may serve as a guide in determining fault in the viral kidney donation story. Here’s How a Recent Art Copyright Decision Could Shape the Outcome (Oct. 7)
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:51 PM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
I am surprised but I think I have to defend Larson somewhat. Not for the plagiarism or the gaslighting or the bullying chat logs but for not knowing how to interact with Dawn in the first place.
As someone with ASD and PTSD there have been periods in my life where I was so desperate for any kind of validation that I'd mishandle social situations the way Dawn did. It isn't fun or easy to be friends with someone who needs a ton of emotional support and can't read the room.
I think a lot of people would have joined the FB group and then kept lurking out of morbid interest the way Larson did. Reacting badly to a call out email from Dawn out of the blue is also perfectly human.
After this point Larson just kept making terrible decisions, but I think I could have also ended up on the precipice she jumped from.
posted by zymil at 11:09 PM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
As someone with ASD and PTSD there have been periods in my life where I was so desperate for any kind of validation that I'd mishandle social situations the way Dawn did. It isn't fun or easy to be friends with someone who needs a ton of emotional support and can't read the room.
I think a lot of people would have joined the FB group and then kept lurking out of morbid interest the way Larson did. Reacting badly to a call out email from Dawn out of the blue is also perfectly human.
After this point Larson just kept making terrible decisions, but I think I could have also ended up on the precipice she jumped from.
posted by zymil at 11:09 PM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
On the racial aspect of this story: I really don't think it applies here. I was skeptical from the start, and now with the updates, I'm even surer. To be clear, even Ivy League upper-middle-class light-skinned Asian women can be fucked over by white lady antics, but I don't think that's what happened here. This article is a pretty good look at the subject in general.
Story from my Tumblr days: I once saw someone write an Ask to a Chinese-American blog with a mild criticism that, unfortunately, used a term that was pretty incendiary - but I could tell from the syntax that the commenter was ESL, and equivalent terms in Chinese are thrown around Chinese internet pretty frequently. Also, the commenter was saying something like "I don't mean to come off as [term]"; they weren't even accusing the blog owner of being [term]. And the blog owner ABSOLUTELY FLIPPED OUT. I'm reminded of this moment every time mini-celeb AsAms absolutely fail to take into account other Asians who, for very understandable reasons (ESL, poverty, among other things), don't have the tools to even begin participate in the Discourse. Elite capture is real.
posted by airmail at 11:51 PM on October 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
Story from my Tumblr days: I once saw someone write an Ask to a Chinese-American blog with a mild criticism that, unfortunately, used a term that was pretty incendiary - but I could tell from the syntax that the commenter was ESL, and equivalent terms in Chinese are thrown around Chinese internet pretty frequently. Also, the commenter was saying something like "I don't mean to come off as [term]"; they weren't even accusing the blog owner of being [term]. And the blog owner ABSOLUTELY FLIPPED OUT. I'm reminded of this moment every time mini-celeb AsAms absolutely fail to take into account other Asians who, for very understandable reasons (ESL, poverty, among other things), don't have the tools to even begin participate in the Discourse. Elite capture is real.
posted by airmail at 11:51 PM on October 8, 2021 [6 favorites]
Just a few things off the top of my head that I do to minimise the risk that my “intensity” might set off someone that does me harm:
I rarely make new friends. Trauma plus autism means that I’m playing with weighted dice. I will be warm, I will collaborate, but my response if I need help is to withdraw.
I never, ever unfriend anyone on Facebook, and I never challenge anyone there. I don’t challenge anyone in real life, either. One never knows when something that lands wrong will create an implacable enemy or bully. I can’t abide any more of those.
I will never again work in a workplace. It’s freelancing forever, or disability benefits.
I stay on the sidelines. I used to be bold and outgoing. Now I’m shy.
I am passively suicidal at all times. I don’t want to be here. All hope of community is poisoned by the deeply known risk that I will land a bully by doing something wrong, and I have absolutely no way to tell and no way to stay safe except by minimising the number of dice-throws (social interactions).
If a friend drifts away, I never follow up. It is quite likely that some friends would like to be followed up on but I have zero confidence that I can pick up who would want that and who would be affronted, and I can’t risk the consequences of choosing wrong. I am warm and supportive as I can be, and lately I’ve expressed to my closer friends that this inability to follow up might happen if they get busy, and that I apologise if I can’t initiate that follow up but I encourage them to reach out to me even if they’ve been super busy for ages - I’ll always be happy to hear from them!
Most of all, I weigh up my future, my retirement one day, etc in the light of the fact that I can’t trust that I will have social supports or community whatsoever. I no longer get passionate and excited about ongoing team working, I fear it. That is baked into me, into my outlook. I was a fearless leader and fighter when I was very young. No more. It’s been beaten and burned out of me.
I’ll be showing one, maybe two friends this article and I’ll suggest they read it, if they have time and spoons, if they’d like an insight into my existence. How blessed I am to have this article to show them!
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 5:42 AM on October 9, 2021 [27 favorites]
I rarely make new friends. Trauma plus autism means that I’m playing with weighted dice. I will be warm, I will collaborate, but my response if I need help is to withdraw.
I never, ever unfriend anyone on Facebook, and I never challenge anyone there. I don’t challenge anyone in real life, either. One never knows when something that lands wrong will create an implacable enemy or bully. I can’t abide any more of those.
I will never again work in a workplace. It’s freelancing forever, or disability benefits.
I stay on the sidelines. I used to be bold and outgoing. Now I’m shy.
I am passively suicidal at all times. I don’t want to be here. All hope of community is poisoned by the deeply known risk that I will land a bully by doing something wrong, and I have absolutely no way to tell and no way to stay safe except by minimising the number of dice-throws (social interactions).
If a friend drifts away, I never follow up. It is quite likely that some friends would like to be followed up on but I have zero confidence that I can pick up who would want that and who would be affronted, and I can’t risk the consequences of choosing wrong. I am warm and supportive as I can be, and lately I’ve expressed to my closer friends that this inability to follow up might happen if they get busy, and that I apologise if I can’t initiate that follow up but I encourage them to reach out to me even if they’ve been super busy for ages - I’ll always be happy to hear from them!
Most of all, I weigh up my future, my retirement one day, etc in the light of the fact that I can’t trust that I will have social supports or community whatsoever. I no longer get passionate and excited about ongoing team working, I fear it. That is baked into me, into my outlook. I was a fearless leader and fighter when I was very young. No more. It’s been beaten and burned out of me.
I’ll be showing one, maybe two friends this article and I’ll suggest they read it, if they have time and spoons, if they’d like an insight into my existence. How blessed I am to have this article to show them!
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 5:42 AM on October 9, 2021 [27 favorites]
Look at the above. Would you want a life like that for your child? One day, you might have a little girl like me. If she unsettles you, there will be no script and no help for you as her parent either, and you may traumatise her even though you make every effort not to do so. I have no idea what the solution is to this. I am just tired, and tears welled in my eyes when the reveal at the end - the chat logs - came to light. Dorland continues to defend the facts with grace, and it’s really very important because of all of the pairs of eyes like mine who are watching her as the truth comes out and the pendulum swings her way. Social change can sometimes start when someone draws a line in the sand and says, this far, no further. Says, to the bully: no, you shall not pass.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 5:50 AM on October 9, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 5:50 AM on October 9, 2021 [9 favorites]
I am not even sure Dorland was attention-seeking. Was creating the private Facebook group attention-seeking, or was it to provide her friends with updates to her experience? Wouldn't the small, private nature of the group limit the attention she gets for her posts? Wouldn't Facebook posts on the main feed or a blog or a public Instagram be better for that? Remember--there were only 34 people in that group. She went to the NYT with the article, but it sounds like that was an attempt to correct the record--and it doesn't seem to have worked out well for her. Any sympathy has come from people on Twitter digging into the court documents.
I think a lot of people would have joined the FB group and then kept lurking out of morbid interest the way Larson did.
I hope this is not true.
posted by Anonymous at 6:25 AM on October 9, 2021
I think a lot of people would have joined the FB group and then kept lurking out of morbid interest the way Larson did.
I hope this is not true.
posted by Anonymous at 6:25 AM on October 9, 2021
I read Larson's story - not sure if it's the final version but I got it from the link someone posted above to the court documents for this case. It's not bad. I have four observations:
1) The protagonist (the kidney recipient) is not very likeable, clearly by design. She's prickly and unkind and feels like people were nicer to her when she was dying.
2) The story has a lot of elements pertaining to Asian-American identity.
3) The organ donor character is a classic Nice White Lady
4) Larson could have easily written this story without lifting Dorland's letter wholesale. The letter is a small part of the story. The main issue in the story is the relationship, such as it is, that grows between donor and recipient.
Point 4 is also why I want to know what Dorland's kidney recipient feels about this mess.
Bottom line: Larson didn't have to plagiarize Dorland to write this story. Clearly there were other social dynamics at play here, as evidenced by the group chats taking shit about Dorland. Larson doesn't seem like a nice person at all.
But I am going to hold firm on this: Larson is not "weaponizing" racial identity here to defend her story. The story is very grounded in elements of racial identity. She's not being an opportunist by trying to point that out. It's very clear from the text.
Where she fucked up was using Dorland's letter verbatim. She really didn't need to, and none of this would have happened. I don't know why she did, but it was a very dumb mistake.
I still think it's pretty gross that Dorland pitched this story to the NYT and grosser still that they wrote and published it, but what's done is done.
posted by nayantara at 7:57 AM on October 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
1) The protagonist (the kidney recipient) is not very likeable, clearly by design. She's prickly and unkind and feels like people were nicer to her when she was dying.
2) The story has a lot of elements pertaining to Asian-American identity.
3) The organ donor character is a classic Nice White Lady
4) Larson could have easily written this story without lifting Dorland's letter wholesale. The letter is a small part of the story. The main issue in the story is the relationship, such as it is, that grows between donor and recipient.
Point 4 is also why I want to know what Dorland's kidney recipient feels about this mess.
Bottom line: Larson didn't have to plagiarize Dorland to write this story. Clearly there were other social dynamics at play here, as evidenced by the group chats taking shit about Dorland. Larson doesn't seem like a nice person at all.
But I am going to hold firm on this: Larson is not "weaponizing" racial identity here to defend her story. The story is very grounded in elements of racial identity. She's not being an opportunist by trying to point that out. It's very clear from the text.
Where she fucked up was using Dorland's letter verbatim. She really didn't need to, and none of this would have happened. I don't know why she did, but it was a very dumb mistake.
I still think it's pretty gross that Dorland pitched this story to the NYT and grosser still that they wrote and published it, but what's done is done.
posted by nayantara at 7:57 AM on October 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
..just as a heads up, the comment I made expressing the phrase "ew," (which can be a girlish or childish phrase), had no direction towards a racial narrative. It was made when I learned the person was capitalizing off a piece they plagiarized, from a person they harangued online.
I didn't clarify because there was so much momentum attached to some of the responses. I also wasn't certain how much it mattered.
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:04 AM on October 9, 2021
I didn't clarify because there was so much momentum attached to some of the responses. I also wasn't certain how much it mattered.
posted by firstdaffodils at 8:04 AM on October 9, 2021
She went to the NYT with the article, but it sounds like that was an attempt to correct the record--and it doesn't seem to have worked out well for her. Any sympathy has come from people on Twitter digging into the court documents.
This is a good point. It’s funny in a way because my own sympathy was more or less instantly with Dorland, even though the piece made her sound a little extra, but after reading through all the reactions I realize both that mine was not a common reaction and that perhaps the writer didn’t intend it to be. And on reflection, how could it have been otherwise? I think it does take some failure to read the room on Dorland’s part to imagine that a writer at the New York Times is going to see a dispute between writers and come down on the side of a relative unknown, especially when the subtext of the dispute goes to two fundamental community questions: Who really counts as a writer? What are the boundaries on portraying real people’s lives in art? It seems to me that someone in Kolker’s position benefits most from siding with Larson on both questions… but not so wholeheartedly that he can’t sell the story.
posted by eirias at 8:05 AM on October 9, 2021 [9 favorites]
This is a good point. It’s funny in a way because my own sympathy was more or less instantly with Dorland, even though the piece made her sound a little extra, but after reading through all the reactions I realize both that mine was not a common reaction and that perhaps the writer didn’t intend it to be. And on reflection, how could it have been otherwise? I think it does take some failure to read the room on Dorland’s part to imagine that a writer at the New York Times is going to see a dispute between writers and come down on the side of a relative unknown, especially when the subtext of the dispute goes to two fundamental community questions: Who really counts as a writer? What are the boundaries on portraying real people’s lives in art? It seems to me that someone in Kolker’s position benefits most from siding with Larson on both questions… but not so wholeheartedly that he can’t sell the story.
posted by eirias at 8:05 AM on October 9, 2021 [9 favorites]
Bottom line: Larson didn't have to plagiarize Dorland to write this story. Clearly there were other social dynamics at play here, as evidenced by the group chats taking shit about Dorland. Larson doesn't seem like a nice person at all.
Indeed. In early drafts, Larson actually named the kidney donor character Dawn.
posted by blue suede stockings at 8:16 AM on October 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
Indeed. In early drafts, Larson actually named the kidney donor character Dawn.
posted by blue suede stockings at 8:16 AM on October 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
“I am not even sure Dorland was attention-seeking”
The longer this goes on, the more normal Dorland seems. I’m definitely coming around to her side.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:21 AM on October 9, 2021 [14 favorites]
The longer this goes on, the more normal Dorland seems. I’m definitely coming around to her side.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:21 AM on October 9, 2021 [14 favorites]
Also having read the story, I agree she really didn't need to use the letter - the Rose character has nearly no dimension and is basically a cardboard cutout of a straw lady. Any language would have made the plot point.
posted by Miko at 8:34 AM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:34 AM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
Just a few things off the top of my head that I do to minimise the risk that my “intensity” might set off someone that does me harm:Honestly, I relate to all of this a lot. And part of my reaction to this story was a completely terrified identification with and recoil from Dorland, because as depicted in the NYTimes story, she's sort of the embodiment of all my neuro-atypical social anxiety nightmares. And I have done a lot of dumb and self-destructive things out of fear that the people who I think of as my friends are just hanging out with me so they can use me as the butt of their cruel humor. But here's the thing: that's projection. I'm not Dawn Dorland. She's not me. (Also, it's increasingly seeming to me like the portrayal of her in the NYTimes story is a bit distorted, and she's a lot more socially normal than Kolker makes her out to be, and indeed probably than I am.) I think that a lot of us, myself included, are projecting a lot of our personal baggage onto this saga, and I'm not sure it actually illuminates much about the Dorland/ Larson dispute, although it may be useful for our own self-understanding.
About which: I realize that I identify hard with Dorland, but if I'm in danger of being someone in this story, it's one of Larson's catty, awful friends. If I found myself in Dorland's shoes, I don't think I would try to get the story pulled, or get a lawyer, or pitch a story about it to the New York Times. I think I would be too humiliated, and I would just hide forever and ever. But while I identify, in a negative way, with as-depicted-in-the-article Dorland and stay up nights worrying that I will be like her, I do not worry about being a person who uses casual cruelty to bond with friends. I don't guard against being that person, the way I guard against being a Dorland-like dupe. But maybe I should.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:13 AM on October 9, 2021 [22 favorites]
Also having read the story, I agree she really didn't need to use the letter - the Rose character has nearly no dimension and is basically a cardboard cutout of a straw lady. Any language would have made the plot point.
It’s a pity because based on the outline, I could imagine this being a story I’d get something out of. Sometimes needing to be grateful is a burden, and that’s pretty taboo. I can also see the analogy this sets up to things one might feel as an ethnic minority on the cusp of some big career success. Nobody wants to spend eternity in hock to other people for the privilege of existing. Nobody wants to live with that constant reminder that for totally unfair and arbitrary reasons they had it harder than other people do. I think there’s material for a really good story there, in the hands of a capable writer.
And I don’t want to say Larson isn’t a capable writer! I have no basis to say that. I can’t bring myself to read her story for the same reason that touring a meat packing plant might inspire one to go vegan. Blechh.
posted by eirias at 9:18 AM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
It’s a pity because based on the outline, I could imagine this being a story I’d get something out of. Sometimes needing to be grateful is a burden, and that’s pretty taboo. I can also see the analogy this sets up to things one might feel as an ethnic minority on the cusp of some big career success. Nobody wants to spend eternity in hock to other people for the privilege of existing. Nobody wants to live with that constant reminder that for totally unfair and arbitrary reasons they had it harder than other people do. I think there’s material for a really good story there, in the hands of a capable writer.
And I don’t want to say Larson isn’t a capable writer! I have no basis to say that. I can’t bring myself to read her story for the same reason that touring a meat packing plant might inspire one to go vegan. Blechh.
posted by eirias at 9:18 AM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
Part of the problem is in the story's genre: since psychological realism has to try to maintain a simulation of 'reality', it makes it harder to double back when called out, "No, no, that part isn't real-real, it's just pretending to be real.".
If she'd just chosen an older, more established genre like fantasy and made it all happen on a space station orbiting a dying double sun with the main characters being highly evolved squids, this whole problem could have been minimized.
posted by signal at 9:46 AM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
If she'd just chosen an older, more established genre like fantasy and made it all happen on a space station orbiting a dying double sun with the main characters being highly evolved squids, this whole problem could have been minimized.
posted by signal at 9:46 AM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
For the record, my own vote in the court of public opinion: I started out with ESH - I can see the racial angle and the appeal of the material beyond the mockery, I think the plagiarism is a bit of a technicality and not the real issue here - but the defenders of Dawn have convinced me that she has been wronged more and is disproportionally punished for a lack of social skills. The story is not just about her, as an uninvolved reader I can absolutely appreciate that, but it's enough about her for her to feel betrayed. Sure, her actions seem counter-productive, but she has already experienced a sort of social death, being made a laughing-stock in what she considered her community, I can see why she might feel she has little left to lose and decided to go burnt earth.
I'm often conflict averse, I can feel quickly overwhelmed by someone being very intense, I'm not above talking about someone behind their back and I have a deep horror of being confronted by someone who insists on a declaration of hate. So that's why I related a bit more to Larson at first. But I failed to account for the active gaslighting, and for Larson's failure to be accountable when called on it. I also missed at first how it was actually Larson who sued first. I understand a bit better now why Dawn needed the reality check, even if it was bound to hurt her even more and I want to thank the people taking her side for giving me more perspective.
posted by sohalt at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm often conflict averse, I can feel quickly overwhelmed by someone being very intense, I'm not above talking about someone behind their back and I have a deep horror of being confronted by someone who insists on a declaration of hate. So that's why I related a bit more to Larson at first. But I failed to account for the active gaslighting, and for Larson's failure to be accountable when called on it. I also missed at first how it was actually Larson who sued first. I understand a bit better now why Dawn needed the reality check, even if it was bound to hurt her even more and I want to thank the people taking her side for giving me more perspective.
posted by sohalt at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
I need to catch up with some of the new posts, but that's the thing: Dorland isn't reported as having significant privilege.. they're the same, or theoretically, Larson had more social fluidity.
This is not how privilege and intersectionality work. You don't add up all the scores and come up with a "This is the more privileged person" score at the end. Dorland is always going to have more white privilege than Larson. Always. That doesn't go away because Larson is a more successful writer or has more friends. That doesn't go away because Dorland is a trauma survivor (do we know that Larson isn't as well?) or if she's neurodivergent.
Larson wrote a story in which a white savior unaware of her privilege tries to force people to praise her. This is a thing that white people, especially white women, do. The fragility reactions that often occur when that praise is not forthcoming are often dangerous to POC.
Regardless of her intent, Dorland putting this much energy and time and effort into taking Larson down is playing out that exact fragility reaction. She is a white woman attempting to prevent a WOC from talking/publishing, and she is doing so in ways that white women often attempt to silence POC -- by claiming victimhood, by focusing on her own inherent goodness, by claiming closer friendships with POC than really existed in reality.
And "the race angle" is not something that is ever NOT in play. Even if everyone in any given situation is white. Especially then.
posted by lapis at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2021 [16 favorites]
This is not how privilege and intersectionality work. You don't add up all the scores and come up with a "This is the more privileged person" score at the end. Dorland is always going to have more white privilege than Larson. Always. That doesn't go away because Larson is a more successful writer or has more friends. That doesn't go away because Dorland is a trauma survivor (do we know that Larson isn't as well?) or if she's neurodivergent.
Larson wrote a story in which a white savior unaware of her privilege tries to force people to praise her. This is a thing that white people, especially white women, do. The fragility reactions that often occur when that praise is not forthcoming are often dangerous to POC.
Regardless of her intent, Dorland putting this much energy and time and effort into taking Larson down is playing out that exact fragility reaction. She is a white woman attempting to prevent a WOC from talking/publishing, and she is doing so in ways that white women often attempt to silence POC -- by claiming victimhood, by focusing on her own inherent goodness, by claiming closer friendships with POC than really existed in reality.
And "the race angle" is not something that is ever NOT in play. Even if everyone in any given situation is white. Especially then.
posted by lapis at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2021 [16 favorites]
And "the race angle" is not something that is ever NOT in play. Even if everyone in any given situation is white. Especially then.
Oh, absolutely. But it was Larson who sued first. She might have thought that attack is the best defense, and she might have had some reason to think so, some reason not to trust Dorland's offer to settle it out of court. Still, she must have been aware of the risks involved, knowing that she did actually use the letter and had admitted to it in writing.
It might not be a coincidence that it was one of the few non-white members of the group who was egged on to take on such a risk. Just as it might not be coincidence that it was one one the few non-white members who felt such a need to bolster her status with the in-group by doing the most to mock the outsider.
I agree with other commenters who pointed out that it's the other members of the writing group who come off worst. They had the laughs while Larson and Dorland would bear the costs.
I think that's another racial angle to consider.
posted by sohalt at 10:26 AM on October 9, 2021 [11 favorites]
Oh, absolutely. But it was Larson who sued first. She might have thought that attack is the best defense, and she might have had some reason to think so, some reason not to trust Dorland's offer to settle it out of court. Still, she must have been aware of the risks involved, knowing that she did actually use the letter and had admitted to it in writing.
It might not be a coincidence that it was one of the few non-white members of the group who was egged on to take on such a risk. Just as it might not be coincidence that it was one one the few non-white members who felt such a need to bolster her status with the in-group by doing the most to mock the outsider.
I agree with other commenters who pointed out that it's the other members of the writing group who come off worst. They had the laughs while Larson and Dorland would bear the costs.
I think that's another racial angle to consider.
posted by sohalt at 10:26 AM on October 9, 2021 [11 favorites]
I think a lot of people would have joined the FB group and then kept lurking out of morbid interest the way Larson did.
This is really disturbing to me. Of course, we don't know what the Facebook group was really like, but from Dorland's description in the Gawker article, she started it not because she wanted adulation but because she wanted support going through something difficult. There was a person on Twitter who also gave a kidney to a stranger, and she said she got a lot shit from people she knew. Plus this is major surgery. So it doesn't seem weird to me to want a space where you can talk about it with close friends who will support you.
If Dorland's characterization is correct, this would be more like Caring Bridge, a website for giving medical information to friends and getting support from them. I've often thought of using something like this if my cancer gets worse - it would be nice to have an easy way to update people. The idea that people might lurk out of morbid curiosity - that's just horrifying and disgusting to me. Even if Larson had never stolen Dorland's words or written a story about her, if a friend of mine were lurking on someone's personal Facebook page to copy her words to a group chat in order to make fun of her, I would not continue to be friends with that person.
posted by FencingGal at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2021 [15 favorites]
This is really disturbing to me. Of course, we don't know what the Facebook group was really like, but from Dorland's description in the Gawker article, she started it not because she wanted adulation but because she wanted support going through something difficult. There was a person on Twitter who also gave a kidney to a stranger, and she said she got a lot shit from people she knew. Plus this is major surgery. So it doesn't seem weird to me to want a space where you can talk about it with close friends who will support you.
If Dorland's characterization is correct, this would be more like Caring Bridge, a website for giving medical information to friends and getting support from them. I've often thought of using something like this if my cancer gets worse - it would be nice to have an easy way to update people. The idea that people might lurk out of morbid curiosity - that's just horrifying and disgusting to me. Even if Larson had never stolen Dorland's words or written a story about her, if a friend of mine were lurking on someone's personal Facebook page to copy her words to a group chat in order to make fun of her, I would not continue to be friends with that person.
posted by FencingGal at 10:41 AM on October 9, 2021 [15 favorites]
It occurs to me, btw, that one way of looking at this is that in "The Kindest," Larson is appropriating an experience of disability that isn't hers, in order to make a point about power dynamics that are unrelated to disability. And she's doing so in ways that could profoundly harm, and even kill, people who have the actual disability that she's appropriating the experience of. There are a lot of people waiting for donated kidneys, and it would be bad for them if the dominant narrative about kidney donation became that live kidney donors were acting on some pathological white savior impulse. Did she even think about real people with kidney failure, do any research about it, talk to any of them before she decided to build her narrative around that experience?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:46 AM on October 9, 2021 [29 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:46 AM on October 9, 2021 [29 favorites]
most of Larson's most ardent supporters seem to belong to the "white women are untrustworthy" school, but between Dorland and woman-of-color Larson, I know which one I'd be more guarded around.
For fuck’s sake, if you are white (as I am) please ask a mod to delete this creepy comment seemingly about people of color and ponder why you thought it needed to be posted. Thank you.
posted by Bella Donna at 10:53 AM on October 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
For fuck’s sake, if you are white (as I am) please ask a mod to delete this creepy comment seemingly about people of color and ponder why you thought it needed to be posted. Thank you.
posted by Bella Donna at 10:53 AM on October 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
She is a white woman attempting to prevent a WOC from talking/publishing,
She stole her words.
The plagiarism isn’t besides the point. If there were no plagiarism this would just be a gossip story about one person being a little awkward and one person being cruel. The plagiarism is the whole point. Dawn wrote about her experience and this woman stole her words and used them to mock her. That you are twisting that into Dawn trying to silence her plagiarist is perverse, ridiculous, and literally the opposite what happened.
posted by bq at 11:03 AM on October 9, 2021 [36 favorites]
She stole her words.
The plagiarism isn’t besides the point. If there were no plagiarism this would just be a gossip story about one person being a little awkward and one person being cruel. The plagiarism is the whole point. Dawn wrote about her experience and this woman stole her words and used them to mock her. That you are twisting that into Dawn trying to silence her plagiarist is perverse, ridiculous, and literally the opposite what happened.
posted by bq at 11:03 AM on October 9, 2021 [36 favorites]
Larson can be in the wrong (though I'm not sure she is) and Dorland's reaction can still be white fragility. POC don't have to be blameless in order to experience racism. All of that can be going on at once.
posted by lapis at 11:17 AM on October 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by lapis at 11:17 AM on October 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
Being upset that someone stole your words to mock you and then profited from it, while lying to you about what they did for TWO YEARS, is not white fragility oh my god.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 11:38 AM on October 9, 2021 [36 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 11:38 AM on October 9, 2021 [36 favorites]
And again, someone can be legitimately upset and still act in ways that reinforce structural racism. Racism doesn't go away when other stuff is also in play.
posted by lapis at 11:57 AM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by lapis at 11:57 AM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
Please explain how her actions reinforced white supremacy.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2021 [6 favorites]
Thread by Bryn Donovan, who is an altruistic kidney donor.
posted by FencingGal at 12:37 PM on October 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 12:37 PM on October 9, 2021 [10 favorites]
In an attempt to maybe try to steer this in a more productive direction...
sohalt brings up an important point I think, that also has been brought up on Twitter:
It might not be a coincidence that it was one of the few non-white members of the group who was egged on to take on such a risk. Just as it might not be coincidence that it was one one the few non-white members who felt such a need to bolster her status with the in-group by doing the most to mock the outsider.
Now to quote from the original article: "Sonya Larson understands life as an outsider. The daughter of a Chinese American mother and white father, she was brought up in a predominantly white, middle-class enclave in Minnesota, where being mixed-race sometimes confused her. “It took me a while to realize the things I was teased about were intertwined with my race." And “When you’re mixed-race, as I am, people have a way of ‘confiding’ in you”
As has been pointed out by many, the creative writing world is still pretty white. This is of course speculating, but it is not hard to imagine that Larson is shaped from a childhood in which she felt pressure to fit in mostly white spaces, and that might informing her adult behavior. I think we can certainly have empathy for Larson here, I know I do.
But to return to Larson, as this tweet points out, it was a "white woman's idea" to "use the writers of color in the group as a human shield for her own plagiarism." As a number of people have pointed out, part of Larson's problem is she has a lot of Bad Art Friends herself, and she quite likely felt more pressure to "fit in" and match their cattiness due to the fact that all of this was, of course, set in racist America.
That tweet was in response to this thread by a Filipino-American cartoon artist, about how "framing the Bad Art Friend story as a white woman vs. AsAm woman fails to account for the ways power & privilege intersect here, & that the people using this framing are harming the AsAm community & don't care that they are." I found it quite thought provoking, particularly this quote "if a writer of color feels comfortable plagiarizing a white person (& their other POC friends publicly condone it), what makes you think they won't do it to their own community? The scary reality is they can, & they do. The broader problem is that powerful AsAms with white resources & backing use their privilege to crush less powerful AsAms, profit off their victims' content, & turn to identity as a shield for their actions. I've experienced it myself multiple times." In short, I don't think it's wrong to want the authors we read to behave ethnically.
posted by coffeecat at 12:46 PM on October 9, 2021 [18 favorites]
sohalt brings up an important point I think, that also has been brought up on Twitter:
It might not be a coincidence that it was one of the few non-white members of the group who was egged on to take on such a risk. Just as it might not be coincidence that it was one one the few non-white members who felt such a need to bolster her status with the in-group by doing the most to mock the outsider.
Now to quote from the original article: "Sonya Larson understands life as an outsider. The daughter of a Chinese American mother and white father, she was brought up in a predominantly white, middle-class enclave in Minnesota, where being mixed-race sometimes confused her. “It took me a while to realize the things I was teased about were intertwined with my race." And “When you’re mixed-race, as I am, people have a way of ‘confiding’ in you”
As has been pointed out by many, the creative writing world is still pretty white. This is of course speculating, but it is not hard to imagine that Larson is shaped from a childhood in which she felt pressure to fit in mostly white spaces, and that might informing her adult behavior. I think we can certainly have empathy for Larson here, I know I do.
But to return to Larson, as this tweet points out, it was a "white woman's idea" to "use the writers of color in the group as a human shield for her own plagiarism." As a number of people have pointed out, part of Larson's problem is she has a lot of Bad Art Friends herself, and she quite likely felt more pressure to "fit in" and match their cattiness due to the fact that all of this was, of course, set in racist America.
That tweet was in response to this thread by a Filipino-American cartoon artist, about how "framing the Bad Art Friend story as a white woman vs. AsAm woman fails to account for the ways power & privilege intersect here, & that the people using this framing are harming the AsAm community & don't care that they are." I found it quite thought provoking, particularly this quote "if a writer of color feels comfortable plagiarizing a white person (& their other POC friends publicly condone it), what makes you think they won't do it to their own community? The scary reality is they can, & they do. The broader problem is that powerful AsAms with white resources & backing use their privilege to crush less powerful AsAms, profit off their victims' content, & turn to identity as a shield for their actions. I've experienced it myself multiple times." In short, I don't think it's wrong to want the authors we read to behave ethnically.
posted by coffeecat at 12:46 PM on October 9, 2021 [18 favorites]
Zeynep Tufekci has a fascinating meta take: link
Does the article, in creating more ambiguity between two sides than perhaps is there once all facts are shared, drive more viewer engagement, and if so, what are the larger (scary) implications?
posted by prex at 12:56 PM on October 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
Does the article, in creating more ambiguity between two sides than perhaps is there once all facts are shared, drive more viewer engagement, and if so, what are the larger (scary) implications?
posted by prex at 12:56 PM on October 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
Coffeecat, I think you meant "ethically"?
And thank you for raising that point, it is an useful and interesting and good one that is getting lost because somehow we're all sitting around arguing about whether or not it was like, real plagiarism or just like, regular plagiarism. Plagiarism lite, if you will.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:57 PM on October 9, 2021
And thank you for raising that point, it is an useful and interesting and good one that is getting lost because somehow we're all sitting around arguing about whether or not it was like, real plagiarism or just like, regular plagiarism. Plagiarism lite, if you will.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 12:57 PM on October 9, 2021
Yes, gah, I meant ethically.
The Tufekci thread is interesting - I also find the fact it went viral to be one of the more interesting parts (incidentally, this all reminded me I hadn't talked to a writer friend of mine, she's a waitress, and she noted that she's overheard several people talking about this story at her restaurant). It is also worth noting that while I agree it was over-the-top of Dorland to pitch this the NYTimes, there is no way she anticipated it would go viral, especially since the Boston Globe wrote about it two years ago, with little impact.
posted by coffeecat at 1:15 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Tufekci thread is interesting - I also find the fact it went viral to be one of the more interesting parts (incidentally, this all reminded me I hadn't talked to a writer friend of mine, she's a waitress, and she noted that she's overheard several people talking about this story at her restaurant). It is also worth noting that while I agree it was over-the-top of Dorland to pitch this the NYTimes, there is no way she anticipated it would go viral, especially since the Boston Globe wrote about it two years ago, with little impact.
posted by coffeecat at 1:15 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
After actually looking at the footwork and court info, I would think she anticipated the NYT story to be a cultural hiccup, or almost another borderline nonstarter.
"It is also worth noting that while I agree it was over-the-top of Dorland to pitch this the NYTimes, there is no way she anticipated it would go viral, especially since the Boston Globe wrote about it two years ago, with little impact." Based on a lot of tone presented in those materials, I do not* think she has interest in a viral story like this.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:37 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
"It is also worth noting that while I agree it was over-the-top of Dorland to pitch this the NYTimes, there is no way she anticipated it would go viral, especially since the Boston Globe wrote about it two years ago, with little impact." Based on a lot of tone presented in those materials, I do not* think she has interest in a viral story like this.
posted by firstdaffodils at 1:37 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
Prex, thanks for the Tufekci link, I think that explains how my view of events has changed, but I wouldn't have thought of it on my own.
I think Kolker revealing Larson's dishonesty as a "twist" far down in the article meant that on first read, I a lot less skeptical of Larson's version of events and POV. It was only after I had time to process things, and seeing some of the documents emerge on Twitter that the full picture really emerged: Larson lied to Dorland. She lied to The Boston Globe. She lied to the NYT. She lied to the Boston Book Festival. Easily-disprovable lies are like the visible part of an iceberg to me--if there's that much I can see, I'm sure there's much more that I can't.
(I have a morbid curiosity about what mental gymnastics Larson's defenders have come up with to justify the Boston Book Festival debacle. I get that Larson's crew think Dorland is unworthy of basic human decency, and maybe they justify lying to the press as "that's why they have fact checkers", but how on earth can they justify the failure to tell a non-profit about the ongoing intellectual property dispute, causing the festival to lose thousands of dollars in printing fees for a story they couldn't use? The Festival could and would have picked another story if they'd known about the dispute from the beginning.)
posted by creepygirl at 2:05 PM on October 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
I think Kolker revealing Larson's dishonesty as a "twist" far down in the article meant that on first read, I a lot less skeptical of Larson's version of events and POV. It was only after I had time to process things, and seeing some of the documents emerge on Twitter that the full picture really emerged: Larson lied to Dorland. She lied to The Boston Globe. She lied to the NYT. She lied to the Boston Book Festival. Easily-disprovable lies are like the visible part of an iceberg to me--if there's that much I can see, I'm sure there's much more that I can't.
(I have a morbid curiosity about what mental gymnastics Larson's defenders have come up with to justify the Boston Book Festival debacle. I get that Larson's crew think Dorland is unworthy of basic human decency, and maybe they justify lying to the press as "that's why they have fact checkers", but how on earth can they justify the failure to tell a non-profit about the ongoing intellectual property dispute, causing the festival to lose thousands of dollars in printing fees for a story they couldn't use? The Festival could and would have picked another story if they'd known about the dispute from the beginning.)
posted by creepygirl at 2:05 PM on October 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
I've been following this thread all day and thinking about what I feel, and it is complicated.
Years ago, one of my friends did something similar to what Larson did, and there was a civil case that went all the way to the supreme court (in this country which is not the USA). My friend won. Freedom of speech and artistic license won over plagiarism, and from a technical point of view, I agree. Plagiarism in art is always complicated, and never comparable to plagiarism in science or journalism. Artists use elements from life in their art, and if they can't do that, it limits their artistic expression. I don't read my friend's books, to avoid finding their interpretation of me in there.
But. As in this case, the offended person was/is not NT, and I have struggled all along with how to deal with that. We like to imagine that vulnerable people are "pure" victims. But some people with mental health issues are very difficult to relate to. They may fabulate/lie, they might harm themselves in ways that are hard to deal with, and they may impose themselves on your life in ways that are frightening. Right now I have a stalker who I know is mentally ill, but that doesn't make his attention less scary. The person my friend "used" in a narrative is extremely unpleasant. But does that legitimise exposing a person who is not able to understand their own actions and impact? I don't know, and I'm not sure I ever will.
I won't discuss Dorland specifically, because I am strongly against diagnosing from a distance. But the person my friend wrote about, who I knew well, had no idea that his sense of self was off. Through all the litigation, he saw himself as "normal" citizen, going through a "normal" legal procedure. And to be fair, if I posted the details here, many of you would see my friend as the insane person.
Larson wrote a story inspired by Dorland's FB post, and the story in it self has very little to do with Dorland. Yes, she used the text from the post, but in my opinion that is still within the "artistic license" frame. It's not nice, but artists are not supposed to be nice. My friend could use a mail from me in a completely different context and I wouldn't see it as plagiarism, because of the different context. If they copied the plot and several lines of text from a short story I had written but not published, that would be a different case, but that is not what happened here.
The evil is in all the interpersonal stuff. The group snarking about Dorland and keeping her out of group activities. The group encouraging Larson to publish the story even when she has doubts. But that is all outside the legal system. It is about how we deal with mental health issues when they aren't pretty. Now, as an old person, I wouldn't snark about a vulnerable person. But when I was in my thirties, and had no idea about all of this, I would let loose all the time. I am ashamed of it, but it happened.
posted by mumimor at 3:08 PM on October 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
Years ago, one of my friends did something similar to what Larson did, and there was a civil case that went all the way to the supreme court (in this country which is not the USA). My friend won. Freedom of speech and artistic license won over plagiarism, and from a technical point of view, I agree. Plagiarism in art is always complicated, and never comparable to plagiarism in science or journalism. Artists use elements from life in their art, and if they can't do that, it limits their artistic expression. I don't read my friend's books, to avoid finding their interpretation of me in there.
But. As in this case, the offended person was/is not NT, and I have struggled all along with how to deal with that. We like to imagine that vulnerable people are "pure" victims. But some people with mental health issues are very difficult to relate to. They may fabulate/lie, they might harm themselves in ways that are hard to deal with, and they may impose themselves on your life in ways that are frightening. Right now I have a stalker who I know is mentally ill, but that doesn't make his attention less scary. The person my friend "used" in a narrative is extremely unpleasant. But does that legitimise exposing a person who is not able to understand their own actions and impact? I don't know, and I'm not sure I ever will.
I won't discuss Dorland specifically, because I am strongly against diagnosing from a distance. But the person my friend wrote about, who I knew well, had no idea that his sense of self was off. Through all the litigation, he saw himself as "normal" citizen, going through a "normal" legal procedure. And to be fair, if I posted the details here, many of you would see my friend as the insane person.
Larson wrote a story inspired by Dorland's FB post, and the story in it self has very little to do with Dorland. Yes, she used the text from the post, but in my opinion that is still within the "artistic license" frame. It's not nice, but artists are not supposed to be nice. My friend could use a mail from me in a completely different context and I wouldn't see it as plagiarism, because of the different context. If they copied the plot and several lines of text from a short story I had written but not published, that would be a different case, but that is not what happened here.
The evil is in all the interpersonal stuff. The group snarking about Dorland and keeping her out of group activities. The group encouraging Larson to publish the story even when she has doubts. But that is all outside the legal system. It is about how we deal with mental health issues when they aren't pretty. Now, as an old person, I wouldn't snark about a vulnerable person. But when I was in my thirties, and had no idea about all of this, I would let loose all the time. I am ashamed of it, but it happened.
posted by mumimor at 3:08 PM on October 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
Larson wrote a story inspired by Dorland's FB post, and the story in it self has very little to do with Dorland.
This isn't true, though. From the chats and the fact that the character was originally named Dawn it's pretty clear that the character was based on Larson's perception of her. Larson and her friends were crowing over the mockery it made of Dorland and the letter was pretty clearly meant to be a twist of the knife--not simple "artistic inspiration".
posted by Anonymous at 3:34 PM on October 9, 2021
This isn't true, though. From the chats and the fact that the character was originally named Dawn it's pretty clear that the character was based on Larson's perception of her. Larson and her friends were crowing over the mockery it made of Dorland and the letter was pretty clearly meant to be a twist of the knife--not simple "artistic inspiration".
posted by Anonymous at 3:34 PM on October 9, 2021
This isn't true, though. From the chats and the fact that the character was originally named Dawn it's pretty clear that the character was based on Larson's perception of her. Larson and her friends were crowing over the mockery it made of Dorland and the letter was pretty clearly meant to be a twist of the knife--not simple "artistic inspiration".
Which is true, but also evidence that Larson wasn't in any way a friend of Dorland. If she had been a friend in the normal sense of the word, she would have known that Dorland wasn't a stereotypical privileged white woman.
Dorland shouldn't have shared personal information with strangers on the internet, and the fact that she saw Larson as a friend is heart-breaking.
This is sad on so many levels.
posted by mumimor at 3:45 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
Which is true, but also evidence that Larson wasn't in any way a friend of Dorland. If she had been a friend in the normal sense of the word, she would have known that Dorland wasn't a stereotypical privileged white woman.
Dorland shouldn't have shared personal information with strangers on the internet, and the fact that she saw Larson as a friend is heart-breaking.
This is sad on so many levels.
posted by mumimor at 3:45 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
Which is true, but also evidence that Larson wasn't in any way a friend of Dorland. If she had been a friend in the normal sense of the word, she would have known that Dorland wasn't a stereotypical privileged white woman.
This excuses Larson's behavior, how? Is it okay to mock someone and write mean stories about them and plagiarize from them while allowing them to think you are their friend if that person is sufficiently privileged? Where are you going with this, exactly?
Dorland shouldn't have shared personal information with strangers on the internet, and the fact that she saw Larson as a friend is heart-breaking.
They weren't strangers. They had known each other for eight years. They were in the same writing circle. They attended the same writer's workshop. The facebook group was private and small, limited to people Dorland knew IRL, and Dorland made sure to let Larson know she didn't have to be in it if she didn't want to be.
The gap between people who RTFA and people who didn't is stark on this one, damn.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:01 PM on October 9, 2021 [31 favorites]
This excuses Larson's behavior, how? Is it okay to mock someone and write mean stories about them and plagiarize from them while allowing them to think you are their friend if that person is sufficiently privileged? Where are you going with this, exactly?
Dorland shouldn't have shared personal information with strangers on the internet, and the fact that she saw Larson as a friend is heart-breaking.
They weren't strangers. They had known each other for eight years. They were in the same writing circle. They attended the same writer's workshop. The facebook group was private and small, limited to people Dorland knew IRL, and Dorland made sure to let Larson know she didn't have to be in it if she didn't want to be.
The gap between people who RTFA and people who didn't is stark on this one, damn.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 4:01 PM on October 9, 2021 [31 favorites]
I began by being led in the direction the article "intended"-- that invitation to point and laugh at somebody who acted outside social norms, what a dork, haha. I have come completely around to Team Dorland, for lack of a better term, starting with her corrections to the NYT article. The FB group was a tiny selection of her social media contacts-- some 24 to 32 people. Larson was the first to take legal action. The plagiarism is blatant. This thread from Dan Nguyen was a turning point.
posted by jokeefe at 4:21 PM on October 9, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 4:21 PM on October 9, 2021 [8 favorites]
This excuses Larson's behavior, how? Is it okay to mock someone and write mean stories about them and plagiarize from them while allowing them to think you are their friend if that person is sufficiently privileged? Where are you going with this, exactly?
I'm obviously not being clear here. There is no excuse for Larson's behaviour. I do not approve. I also don't approve of my friend's behaviour. I just don't think it is a legal matter. And also, we have lots of great literature that is based on stuff like this, but where we have forgotten the background. Right at the front of my mind there is everything Truman Capote wrote. I don't know what to think is what I am saying.
They weren't strangers. They had known each other for eight years. They were in the same writing circle. They attended the same writer's workshop. The facebook group was private and small, limited to people Dorland knew IRL, and Dorland made sure to let Larson know she didn't have to be in it if she didn't want to be.
Dorland obviously thought Larson was a friend, and Larson obviously didn't think Dorland was a friend. Since I don't find Larson particularly sympathetic, I don't feel it is my job to defend or explain why she didn't opt out of the FB group. But I can see how that could happen. And in my comment above, I was trying to say that sometimes happens when people who are not neuro-typical in a not charming manner interact with people who are not very empathetic.
The gap between people who RTFA and people who didn't is stark on this one, damn.
WTF? Are you assuming that your way of understandting TFA is the only acceptable way?
posted by mumimor at 4:25 PM on October 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm obviously not being clear here. There is no excuse for Larson's behaviour. I do not approve. I also don't approve of my friend's behaviour. I just don't think it is a legal matter. And also, we have lots of great literature that is based on stuff like this, but where we have forgotten the background. Right at the front of my mind there is everything Truman Capote wrote. I don't know what to think is what I am saying.
They weren't strangers. They had known each other for eight years. They were in the same writing circle. They attended the same writer's workshop. The facebook group was private and small, limited to people Dorland knew IRL, and Dorland made sure to let Larson know she didn't have to be in it if she didn't want to be.
Dorland obviously thought Larson was a friend, and Larson obviously didn't think Dorland was a friend. Since I don't find Larson particularly sympathetic, I don't feel it is my job to defend or explain why she didn't opt out of the FB group. But I can see how that could happen. And in my comment above, I was trying to say that sometimes happens when people who are not neuro-typical in a not charming manner interact with people who are not very empathetic.
The gap between people who RTFA and people who didn't is stark on this one, damn.
WTF? Are you assuming that your way of understandting TFA is the only acceptable way?
posted by mumimor at 4:25 PM on October 9, 2021 [4 favorites]
If Larson “obviously” didn’t think of Dorland as a friend, it’s pretty fucked up that she explicitly raised her supposed friendship with Dorland as a cudgel when Dorland expressed her discomfort with the parallels between her experience and the story!
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:35 PM on October 9, 2021 [22 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:35 PM on October 9, 2021 [22 favorites]
Specifically:
Larson answered this time. “I see that you’re merely expressing real hurt, and for that I am truly sorry,” she wrote on July 21. But she also changed gears a little. “I myself have seen references to my own life in others’ fiction, and it certainly felt weird at first. But I maintain that they have a right to write about what they want — as do I, and as do you.”
Hurt feelings or not, Larson was articulating an ideal — a principle she felt she and all writers ought to live up to. “For me, honoring another’s artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship,” Larson wrote, “and of trust.”
I mean, my god, this was an awful, manipulative thing to say to a person she clearly thought of as a pathetic weirdo and not a friend of any sort. And 'trust'? Fuck me. I can't even read this without seeing red.
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:38 PM on October 9, 2021 [41 favorites]
Larson answered this time. “I see that you’re merely expressing real hurt, and for that I am truly sorry,” she wrote on July 21. But she also changed gears a little. “I myself have seen references to my own life in others’ fiction, and it certainly felt weird at first. But I maintain that they have a right to write about what they want — as do I, and as do you.”
Hurt feelings or not, Larson was articulating an ideal — a principle she felt she and all writers ought to live up to. “For me, honoring another’s artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship,” Larson wrote, “and of trust.”
I mean, my god, this was an awful, manipulative thing to say to a person she clearly thought of as a pathetic weirdo and not a friend of any sort. And 'trust'? Fuck me. I can't even read this without seeing red.
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:38 PM on October 9, 2021 [41 favorites]
I mean, my god, this was an awful, manipulative thing to say to a person she clearly thought of as a pathetic weirdo and not a friend of any sort.
I agree 100%
posted by mumimor at 4:39 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
I agree 100%
posted by mumimor at 4:39 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
Let’s everyone remember this tale when we are on askme and in our lives!
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:40 PM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:40 PM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
No, I misunderstood your point. There have been people saying, in essence, that Larson wasn't behaving badly because they weren't really friends and barely knew each other, which isn't true, provably so. It's not accurate to say Dorland was oversharing with strangers, because these people were not strangers and as pointed out, Larson actually played on Dorland's presumption of friendship to get her way. I thought you were trying to downplay the degree to which Dorland's trust was deliberately exploited.
As for there being a legal question, well, it hasn't been tossed out yet, so there clearly is standing under US copyright law. We also have Larson's own words saying that she deliberately used Dorland's exact words because nothing else worked better, so we have her confessing to having deliberately taken words that were not hers and presented them as hers, and then having sold those stolen words and used them to enhance her professional reputation. Under US copyright you don't get to do that. It's not allowed. It is, in fact, a legal issue.
Now, the remedy in this case is probably going to be very, very narrow - likely an injunction against ever publishing the original version with the verbatim passage again, and a requirement that any publication with that version update it. (if Dorland gets lucky she may also recoup some legal fees) - because plagiarism of this particular sort can be hard to prove and we can't have people running around saying such and such a person owes them ten thousand dollars because the wording of their introduction is similar to post they made on livejournal five years ago. But in thiss case we have pretty fucking definitive proof that Larson deliberately and intentionally with full awareness did a thing that Is Not Legal. Making this a legal issue. If you don't agree with US copyright law, then that's a broader conversation than this thread can hold.
It's also worth noting that while they both lawyer'd up at about the same time, the sequence of legal events was
1. Dorland seeks a settlement which includes attribution and a monetary sum. Larson rejects it and refuses to come to the table.
2. Dorland seeks mediation and reconciliation. Larson rejects this option and refuses to come to the table.
3. Dorland finally considers simply suing Larson. Larson sues her for defamation of character before she can. Dorland countersues for plagiarism. Discovery reveals multiple documents where Larson says very clearly and explicitly that she totally plagiarized Dawn, the story is about Dawn, she used Dawn's letter because she wanted it to be clear that the story was About Dawn. This blows Larson's case pretty much clean out of the water, truth being an absolute defense against libel or slander and all that. And with this new evidence, Dorland's case for plagiarism becomes pretty airtight.
This wasn't someone getting upset and suing because the law should govern hurt feelings. This was a professional violating known professional standards who is embarrassed that she got caught. Writing a mean little story about Dorland isn't the legal issue; stealing her words is. Under US copyright, that is not allowed. Larson knew that. She demonstrates in texts that she knowingly and willfully contravened US copyright law.
And this is really not the test case you wanna use for "US copyright is too restrictive."
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:02 PM on October 9, 2021 [22 favorites]
As for there being a legal question, well, it hasn't been tossed out yet, so there clearly is standing under US copyright law. We also have Larson's own words saying that she deliberately used Dorland's exact words because nothing else worked better, so we have her confessing to having deliberately taken words that were not hers and presented them as hers, and then having sold those stolen words and used them to enhance her professional reputation. Under US copyright you don't get to do that. It's not allowed. It is, in fact, a legal issue.
Now, the remedy in this case is probably going to be very, very narrow - likely an injunction against ever publishing the original version with the verbatim passage again, and a requirement that any publication with that version update it. (if Dorland gets lucky she may also recoup some legal fees) - because plagiarism of this particular sort can be hard to prove and we can't have people running around saying such and such a person owes them ten thousand dollars because the wording of their introduction is similar to post they made on livejournal five years ago. But in thiss case we have pretty fucking definitive proof that Larson deliberately and intentionally with full awareness did a thing that Is Not Legal. Making this a legal issue. If you don't agree with US copyright law, then that's a broader conversation than this thread can hold.
It's also worth noting that while they both lawyer'd up at about the same time, the sequence of legal events was
1. Dorland seeks a settlement which includes attribution and a monetary sum. Larson rejects it and refuses to come to the table.
2. Dorland seeks mediation and reconciliation. Larson rejects this option and refuses to come to the table.
3. Dorland finally considers simply suing Larson. Larson sues her for defamation of character before she can. Dorland countersues for plagiarism. Discovery reveals multiple documents where Larson says very clearly and explicitly that she totally plagiarized Dawn, the story is about Dawn, she used Dawn's letter because she wanted it to be clear that the story was About Dawn. This blows Larson's case pretty much clean out of the water, truth being an absolute defense against libel or slander and all that. And with this new evidence, Dorland's case for plagiarism becomes pretty airtight.
This wasn't someone getting upset and suing because the law should govern hurt feelings. This was a professional violating known professional standards who is embarrassed that she got caught. Writing a mean little story about Dorland isn't the legal issue; stealing her words is. Under US copyright, that is not allowed. Larson knew that. She demonstrates in texts that she knowingly and willfully contravened US copyright law.
And this is really not the test case you wanna use for "US copyright is too restrictive."
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:02 PM on October 9, 2021 [22 favorites]
My grandmother always strongly objected to us all calling people "friends" if they weren't people we had trusting relationships with over several decades. I felt she overdid it, but I appreciate that she would have rolled her eyes all the way round to her neck in the age of FB.
Once I had a great time with a fellow student at a PhD workshop and now we are FB friends and I promote her work when I can. Does that mean she knows about my emotional state or understand my life choices? No of course not. Even my closest friends don't completely get it. People assume a lot of stuff about me which is just wrong, but I don't worry because that is how life is. Aspects of my life have been used in literature more than once and it has never been a "correct" perception of who I am, because it is not about me, but about the person the author is imagining. I hate it, but I don't litigate it, and I don't push journalists at the NYT to write about it.
If Dorland had a realistic understanding about literature, she would also understand that Larson's text is a thing in itself. There is a real relation to her life story, and Larson and her friends are truly cruel. But at the end of the day, the text was not about her when it went out there in the public sphere until she made it be so. The donor in the story is not Dorland, and the recipient is not the Rabbi who in real life received Dorland's kidney.
I thought the article was interesting because it showed how vulnerable people like Dorland are exposed and find it difficult to navigate in a world that seems organised by social media. And how identity issues can overshadow mental health issues. And also, as stated above, I recognised the dilemma from a case I was personally close to.
posted by mumimor at 5:05 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
Once I had a great time with a fellow student at a PhD workshop and now we are FB friends and I promote her work when I can. Does that mean she knows about my emotional state or understand my life choices? No of course not. Even my closest friends don't completely get it. People assume a lot of stuff about me which is just wrong, but I don't worry because that is how life is. Aspects of my life have been used in literature more than once and it has never been a "correct" perception of who I am, because it is not about me, but about the person the author is imagining. I hate it, but I don't litigate it, and I don't push journalists at the NYT to write about it.
If Dorland had a realistic understanding about literature, she would also understand that Larson's text is a thing in itself. There is a real relation to her life story, and Larson and her friends are truly cruel. But at the end of the day, the text was not about her when it went out there in the public sphere until she made it be so. The donor in the story is not Dorland, and the recipient is not the Rabbi who in real life received Dorland's kidney.
I thought the article was interesting because it showed how vulnerable people like Dorland are exposed and find it difficult to navigate in a world that seems organised by social media. And how identity issues can overshadow mental health issues. And also, as stated above, I recognised the dilemma from a case I was personally close to.
posted by mumimor at 5:05 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
But at the end of the day, the text was not about her when it went out there in the public sphere until she made it be so.
It literally was, though. Larson joked about naming it "Kindly, Dawn." The character was originally named Dawn. A man who knew both Larson and Dorland instantly pegged it as being inspired by or about Dorland's kidney donation. It was, in fact, about her. It was recognizably about her. The original version used her actual literal words.
I hate it, but I don't litigate it, and I don't push journalists at the NYT to write about it.
Dorland approaches Larson about the story, asking what the deal is, and if it is about her. Larson lies and blows her off. Dorlan discovers the original version, which quotes her privately published letter verbatim. Dorland gets a lawyer. Dorland seeks settlement and is rejected. Dorland seeks mediation and is rejected. Dorland considers bringing suit. Larson sues first. Dorland countersues. No one was litigating anything until Larson decided that suing someone for defaming her by saying something demonstrably true was a great life choice.
Furthermore, the only person saying that "Dorland pitched it to the NYT" is Celeste Ng, who has been leading a battalion of fluying monkeys in Larson's defense since day one and, being one of Larson's friends, already has a history of lying through their teeth about Dorland's behavior. No one actually seems to know how Kolker got ahold of the story, so it would be great if we refrained from using the framing established by someone with an investment in making Dorland sound like a crazy white woman.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:40 PM on October 9, 2021 [19 favorites]
It literally was, though. Larson joked about naming it "Kindly, Dawn." The character was originally named Dawn. A man who knew both Larson and Dorland instantly pegged it as being inspired by or about Dorland's kidney donation. It was, in fact, about her. It was recognizably about her. The original version used her actual literal words.
I hate it, but I don't litigate it, and I don't push journalists at the NYT to write about it.
Dorland approaches Larson about the story, asking what the deal is, and if it is about her. Larson lies and blows her off. Dorlan discovers the original version, which quotes her privately published letter verbatim. Dorland gets a lawyer. Dorland seeks settlement and is rejected. Dorland seeks mediation and is rejected. Dorland considers bringing suit. Larson sues first. Dorland countersues. No one was litigating anything until Larson decided that suing someone for defaming her by saying something demonstrably true was a great life choice.
Furthermore, the only person saying that "Dorland pitched it to the NYT" is Celeste Ng, who has been leading a battalion of fluying monkeys in Larson's defense since day one and, being one of Larson's friends, already has a history of lying through their teeth about Dorland's behavior. No one actually seems to know how Kolker got ahold of the story, so it would be great if we refrained from using the framing established by someone with an investment in making Dorland sound like a crazy white woman.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 5:40 PM on October 9, 2021 [19 favorites]
It literally was, though. Larson joked about naming it "Kindly, Dawn." The character was originally named Dawn. A man who knew both Larson and Dorland instantly pegged it as being inspired by or about Dorland's kidney donation. It was, in fact, about her. It was recognizably about her. The original version used her actual literal words.
But then it wasn't. The "Dawn" character in the short story was a person of privilege and the recipient was a flawed person of color. This is not Dawn's real story. The fictional story took its point of departure in Dorland's FB post, but moved on from that to a completely different narrative.
I can't believe I'm defending Larson here, because I am really ambivalent about this whole genre of literature, and I also find Larson to be exploitative. But I guess that I feel a need to defend the point that art grows out of life, in sometimes painful ways. And we have to defend even the bad artists, because the alternative is to close down all art. We can't have an art-police determining what is good and bad art, and who are allowed to "use" experiences from real life.
posted by mumimor at 5:58 PM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
But then it wasn't. The "Dawn" character in the short story was a person of privilege and the recipient was a flawed person of color. This is not Dawn's real story. The fictional story took its point of departure in Dorland's FB post, but moved on from that to a completely different narrative.
I can't believe I'm defending Larson here, because I am really ambivalent about this whole genre of literature, and I also find Larson to be exploitative. But I guess that I feel a need to defend the point that art grows out of life, in sometimes painful ways. And we have to defend even the bad artists, because the alternative is to close down all art. We can't have an art-police determining what is good and bad art, and who are allowed to "use" experiences from real life.
posted by mumimor at 5:58 PM on October 9, 2021 [7 favorites]
I have come completely around to Team Dorland, for lack of a better term, starting with her corrections to the NYT article.
Just to correct this...
Dorland sent corrections about the (very sloppy) Gawker post, not the original NYT article. Since publication, the Times story has made two small corrections: one about whether Grub Street responded to Dorland (they did), and one clarifying her fears about being sued for copyright infringement by Larson.
posted by neroli at 6:03 PM on October 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
Just to correct this...
Dorland sent corrections about the (very sloppy) Gawker post, not the original NYT article. Since publication, the Times story has made two small corrections: one about whether Grub Street responded to Dorland (they did), and one clarifying her fears about being sued for copyright infringement by Larson.
posted by neroli at 6:03 PM on October 9, 2021 [3 favorites]
And if Larson had managed to write her little sneer story without directly ripping off Dorland's words, on purpose, in the full understanding that what she was doing would cause legal issues, I would say you had a point about how this going to the courts isn't in anyone's best interest.
But. She didn't. She broke the law, on purpose, to hurt someone, while lying to that person about her intent, which was to steal and to hurt. It wasn't accidental, it wasn't 'artistic,' it was deliberate and bullying. Larson wanted to write an AU of reality where Dawn was a bad person and despising her for her act of altruism was justifiable. It's very, very clear in the chat transcripts.
And yes, legally, none of this would matter if Larson hadn't published a version, for money, that used Dawn's words verbatim, deliberately, without attribution, presented as Larson's own. That is right and fine and good. But also not what happened! There was no legal issue until Larson repeatedly chose to do things that would MAKE a legal issue, so I'm not exactly going "poor little meow meow, we must protect artists." American writers are expected to know American copyright laws; she knew what she was doing opened her to legal consequences. Dorland wouldn't have a case if Larson hadn't done, on purpose, knowing what the consequences could be, a thing that she KNEW would CREATE a legal case.
Like you know how even if your neighbor is a real asshole, you're still not allowed to shove him on the sidewalk unprovoked? Same energy. I have no sympathy for Larson deciding to do a thing that she knew could get her in trouble, getting in trouble, and then boo-hooing about how unfair it is that she got in trouble for doing the thing she knew would get her in trouble.
And again, if your actual beef is that you think US copyright law is too restrictive, this is not your test case.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 6:13 PM on October 9, 2021 [15 favorites]
But. She didn't. She broke the law, on purpose, to hurt someone, while lying to that person about her intent, which was to steal and to hurt. It wasn't accidental, it wasn't 'artistic,' it was deliberate and bullying. Larson wanted to write an AU of reality where Dawn was a bad person and despising her for her act of altruism was justifiable. It's very, very clear in the chat transcripts.
And yes, legally, none of this would matter if Larson hadn't published a version, for money, that used Dawn's words verbatim, deliberately, without attribution, presented as Larson's own. That is right and fine and good. But also not what happened! There was no legal issue until Larson repeatedly chose to do things that would MAKE a legal issue, so I'm not exactly going "poor little meow meow, we must protect artists." American writers are expected to know American copyright laws; she knew what she was doing opened her to legal consequences. Dorland wouldn't have a case if Larson hadn't done, on purpose, knowing what the consequences could be, a thing that she KNEW would CREATE a legal case.
Like you know how even if your neighbor is a real asshole, you're still not allowed to shove him on the sidewalk unprovoked? Same energy. I have no sympathy for Larson deciding to do a thing that she knew could get her in trouble, getting in trouble, and then boo-hooing about how unfair it is that she got in trouble for doing the thing she knew would get her in trouble.
And again, if your actual beef is that you think US copyright law is too restrictive, this is not your test case.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 6:13 PM on October 9, 2021 [15 favorites]
Hoooooo boy, the twitterati have found an instance of Larson lying under oath in a sworn affidavit that was filed on April 27 of 2021, in response to Dorland's response, so she dead-ass knew that Dorland was after her group chats (/already had them; I've lost track of the timeline) when she filed this sworn statement, and she absolutely knew or should have known what was in the group chats she was swearing an affidavit about. However you feel about plagiarism and copyright infringement (a civil wrong, generally), perjury is a criminal offense, and this appears very deliberate, and very long after the fact when a good-faith plaintiff who doesn't remember exactly how shit went down would have been expected to refresh their memory about a literal dispute over the discovery of exactly this information.
This is super, super, super bad, and is never a good choice to throw a little criminal perjury into a civil case. Especially not given that she says in the affidavit that she knows the New York Times is working on an article about it! *Infinite facepalms*
What I wouldn't give to have been a fly on the wall in the room with her lawyer, because I'm curious whether she had convinced herself of her own version of events (not uncommon!), or if she didn't tell her lawyer about the group chats when her lawyer asked about written records, or what exactly happened there. But I'm VERY curious how she got to the point of knowing the texts/chats were subject to discovery and/or had already been discovered, and chose to still claim she had not seen or copied Dorland's letter until American Short Fiction contacted her.
But then also, if you go down to paragraph 16, she wants DORLAND to produce texts that DORLAND sent to a friend? colleague? ("author Chip Creek") about LARSON, so like clearly when she swore this affidavit she knew her prior texts and group chats were discoverable because she wants to discover Dorland's!
Paragraph 20: "My delay in sending any text message was due to my confusion about what specific text messages were responsive to Dorland's requests, and more importantly where the bounds of those text conversations lie." Man oh man do judges not like it when you say "I didn't know what was responsive!" THAT IS WHAT THE LAWYER IS FOR, and if you're not sure, you file freaking motions arguing about it. Either she hid the group texts from her lawyer, or she needs to sue her lawyer for malpractice. (Also particularly enjoy the part of paragraph 20 where she explains to the court how text messages work, courts love that.)
(Also, tangentially, paragraph 14: "The emails with my parents are somewhat personal and I would prefer to keep them private." DUDE. DUUUUUUUUUUUUDE. You filed a lawsuit! IT'S ALL DISCOVERABLE! There is no parent/child privilege!)
The whole affidavit has a lot of emotional appeals to sympathetic personal reasons explaining why she hasn't produced the requested documents/screwed up discovery/etc. Which makes me itchy as an attorney; seems like her attorney should have filed a motion saying, "My client requests a continuance because she had a baby and both she and the baby have suffered medical complications; she will require more time to respond" and if she had to file an affidavit, it should have just been, like, "I received the request for discovery on DATE. I was unable to comply by the deadline because I gave birth on DATE, I was in the hospital until DATE, and my infant was suffering medical complications until DATE. Please see attached medical paperwork." But there's so many emotional appeals, without facts boringly listed to back them up! And so many opinions! "The articles cast me and the BBF in particularly bad light" (para 12) -- "has likely provided numerous documents to him" (para 13) -- "I did not complain to ASF or berate anyone" (para 10). It should be, like, "I spoke with ASF on DATE, at TIME, and to my best recollection we discussed X, Y, and Z."
A lot of this is super-fair to put in an affidavit, but it's so, so badly framed. Leaving aside the perjury question, the whole affidavit needed to be a lot more professional, and a lot more carefully framed. This opens up SO many avenues for attack through sloppy use of language, appeals to emotion, assertion of opinions, and failure to provide factual basis for claims. And it's highly likely to annoy the judge to boot.
I have some real, major questions about the lawyering here. The lawyer appears to be a partner who's been in practice for 40+ years, so my best guess is he just wasn't really paying any attention to a relatively small-potatoes case. But letting your client perjure themselves, this many years into a case that your client filed? DUDE, WTF. And also he calls himself "Lawyer Q. Lawyerman, ESQ," (yes he uses all caps) and I am automatically suspicious of all lawyers who call themselves "Esq.," as I feel it is the surest sign of a hack. (If you desperately need a special title attached to your name and you are an American, you gotta go to med school. Law school is the wrong place. Our whole lawyer THING in America is being citizen-lawyers. Adding "Esq." after your name comes across as both pretentious and insecure.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:36 PM on October 9, 2021 [33 favorites]
This is super, super, super bad, and is never a good choice to throw a little criminal perjury into a civil case. Especially not given that she says in the affidavit that she knows the New York Times is working on an article about it! *Infinite facepalms*
What I wouldn't give to have been a fly on the wall in the room with her lawyer, because I'm curious whether she had convinced herself of her own version of events (not uncommon!), or if she didn't tell her lawyer about the group chats when her lawyer asked about written records, or what exactly happened there. But I'm VERY curious how she got to the point of knowing the texts/chats were subject to discovery and/or had already been discovered, and chose to still claim she had not seen or copied Dorland's letter until American Short Fiction contacted her.
But then also, if you go down to paragraph 16, she wants DORLAND to produce texts that DORLAND sent to a friend? colleague? ("author Chip Creek") about LARSON, so like clearly when she swore this affidavit she knew her prior texts and group chats were discoverable because she wants to discover Dorland's!
Paragraph 20: "My delay in sending any text message was due to my confusion about what specific text messages were responsive to Dorland's requests, and more importantly where the bounds of those text conversations lie." Man oh man do judges not like it when you say "I didn't know what was responsive!" THAT IS WHAT THE LAWYER IS FOR, and if you're not sure, you file freaking motions arguing about it. Either she hid the group texts from her lawyer, or she needs to sue her lawyer for malpractice. (Also particularly enjoy the part of paragraph 20 where she explains to the court how text messages work, courts love that.)
(Also, tangentially, paragraph 14: "The emails with my parents are somewhat personal and I would prefer to keep them private." DUDE. DUUUUUUUUUUUUDE. You filed a lawsuit! IT'S ALL DISCOVERABLE! There is no parent/child privilege!)
The whole affidavit has a lot of emotional appeals to sympathetic personal reasons explaining why she hasn't produced the requested documents/screwed up discovery/etc. Which makes me itchy as an attorney; seems like her attorney should have filed a motion saying, "My client requests a continuance because she had a baby and both she and the baby have suffered medical complications; she will require more time to respond" and if she had to file an affidavit, it should have just been, like, "I received the request for discovery on DATE. I was unable to comply by the deadline because I gave birth on DATE, I was in the hospital until DATE, and my infant was suffering medical complications until DATE. Please see attached medical paperwork." But there's so many emotional appeals, without facts boringly listed to back them up! And so many opinions! "The articles cast me and the BBF in particularly bad light" (para 12) -- "has likely provided numerous documents to him" (para 13) -- "I did not complain to ASF or berate anyone" (para 10). It should be, like, "I spoke with ASF on DATE, at TIME, and to my best recollection we discussed X, Y, and Z."
A lot of this is super-fair to put in an affidavit, but it's so, so badly framed. Leaving aside the perjury question, the whole affidavit needed to be a lot more professional, and a lot more carefully framed. This opens up SO many avenues for attack through sloppy use of language, appeals to emotion, assertion of opinions, and failure to provide factual basis for claims. And it's highly likely to annoy the judge to boot.
I have some real, major questions about the lawyering here. The lawyer appears to be a partner who's been in practice for 40+ years, so my best guess is he just wasn't really paying any attention to a relatively small-potatoes case. But letting your client perjure themselves, this many years into a case that your client filed? DUDE, WTF. And also he calls himself "Lawyer Q. Lawyerman, ESQ," (yes he uses all caps) and I am automatically suspicious of all lawyers who call themselves "Esq.," as I feel it is the surest sign of a hack. (If you desperately need a special title attached to your name and you are an American, you gotta go to med school. Law school is the wrong place. Our whole lawyer THING in America is being citizen-lawyers. Adding "Esq." after your name comes across as both pretentious and insecure.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:36 PM on October 9, 2021 [33 favorites]
Also, OMG, jump to page 12 in this motion and see where Larson used her interrogatories filed in the lawsuit to make the point that Dorland had never published a book and was generally not a successful writer. (Her lawyer makes that point very clear on page 14 and following.) Again I don't know that this is Larson's lawyer or Larson herself, but it's super-gross.
And while this is a motion written by Dorland's lawyer, and not a direct affidavit like the Larson affidavit I linked above was, just look at how much more professional, dry, and factual the recitations are here, and how brutally Dorland's lawyer manages to eviscerate Larson's behavior in the lawsuit. (Also there are attached exhibits, including Larson's contract with American Short Fiction, in which she warrants that she is the sole author and does not infringe any existing copyright.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:51 PM on October 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
And while this is a motion written by Dorland's lawyer, and not a direct affidavit like the Larson affidavit I linked above was, just look at how much more professional, dry, and factual the recitations are here, and how brutally Dorland's lawyer manages to eviscerate Larson's behavior in the lawsuit. (Also there are attached exhibits, including Larson's contract with American Short Fiction, in which she warrants that she is the sole author and does not infringe any existing copyright.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:51 PM on October 9, 2021 [13 favorites]
Oh my god.
I mean, I have no sympathy, but what the fuck is going on with Larson's lawyer?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:01 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
I mean, I have no sympathy, but what the fuck is going on with Larson's lawyer?
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 8:01 PM on October 9, 2021 [2 favorites]
hachi machi, how is this getting worse on a Saturday night
everything has turned around so much and it's all so brutal, I can't help thinking of how all this time they could have been friends
posted by Countess Elena at 8:22 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
everything has turned around so much and it's all so brutal, I can't help thinking of how all this time they could have been friends
posted by Countess Elena at 8:22 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
If it’s any consolation, Dorland seems to be winning in this Twitter poll:
https://twitter.com/superscribbler/status/1447013616545320962?s=21
posted by rpfields at 8:23 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
https://twitter.com/superscribbler/status/1447013616545320962?s=21
posted by rpfields at 8:23 PM on October 9, 2021 [1 favorite]
To think what Larson could have spared herself, reputation-wise, if she were willing to settle for $5000 + a link to a kidney donation site:
1) With the case settled, there would be no discovery of Larson's group chats and thus no public airing of her plagiarism confession.
2) With the case settled, there would be no discovery of Larson's group chats and thus no public airing of how horrible Larson and her friends were.
3) With the case settled, Dorland presumably satisfied with the result, and no active dispute, there would not be a viral NYT article in 2021 documenting (among other things) that Larson screwed over a non-profit book festival by failing to tell them about the intellectual property dispute.
4) With the case settled, there would be no Larson affidavits in 2021, and thus no perjury concerns.
Boy, I hope being mean to Dorland was worth it for Larson! Otherwise, that's a pretty costly series of unforced errors.
posted by creepygirl at 8:25 PM on October 9, 2021 [18 favorites]
1) With the case settled, there would be no discovery of Larson's group chats and thus no public airing of her plagiarism confession.
2) With the case settled, there would be no discovery of Larson's group chats and thus no public airing of how horrible Larson and her friends were.
3) With the case settled, Dorland presumably satisfied with the result, and no active dispute, there would not be a viral NYT article in 2021 documenting (among other things) that Larson screwed over a non-profit book festival by failing to tell them about the intellectual property dispute.
4) With the case settled, there would be no Larson affidavits in 2021, and thus no perjury concerns.
Boy, I hope being mean to Dorland was worth it for Larson! Otherwise, that's a pretty costly series of unforced errors.
posted by creepygirl at 8:25 PM on October 9, 2021 [18 favorites]
Not just that but it's possible her NEA grant could be in jeopardy.
Is that that Alison who's egging her on in the chat transcripts? She doesn't seem to be one of the Monkeys, and it sounds like her career arc is closer to Dorland's than Larson's at this point.) Are they people who would have been powerful influences five years ago? From a quick glance at some of their bios, it looks to me like a lot of them are or were on pretty equal footing with Larson, but I'm not in a great position to know if that's an accurate evaluation.
It's hard to tell but it looks like Sonya may have had a position of authority over Dawn as she was a program director at the workshop while Dawn was a teaching scholar. Alison Murphy also seems to have had a position of power over Dawn as she was part of a group investigating Dawn's HR complaint, possibly against Sonya it's hard to tell.
posted by asteria at 10:25 PM on October 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
Is that that Alison who's egging her on in the chat transcripts? She doesn't seem to be one of the Monkeys, and it sounds like her career arc is closer to Dorland's than Larson's at this point.) Are they people who would have been powerful influences five years ago? From a quick glance at some of their bios, it looks to me like a lot of them are or were on pretty equal footing with Larson, but I'm not in a great position to know if that's an accurate evaluation.
It's hard to tell but it looks like Sonya may have had a position of authority over Dawn as she was a program director at the workshop while Dawn was a teaching scholar. Alison Murphy also seems to have had a position of power over Dawn as she was part of a group investigating Dawn's HR complaint, possibly against Sonya it's hard to tell.
posted by asteria at 10:25 PM on October 9, 2021 [5 favorites]
Wow - this is particularly awful:
Celeste Ng /Larson convo about winning the NEA Grant for the "kidney story"
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:29 PM on October 9, 2021 [14 favorites]
Celeste Ng /Larson convo about winning the NEA Grant for the "kidney story"
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:29 PM on October 9, 2021 [14 favorites]
automatically suspicious of all lawyers who call themselves "Esq.,"
I also have very very low expectations of people who use their initial as first name
posted by thelonius at 2:52 AM on October 10, 2021
I also have very very low expectations of people who use their initial as first name
posted by thelonius at 2:52 AM on October 10, 2021
God these people are so mean. And along comes yet another writer I have respected very much saying "Why is everyone acting like it's so bad?" (I don't mean the guy rejoicing in the name Chip Cheek with the $800k advance; I mean someone I really respected.)
posted by BibiRose at 6:22 AM on October 10, 2021
posted by BibiRose at 6:22 AM on October 10, 2021
Sorry, the Twitter thread I linked to above was removed. It was based on a screenshot of a mean email by Chip Cheek. To me, it was just such a clear case of punching down and the writing was so nasty. A prominent writer replied in the thread and asked why people were making such a big deal of it.
posted by BibiRose at 6:33 AM on October 10, 2021
posted by BibiRose at 6:33 AM on October 10, 2021
Michael Hobbes (You're Wrong About, Maintenance Phase) wrote out the events in chronological order and provided some analysis.
posted by meese at 7:16 AM on October 10, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by meese at 7:16 AM on October 10, 2021 [10 favorites]
At this point, I feel that everybody picking apart the case file on Twitter, screenshotting emails and playing junior detective is just as bad as anyone in the story itself.
These are all real people and you don’t actually know them. Why is any of this your business? Leave them alone.
posted by neroli at 7:40 AM on October 10, 2021 [6 favorites]
These are all real people and you don’t actually know them. Why is any of this your business? Leave them alone.
posted by neroli at 7:40 AM on October 10, 2021 [6 favorites]
At this point, I feel that everybody picking apart the case file on Twitter, screenshotting emails and playing junior detective is just as bad as anyone in the story itself.
These are all real people and you don’t actually know them. Why is any of this your business? Leave them alone.
I can sympathize with this viewpoint to some extent - the obsession with the story (including my own) seems quite ridiculous. I feel like in a sane world, I wouldn't even know about it.
However, if it's really nobody's business, I think the real quarrel is with the NYT. It is now clear that their article was extremely biased in favor of Larson. The author arranged it to make Dorland look bad and omitted pertinent details. It is only because of people looking into the facts and posting them on Twitter that we are getting anywhere near the truth. Is it any of our business in the first place? Probably not. But since the story is out there anyway, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for people to reveal just how blatantly prejudiced the NYT story is.
In fact, I think the NYT article would be very interesting for a class on argumentative writing - not because of the Dorland/Larson saga and what it says about writing, but because it's such a great example of using rhetorical strategies to present a viewpoint and obscure the truth while giving the appearance of objectivity, so that people think that your hit piece is an example of great journalism.
posted by FencingGal at 8:08 AM on October 10, 2021 [19 favorites]
These are all real people and you don’t actually know them. Why is any of this your business? Leave them alone.
I can sympathize with this viewpoint to some extent - the obsession with the story (including my own) seems quite ridiculous. I feel like in a sane world, I wouldn't even know about it.
However, if it's really nobody's business, I think the real quarrel is with the NYT. It is now clear that their article was extremely biased in favor of Larson. The author arranged it to make Dorland look bad and omitted pertinent details. It is only because of people looking into the facts and posting them on Twitter that we are getting anywhere near the truth. Is it any of our business in the first place? Probably not. But since the story is out there anyway, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for people to reveal just how blatantly prejudiced the NYT story is.
In fact, I think the NYT article would be very interesting for a class on argumentative writing - not because of the Dorland/Larson saga and what it says about writing, but because it's such a great example of using rhetorical strategies to present a viewpoint and obscure the truth while giving the appearance of objectivity, so that people think that your hit piece is an example of great journalism.
posted by FencingGal at 8:08 AM on October 10, 2021 [19 favorites]
This whole dust-up is beginning to seem like a modern Aesop's fable.
My favourite hashtag so far is #kidneygate.
posted by orange swan at 8:22 AM on October 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
My favourite hashtag so far is #kidneygate.
posted by orange swan at 8:22 AM on October 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
If the narrative does obscure what happened, and I think at some points it kind of does, I actually think it's more a case of bias, and in this case probably hard to avoid because storytellers are all kind of implicated in storytelling ethics - even the most diligent person is going to get things wrong or include details that they have lifted from other places. Every narrative is constructed.
So a writer whose career is based on reportage (and even an editor's) is probably going to find Dorland's attempt to end Larson's career as an unacceptable raising of the stakes on some level.
(I am not putting this forward as true or defending anyone in this case, just as something that a professional writer is going to have on their radar. I have no interest in judging the women involved as people. I've been bullied, I've been the weird girl, I've been the fixer, I've been the bully. As an editor I caught a lot of things and saved some writers from this kind of thing from time to time, and sometimes I didn't. I regret my mistakes and try to learn and do better, man. I'm glad I mostly have friends who encourage better and not worse.)
Kolker also has kind of oriented himself towards tales of mental illness/trauma and moral ambiguity. I think it's sort of funny/ironic that he says in the Hazlitt interview that his goal is to tell stories where people can put themselves in the shoes of the people in the stories. Well, in this case, jackpot - just look at this thread.
I still haven't had time to really go through it the way I would like but I also still find that it's interesting how conflict between women is handled in this piece vs. how conflict among men is often framed. For one, there's a lack of context that would normally be provided around the lawsuit - the interpersonal issues are given much more weight than the career, financial, or legal issues. That definitely tilts it towards morality play rather than exploration of art and the law. But as stated above I think that is what Kolker was aiming for.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:43 AM on October 10, 2021 [17 favorites]
So a writer whose career is based on reportage (and even an editor's) is probably going to find Dorland's attempt to end Larson's career as an unacceptable raising of the stakes on some level.
(I am not putting this forward as true or defending anyone in this case, just as something that a professional writer is going to have on their radar. I have no interest in judging the women involved as people. I've been bullied, I've been the weird girl, I've been the fixer, I've been the bully. As an editor I caught a lot of things and saved some writers from this kind of thing from time to time, and sometimes I didn't. I regret my mistakes and try to learn and do better, man. I'm glad I mostly have friends who encourage better and not worse.)
Kolker also has kind of oriented himself towards tales of mental illness/trauma and moral ambiguity. I think it's sort of funny/ironic that he says in the Hazlitt interview that his goal is to tell stories where people can put themselves in the shoes of the people in the stories. Well, in this case, jackpot - just look at this thread.
I still haven't had time to really go through it the way I would like but I also still find that it's interesting how conflict between women is handled in this piece vs. how conflict among men is often framed. For one, there's a lack of context that would normally be provided around the lawsuit - the interpersonal issues are given much more weight than the career, financial, or legal issues. That definitely tilts it towards morality play rather than exploration of art and the law. But as stated above I think that is what Kolker was aiming for.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:43 AM on October 10, 2021 [17 favorites]
FencingGal - I sort of agree with you but also, when I initially read this piece before I saw all the Takes, I just assumed the reader was supposed to come around to Dorland’s side by the end. It surprised me to see that it WASN’T being read that was by most people. And I’m not totally sure if the article author intended it as a squirrelly both-sides-y thing, or a late-article reveal of the answer to the question in the title.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:49 AM on October 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:49 AM on October 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
On October 7th, two days after this matter blew up, Celeste Ng began campaigning on her Twitter account for charitable donations to an organization that's helping refugees from Afghanistan settle in Cleveland, saying she has donated herself but will match to a maximum of $2000 if people send her screenshots.
Obviously that's objectively a good thing to do, but given the timing I can't help feel there are certain other motives at play, and it's cracking me up since Ng was one of the people sneering at Dawn Dorland for donating a kidney for less than pure motives.
posted by orange swan at 9:14 AM on October 10, 2021 [20 favorites]
Obviously that's objectively a good thing to do, but given the timing I can't help feel there are certain other motives at play, and it's cracking me up since Ng was one of the people sneering at Dawn Dorland for donating a kidney for less than pure motives.
posted by orange swan at 9:14 AM on October 10, 2021 [20 favorites]
warriorqueen, I really enjoyed that interview with Kolker. Thanks for linking it.
posted by eirias at 9:19 AM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by eirias at 9:19 AM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think I agree with Hobbes' assessment that Larson is worst at first (and 100% was wrong re: plagiarism) but hoooooo boy, Dawn gets worse and worse as well. Unfortunately she acts up enough to sap any sympathy I had for her. She just keeps escalating. I certainly get why people did not like her. I think we've all probably had run-ins with someone of this nature where the drama is disproportionate and never ends. I don't like Sonya, Sonya is clearly wrong, but I cannot be Team Dawn either, and I do not want to be because you just want to be OMG WOMAN LET IT GO AT THIS POINT IT'S BEEN YEARS OF THIS DRAMA.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:35 AM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:35 AM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
This definitely feels to me where it's gotten to the point on social media where a "bad person" (for whatever definition of bad you want and with whatever level of sarcasm you want) is starting to get an outsized reaction (scores of people scouring their life for proof of sin) on social media due to the sheer number of people engaging with the story.
Yes, some people deserve all the criticism on social media and more (and many people who really do deserve it have enough power to shield them from consequences), but is there anything constructive about making either of these women a pariah? Social media can amplify a bunch of little things into a really big thing.
posted by No One Ever Does at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2021 [8 favorites]
Yes, some people deserve all the criticism on social media and more (and many people who really do deserve it have enough power to shield them from consequences), but is there anything constructive about making either of these women a pariah? Social media can amplify a bunch of little things into a really big thing.
posted by No One Ever Does at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2021 [8 favorites]
I sort of agree with you but also, when I initially read this piece before I saw all the Takes, I just assumed the reader was supposed to come around to Dorland’s side by the end.I think that's right, or at least you were supposed to come around to the idea that both sides were equally sympathetic/ to blame. But I don't think it played out that way initially, for two reasons. I think that Kolker may have stacked the deck too much against Dorland at the beginning, so that by the time readers got to the reversal, they weren't willing to reconsider their position. (And that, I think, may have been him not understanding how much people hate needy and/or socially inept women.) And the other reason is that a lot of people encountered this on social media before they read it in the Times, and it was mostly shared by a lot of big-name authors who are inclined to sympathize with Larson and who may have professional ties to Celeste Ng. So we originally encountered it with people we follow on social media framing it as "look at this story about how a monster named Dawn Dorland harassed an up-and-coming author named Sonya Larson."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:51 AM on October 10, 2021 [19 favorites]
Dorland claims they were close, sharing intimate conversations and spending significant time together. Larson claims that they were not. According to her lawyer, they have never been alone in a room together.
Wow. This seems to fundamentally misunderstand relationships in the current era. I'm on a group-chat that's been running for something like 7 years now. I've met some of the other people in person, but not most of them. And yet any of them could contact me at 3AM and say "I'm stranded in Bakersfield and need help" and I'd get out of bed, put clothes on, and find a way to get myself to Bakersfield to help them.
Online friendships are (sometimes) real friendships.
posted by Lexica at 10:04 AM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
Wow. This seems to fundamentally misunderstand relationships in the current era. I'm on a group-chat that's been running for something like 7 years now. I've met some of the other people in person, but not most of them. And yet any of them could contact me at 3AM and say "I'm stranded in Bakersfield and need help" and I'd get out of bed, put clothes on, and find a way to get myself to Bakersfield to help them.
Online friendships are (sometimes) real friendships.
posted by Lexica at 10:04 AM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
Yeah, similar to showbiz_liz, my read of the the NYTimes article was that it was intentionally mirroring the narrative structure a bit in "The Kindest," except the person we, the reader, are encouraged to come around to is not Chuntao but Dorland. And both Dorland and Larson, like Larson's characters, has a big blind spot. The fact that Dorland has a blindspot attracts Larson to her, and in the process makes her blind to the hot water she's getting herself into.
From the article:
One of those writing-group members, Celeste Ng, who wrote “Little Fires Everywhere,” told me that she admires Larson’s ability to create “characters who have these big blind spots.” While they think they’re presenting themselves one way, they actually come across as something else entirely.
By the end, we may no longer feel a need to change Chuntao. As one critic in the literary journal Ploughshares wrote when the story was published in 2017: “Something has got to be admired about someone who returns from the brink of death unchanged, steadfast in their imperfections.”
For some readers, “The Kindest” is a rope-a-dope. If you thought this story was about Chuntao’s redemption, you’re as complicit as Rose.
Dorland as a character (because let's be honest, for those of us who don't know her personally, she is more of a character than a full person), is never really redeemed here, exactly. She certainly doesn't change. And yet, while I (like I think most readers) started out coming down quite harshly on Dorland in the first half of the NYTimes story, by the point where it's revealed that Larson took from her letter word-for-word with no effort to disguise it, the meanness of the group chats, the gaslighting, and accusations of white-saviorism as a means to cover the lie- it all gets a bit much, especially when we consider that regardless of Dorland's character, making an undirected kidney donation is a good thing, with no strings attached (as Dorland's letter makes clear). Like Hobbes argues, there are far more complicated forms of "charity" like when white people adopt non-white babies (and I'll just plug Lisa Ko's novel The Leavers which touches on these dynamics). Which is to say, Larson could have totally explored all of the bigger themes she wanted to without making it about Dorland, and it would have been great!
At this point though, as I think has been made clear, neither person comes out unscathed, plus they both have gone through the unfortunate experience of going-viral, and for that I feel equal sympathy for both them. (I recall the author of Cat Person, even pre-dust up, claimed the experience was ultimately unpleasant for her - most humans just aren't built for that much unexpected attention)
I hope they are both getting good advice from someone right now. Dorland would win some good will if she dropped all charges, and apologized for taking things too far, and used her 15min of fame to raise money for kidney donations or anti-bullying programs or whatever. If Dorland keeps up her legal fight, she's just going to lose whatever sympathy she has right now. And Larson would win a lot of good will if she apologized for the meanness, and offered to make a donation to a charity of Dorland's choice. Or something. I personally hope Larson gets to keep the NEA grant - she fucked up, but I don't see how it warrants the extant of the blowback.
posted by coffeecat at 10:05 AM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
From the article:
One of those writing-group members, Celeste Ng, who wrote “Little Fires Everywhere,” told me that she admires Larson’s ability to create “characters who have these big blind spots.” While they think they’re presenting themselves one way, they actually come across as something else entirely.
By the end, we may no longer feel a need to change Chuntao. As one critic in the literary journal Ploughshares wrote when the story was published in 2017: “Something has got to be admired about someone who returns from the brink of death unchanged, steadfast in their imperfections.”
For some readers, “The Kindest” is a rope-a-dope. If you thought this story was about Chuntao’s redemption, you’re as complicit as Rose.
Dorland as a character (because let's be honest, for those of us who don't know her personally, she is more of a character than a full person), is never really redeemed here, exactly. She certainly doesn't change. And yet, while I (like I think most readers) started out coming down quite harshly on Dorland in the first half of the NYTimes story, by the point where it's revealed that Larson took from her letter word-for-word with no effort to disguise it, the meanness of the group chats, the gaslighting, and accusations of white-saviorism as a means to cover the lie- it all gets a bit much, especially when we consider that regardless of Dorland's character, making an undirected kidney donation is a good thing, with no strings attached (as Dorland's letter makes clear). Like Hobbes argues, there are far more complicated forms of "charity" like when white people adopt non-white babies (and I'll just plug Lisa Ko's novel The Leavers which touches on these dynamics). Which is to say, Larson could have totally explored all of the bigger themes she wanted to without making it about Dorland, and it would have been great!
At this point though, as I think has been made clear, neither person comes out unscathed, plus they both have gone through the unfortunate experience of going-viral, and for that I feel equal sympathy for both them. (I recall the author of Cat Person, even pre-dust up, claimed the experience was ultimately unpleasant for her - most humans just aren't built for that much unexpected attention)
I hope they are both getting good advice from someone right now. Dorland would win some good will if she dropped all charges, and apologized for taking things too far, and used her 15min of fame to raise money for kidney donations or anti-bullying programs or whatever. If Dorland keeps up her legal fight, she's just going to lose whatever sympathy she has right now. And Larson would win a lot of good will if she apologized for the meanness, and offered to make a donation to a charity of Dorland's choice. Or something. I personally hope Larson gets to keep the NEA grant - she fucked up, but I don't see how it warrants the extant of the blowback.
posted by coffeecat at 10:05 AM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
Dorland as a character (because let's be honest, for those of us who don't know her personally, she is more of a character than a full person), is never really redeemed here, exactly. She certainly doesn't change.
How do we know she hasn't changed? We know Larson hasn't--she still used the story to apply for grants, she still bashed Dorland to her friends, she still defends her behavior. But for all we know Dorland has learned the logical lesson she could pull from all this and now trusts fewer people, shares fewer details of her life, is less willing to be open about her thoughts and feelings. Which would be a change.
I guess I don't know what "too far" means, legally. She has been trying to get Larson to stop using the story and Larson continues to use it--such as for the aforementioned NEA grant. Should Dorland give up and allow Larson to continue to profit off of the plagiarized letter?
posted by Anonymous at 10:25 AM on October 10, 2021
How do we know she hasn't changed? We know Larson hasn't--she still used the story to apply for grants, she still bashed Dorland to her friends, she still defends her behavior. But for all we know Dorland has learned the logical lesson she could pull from all this and now trusts fewer people, shares fewer details of her life, is less willing to be open about her thoughts and feelings. Which would be a change.
I guess I don't know what "too far" means, legally. She has been trying to get Larson to stop using the story and Larson continues to use it--such as for the aforementioned NEA grant. Should Dorland give up and allow Larson to continue to profit off of the plagiarized letter?
posted by Anonymous at 10:25 AM on October 10, 2021
I'm catastrophizing, honestly. For the last few years I've been questioning whether white people and people of color will *ever* like, trust, or understand each other. I feel like the answer is no, and race and racism will continue until the literal end of humanity. In fact, this might be *causing* the end of humanity. Arguably global warming is happening because of the destruction of indigenous cultures, because of racism-- what happened between a bunch of people living in 1492 is literally going to doom us all. This ain't about a short story.
posted by coffeeand at 10:57 AM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeeand at 10:57 AM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
How do we know she hasn't changed?
I meant in the NYTimes story (not real life) - this was in comment to that story's craft. We also don't know that Larson hasn't changed in real life either - I don't think it's fair to assume the group chats portray the full range her thoughts (and in one its revealed she feels "icky" about it) and we don't know what she's thinking now. I would assume both women are far more complex than they're portrayed in the NYTimes.
As for where Dorland went "too far," I suppose is debatable, but I agree with the NYTimes here:
"Here, it would seem, is where the conflict ought to end — Larson in retreat, “The Kindest” canceled. But neither side was satisfied...On Sept. 6, 2018, Dorland’s lawyer raised her demand to $15,000, and added a new demand that Larson promise to pay Dorland $180,000 should she ever violate the settlement terms (which included never publishing “The Kindest” again)."
Here Dorland seems to lose the point a bit - now it's about recouping her legal fees, and protecting her words. I also think it's a stretch to claim Larson profited off the plagiarized letter - it's a tiny part of the overall story, it's not why it got published or why she got a NEA grant.
It appears (from the NYTimes story) as I noted upthread, that part of why this initially rubbed Dorland the wrong way was this:
She’d become a public voice in the campaign for live-organ donation, and she felt some responsibility for representing the subject in just the right way. The potential for saving lives, after all, matters more than any story.
And Larson had started saying that her story wasn't even about a kidney donation: When Larson discusses “The Kindest” now, the idea that it’s about a kidney donation at all seems almost irrelevant. If that hadn’t formed the story’s pretext, she believes, it would have been something else.
So I guess rather than keeping upping the $$$ in her lawsuits, which is ultimately kinda self-serving, Dorland would be much more sympathetic if she asked Larson to just change the part about a kidney donation - make the Chuntao character the recipient of a different type of charity - or hell, instead of making it a undirected kidney donation in the story, make it about a white person who explicitly wants to donate their kidney to a person of color - that wouldn't even cause Larson to have to change much, and it would no longer resemble Dorland's life.
Edit (and sorry if this is abusing the edit button) but to hades: Even if she keeps the NEA grant it's hard to say she won't have faced consequences to her actions. Like, the Boston Book Festival was canceled, her group chats went viral, etc.
posted by coffeecat at 11:09 AM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
I meant in the NYTimes story (not real life) - this was in comment to that story's craft. We also don't know that Larson hasn't changed in real life either - I don't think it's fair to assume the group chats portray the full range her thoughts (and in one its revealed she feels "icky" about it) and we don't know what she's thinking now. I would assume both women are far more complex than they're portrayed in the NYTimes.
As for where Dorland went "too far," I suppose is debatable, but I agree with the NYTimes here:
"Here, it would seem, is where the conflict ought to end — Larson in retreat, “The Kindest” canceled. But neither side was satisfied...On Sept. 6, 2018, Dorland’s lawyer raised her demand to $15,000, and added a new demand that Larson promise to pay Dorland $180,000 should she ever violate the settlement terms (which included never publishing “The Kindest” again)."
Here Dorland seems to lose the point a bit - now it's about recouping her legal fees, and protecting her words. I also think it's a stretch to claim Larson profited off the plagiarized letter - it's a tiny part of the overall story, it's not why it got published or why she got a NEA grant.
It appears (from the NYTimes story) as I noted upthread, that part of why this initially rubbed Dorland the wrong way was this:
She’d become a public voice in the campaign for live-organ donation, and she felt some responsibility for representing the subject in just the right way. The potential for saving lives, after all, matters more than any story.
And Larson had started saying that her story wasn't even about a kidney donation: When Larson discusses “The Kindest” now, the idea that it’s about a kidney donation at all seems almost irrelevant. If that hadn’t formed the story’s pretext, she believes, it would have been something else.
So I guess rather than keeping upping the $$$ in her lawsuits, which is ultimately kinda self-serving, Dorland would be much more sympathetic if she asked Larson to just change the part about a kidney donation - make the Chuntao character the recipient of a different type of charity - or hell, instead of making it a undirected kidney donation in the story, make it about a white person who explicitly wants to donate their kidney to a person of color - that wouldn't even cause Larson to have to change much, and it would no longer resemble Dorland's life.
Edit (and sorry if this is abusing the edit button) but to hades: Even if she keeps the NEA grant it's hard to say she won't have faced consequences to her actions. Like, the Boston Book Festival was canceled, her group chats went viral, etc.
posted by coffeecat at 11:09 AM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
I read some of the emails Dorland sent to various professional contacts, and what strikes me is how much she leans on hurt and vulnerability and community. Her legal and professional claims are completely valid - Larson plagiarized her - but she comes off as someone who is seeking emotional validation from a book festival. I wouldn't be surprised if Larson's friends were writing similarly emotional emails too, judging from the BBF's reply to her. It's all reminding me about this recent FPP about talking about your feelings. Is this just what American creative writing communities are like? Can you not just have your lawyer send a email on your behalf with a dry recounting of the facts and a supervised Zoom meeting invite?
posted by airmail at 11:24 AM on October 10, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by airmail at 11:24 AM on October 10, 2021 [9 favorites]
Why didn't Larson just remove the letter if she didn't consider it to be central to the story and the point she was trying to make? And it is extremely common in civil cases for one side to seek to recoup legal costs from the other.
posted by Anonymous at 11:55 AM on October 10, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 11:55 AM on October 10, 2021
Where I hit my limit on Dawn shenanigans was when I read about how an entire festival had to be canceled and an entire book destroyed JUST BECAUSE OF HER. "Whenever they tried to meet Dawn’s demands, she ratcheted them up. In the end, they canceled the festival and destroyed every copy of the anthology."
From the festival email: "After thinking we had a path toward a solid agreement with Dawn Dorland and feeling that we were out of danger from being sued, her lawyer was back last week with new demands. There is seemingly no end to this."
There is no appeasing of this woman. She will not stop until Sonya is utterly destroyed, and apparently that seems to also apply to anyone who unwittingly got involved with Sonya's career. Now I don't really give a shit about Sonya and her career and this particular quest of Dawn's because god knows Sonya's guilty of stuff against Dawn at the very least, but I'm feeling bad for the poor idiots not involved in this feud that are being dragged into the battle, and the poor schmucks that were going to be involved in this festival/book that had nothing to do with the situation. I don't think all those people deserved to get nuked along with Sonya. That's where it's getting ridiculous. Dawn and her lawyer made themselves into such pests that could not be pleased that the only way to get rid of them was to nuke everything from orbit. That is where my TOO MUCH comes from.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:02 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
From the festival email: "After thinking we had a path toward a solid agreement with Dawn Dorland and feeling that we were out of danger from being sued, her lawyer was back last week with new demands. There is seemingly no end to this."
There is no appeasing of this woman. She will not stop until Sonya is utterly destroyed, and apparently that seems to also apply to anyone who unwittingly got involved with Sonya's career. Now I don't really give a shit about Sonya and her career and this particular quest of Dawn's because god knows Sonya's guilty of stuff against Dawn at the very least, but I'm feeling bad for the poor idiots not involved in this feud that are being dragged into the battle, and the poor schmucks that were going to be involved in this festival/book that had nothing to do with the situation. I don't think all those people deserved to get nuked along with Sonya. That's where it's getting ridiculous. Dawn and her lawyer made themselves into such pests that could not be pleased that the only way to get rid of them was to nuke everything from orbit. That is where my TOO MUCH comes from.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:02 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
The entire festival had to be canceled because Larson plagiarized something. The entire festival had to be canceled because Larson knew she was on the hook for plagiarism charges and went forward with the story anyway. I try to not be a law-and-order person too much, but this seems to be a fuck around and find out situation. Larson fucked around & she found out.
posted by angrycat at 12:38 PM on October 10, 2021 [35 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 12:38 PM on October 10, 2021 [35 favorites]
Sonya had two years to fix her story and didn't. Sonya was the one to sue first. Sonya decided to antagonize a woman who apparently reported to her.
I think Sonya was doing too much.
posted by asteria at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2021 [8 favorites]
I think Sonya was doing too much.
posted by asteria at 12:42 PM on October 10, 2021 [8 favorites]
Also, as the festival director told one of Larson's friends, the entire festival could have gone forward with a different story if Larson had told the festival that there was an ongoing intellectual property dispute about her story.
It's a pity that the tweet with the screenshots of the festival director's email to Larson's friend seems to be private now; festival director was really not taking any of the complaining friend's shit and I wish I had that kind of confident energy when someone yells at me for something that wasn't my fault.
posted by creepygirl at 1:00 PM on October 10, 2021 [13 favorites]
It's a pity that the tweet with the screenshots of the festival director's email to Larson's friend seems to be private now; festival director was really not taking any of the complaining friend's shit and I wish I had that kind of confident energy when someone yells at me for something that wasn't my fault.
posted by creepygirl at 1:00 PM on October 10, 2021 [13 favorites]
Should Dorland give up and allow Larson to continue to profit off of the plagiarized letter?
Yes. I don’t know if Larson will genuinely profit from the story (I think it’s now too toxic for people to touch) but continuing this fight will just mean paying more money to lawyers and receiving more unwelcome attention from Internet busybodies. She has been treated badly but nothing she can do will put things right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:19 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yes. I don’t know if Larson will genuinely profit from the story (I think it’s now too toxic for people to touch) but continuing this fight will just mean paying more money to lawyers and receiving more unwelcome attention from Internet busybodies. She has been treated badly but nothing she can do will put things right.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:19 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
If Dorland should drop her lawsuit, has Larson dropped hers? Remember, she filed first after refusing mediation that Dorland requested.
posted by FencingGal at 2:09 PM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 2:09 PM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
Perhaps we have all lost sight of the fact that Dorland really wanted her story to be known and published. She obviously didn't want it to be published in the way it happened, but she certainly wanted it to be known.
In all of this discussion, there is an understandable lack of understanding about how art works. Except Dorland was a student of creative writing. She should have known. Given that Dorland was a vulnerable person who probably didn't understand how the relationship between life and art can be complicated and blurry, I can't blame her. And Larson should have understood how Dorland was vulnerable. The thing is, that is not where we are, as humans.
posted by mumimor at 3:20 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
In all of this discussion, there is an understandable lack of understanding about how art works. Except Dorland was a student of creative writing. She should have known. Given that Dorland was a vulnerable person who probably didn't understand how the relationship between life and art can be complicated and blurry, I can't blame her. And Larson should have understood how Dorland was vulnerable. The thing is, that is not where we are, as humans.
posted by mumimor at 3:20 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's a pity that the tweet with the screenshots of the festival director's email to Larson's friend seems to be private now.
In my opinion, it’s a pity that all of the correspondence isn’t private.
This stuff you’re reading is people’s personal emails and texts. They were never meant to be public. Due to the circumstances, they’re in the case file, but no one involved wanted this to be seen. I’m sure no one involved wants it to be seen now.
You’re reading people’s private mail against their will. And I’m supposed to listen to your take on the ethics of the situation?
posted by neroli at 3:34 PM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
In my opinion, it’s a pity that all of the correspondence isn’t private.
This stuff you’re reading is people’s personal emails and texts. They were never meant to be public. Due to the circumstances, they’re in the case file, but no one involved wanted this to be seen. I’m sure no one involved wants it to be seen now.
You’re reading people’s private mail against their will. And I’m supposed to listen to your take on the ethics of the situation?
posted by neroli at 3:34 PM on October 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
The reason the correspondence isn't private anymore is because it is evidence in a case that Larson brought.
If Larson wished her correspondence to remain private, she could have simply not filed for defamation.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 3:40 PM on October 10, 2021 [16 favorites]
If Larson wished her correspondence to remain private, she could have simply not filed for defamation.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 3:40 PM on October 10, 2021 [16 favorites]
It’s more than Larson’s own emails and texts that are being discussed.
posted by neroli at 3:41 PM on October 10, 2021
posted by neroli at 3:41 PM on October 10, 2021
And? It's part of a public body of evidence, now. If you choose to bring suit, you also choose to air out dirty laundry. Larson could have settled. Larson could have gone to mediation. Larson could have submitted another story to the festival and the NEA. Larson could have never written the story in the first place.
It's very, very rich to try and climb on a high horse about the ethics of violating people's privacy when the reason said privacy is being violated is in an investigation of the harm those people contributed to creating.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 3:58 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
It's very, very rich to try and climb on a high horse about the ethics of violating people's privacy when the reason said privacy is being violated is in an investigation of the harm those people contributed to creating.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 3:58 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
Apologies if my last comment was unclear, I wasn't making a legal or even moral argument - just simply observing that it would seem to be in everyone's best interest to find a way to settle this sooner rather than later - its current form of a legal-arms race of sorts, with each side escalating with new claims, sounds exhausting and to nobody's benefit (but perhaps the lawyers).
As for the NEA grant, "The Kindest" was one component she submitted - yes, I agree, she shouldn't have used it, but the root of this is the same mistake that caused the Boston Book Festival to flop - she really didn't understand the potential legal implications (its obvious from the group chats- also Ng encouraged her to believe she was in the clear). I'm not defending Larson here- I think I've made it clear I find her behavior problematic for all sorts of reasons, but I think she's been punished enough at this point (she also lost representation from a literary agent). I'm generally in favor of giving people second chances.
posted by coffeecat at 4:06 PM on October 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
As for the NEA grant, "The Kindest" was one component she submitted - yes, I agree, she shouldn't have used it, but the root of this is the same mistake that caused the Boston Book Festival to flop - she really didn't understand the potential legal implications (its obvious from the group chats- also Ng encouraged her to believe she was in the clear). I'm not defending Larson here- I think I've made it clear I find her behavior problematic for all sorts of reasons, but I think she's been punished enough at this point (she also lost representation from a literary agent). I'm generally in favor of giving people second chances.
posted by coffeecat at 4:06 PM on October 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
the root of this is the same mistake that caused the Boston Book Festival to flop - she really didn't understand the potential legal implications
OK, she had that excuse from the Boston Book Festival--though when she submitted there was already a copyright case being brought against the story. But that argument cannot be made for the NEA grant. Her application for that was submitted in 2019. The BBF fiasco had already happened. She pushed ahead with making that story the sole text in her application anyway. At that point she had been in a legal dispute with Dorland for years.
posted by Anonymous at 4:11 PM on October 10, 2021
OK, she had that excuse from the Boston Book Festival--though when she submitted there was already a copyright case being brought against the story. But that argument cannot be made for the NEA grant. Her application for that was submitted in 2019. The BBF fiasco had already happened. She pushed ahead with making that story the sole text in her application anyway. At that point she had been in a legal dispute with Dorland for years.
posted by Anonymous at 4:11 PM on October 10, 2021
In all of this discussion, there is an understandable lack of understanding about how art works. Except Dorland was a student of creative writing. She should have known.
I'm not sure how you think there's a lack of understanding in the discussion of how art works. Like many of the people discussing this, I am a writer, and I totally understand how art works. So did Dorland. That's why her lawsuit and her letters have been about Larson's plagiarism, her use of Dorland's words, which is not acceptable by artists. She is not suing Larson for putting a thinly disguised version of her into a story. She probably is angry about that - and I don't blame her - but her legal actions and letters have focused on Larson's theft of her letter and almost verbatim use of it.
As far as using Dorland's kidney donation as a jumping off point for a story as she did, while it is not illegal, if writers as a whole acted in this way, writing groups, workshops, and classes literally could not function. I have been in many writing groups and classes. There is an unspoken assumption that when you share something you're thinking about or working on, the other writers will not take your experience or idea and run with it, even if it is the best idea in the world. I have been in classes where people have shared profound personal experiences that they are writing about - a friend murdered by a serial killer, a relative shot in a racially motivated incident. I don't get to grab these ideas and make my own art from them and say it's OK because that's how art works. Nobody is stopping me, but it would be a supremely shitty thing to do. If it were normalized in the writing world, I would never take another workshop.
In the NYT story, Larson said, "“If I walk past my neighbor and he’s planting petunias in the garden, and I think, Oh, it would be really interesting to include a character in my story who is planting petunias in the garden, do I have to go inform him because he’s my neighbor?" This is disingenous at best. No, you don't have to talk to your neighbor about a character planting petunias, but if someone you knew through writing workshops shares that her grandmother was planting petunias in memory of her friend who was orphaned because of the Triangle Shirt Factory fire, you don't get to write about a child who loved petunias who was orphaned by that fire. If it inspires you to think of certain themes, you find other ways to write about them.
posted by FencingGal at 4:15 PM on October 10, 2021 [21 favorites]
I'm not sure how you think there's a lack of understanding in the discussion of how art works. Like many of the people discussing this, I am a writer, and I totally understand how art works. So did Dorland. That's why her lawsuit and her letters have been about Larson's plagiarism, her use of Dorland's words, which is not acceptable by artists. She is not suing Larson for putting a thinly disguised version of her into a story. She probably is angry about that - and I don't blame her - but her legal actions and letters have focused on Larson's theft of her letter and almost verbatim use of it.
As far as using Dorland's kidney donation as a jumping off point for a story as she did, while it is not illegal, if writers as a whole acted in this way, writing groups, workshops, and classes literally could not function. I have been in many writing groups and classes. There is an unspoken assumption that when you share something you're thinking about or working on, the other writers will not take your experience or idea and run with it, even if it is the best idea in the world. I have been in classes where people have shared profound personal experiences that they are writing about - a friend murdered by a serial killer, a relative shot in a racially motivated incident. I don't get to grab these ideas and make my own art from them and say it's OK because that's how art works. Nobody is stopping me, but it would be a supremely shitty thing to do. If it were normalized in the writing world, I would never take another workshop.
In the NYT story, Larson said, "“If I walk past my neighbor and he’s planting petunias in the garden, and I think, Oh, it would be really interesting to include a character in my story who is planting petunias in the garden, do I have to go inform him because he’s my neighbor?" This is disingenous at best. No, you don't have to talk to your neighbor about a character planting petunias, but if someone you knew through writing workshops shares that her grandmother was planting petunias in memory of her friend who was orphaned because of the Triangle Shirt Factory fire, you don't get to write about a child who loved petunias who was orphaned by that fire. If it inspires you to think of certain themes, you find other ways to write about them.
posted by FencingGal at 4:15 PM on October 10, 2021 [21 favorites]
I've got to wonder how this is going to affect Grub Street. Dorland's harassment complaint to HR about Larson was "investigated" by employee Alison Murphy, the Chunky Monkey who told Larson that if Dorland gave her trouble, they would get Grub Street Writers of Color to "draaaaag her."
I take online workshops and would not consider Grub Street after this.
posted by FencingGal at 4:25 PM on October 10, 2021 [8 favorites]
I take online workshops and would not consider Grub Street after this.
posted by FencingGal at 4:25 PM on October 10, 2021 [8 favorites]
when she submitted there was already a copyright case being brought against the story
This has been repeated here a few times, but from what I can gather, it's not correct.
According to the NYT piece Dorland's first foray into legal action was on June 3, 2018, when her lawyer sent the book festival a cease-and desist. This was obviously after Larson's selection had already been announced. Dorland supposedly did not even read the story until that month.
As far as Larson was concerned, there was an uncomfortable email exchange with Dorland in 2017, but there would have been no indication that legal action was being considered when she submitted her story -- because it wasn't at that time.
posted by neroli at 4:30 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
This has been repeated here a few times, but from what I can gather, it's not correct.
According to the NYT piece Dorland's first foray into legal action was on June 3, 2018, when her lawyer sent the book festival a cease-and desist. This was obviously after Larson's selection had already been announced. Dorland supposedly did not even read the story until that month.
As far as Larson was concerned, there was an uncomfortable email exchange with Dorland in 2017, but there would have been no indication that legal action was being considered when she submitted her story -- because it wasn't at that time.
posted by neroli at 4:30 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
schroedinger, Larson did change the language of the disputed letter in 2018. I assume she used that updated version for the NEA grant (would be bizarre if she didn't). I still think it's unethical, for reasons I've already made clear.
hades, don't you think the last week has probably been enough punishment for squandering it? That said, for reasons FencingGal lays out above, it does seem like she shouldn't be in positions of power at GrubStreet i.e. being the director of their writer's conference.
posted by coffeecat at 4:31 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
hades, don't you think the last week has probably been enough punishment for squandering it? That said, for reasons FencingGal lays out above, it does seem like she shouldn't be in positions of power at GrubStreet i.e. being the director of their writer's conference.
posted by coffeecat at 4:31 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
And? It's part of a public body of evidence, now. If you choose to bring suit, you also choose to air out dirty laundry. Larson could have settled. Larson could have gone to mediation. Larson could have submitted another story to the festival and the NEA. Larson could have never written the story in the first place.
I understand why you feel this way, but I really think there's some sketchy rationalizations going on here.
You're basically saying: all the correspondence that was revealed in discovery only got there because of what Larson did. And Larson is a Bad Person. Therefore I am completely absolved of any ethical responsibility if I amplify private exchanges between third parties, like the one between Larson's friend and the director of the book festival. It's all public now, so I can do what I want.
Well, there is information that is ostensibly public but still not ethically acceptable to broadcast. I'm sure if you poked around a bit, you could find home addresses of some of the people whose emails you're reading. Would it be OK to post those? It's public information, after all. And if Larson didn't want her friend's addresses shared around the internet, she shouldn't have sued.
I don't want to challenge you in particular, but I really wish that people who are sharing and spreading things from the case file would stop for a moment and ask if their cause is really as righteous as they think.
posted by neroli at 4:51 PM on October 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
I understand why you feel this way, but I really think there's some sketchy rationalizations going on here.
You're basically saying: all the correspondence that was revealed in discovery only got there because of what Larson did. And Larson is a Bad Person. Therefore I am completely absolved of any ethical responsibility if I amplify private exchanges between third parties, like the one between Larson's friend and the director of the book festival. It's all public now, so I can do what I want.
Well, there is information that is ostensibly public but still not ethically acceptable to broadcast. I'm sure if you poked around a bit, you could find home addresses of some of the people whose emails you're reading. Would it be OK to post those? It's public information, after all. And if Larson didn't want her friend's addresses shared around the internet, she shouldn't have sued.
I don't want to challenge you in particular, but I really wish that people who are sharing and spreading things from the case file would stop for a moment and ask if their cause is really as righteous as they think.
posted by neroli at 4:51 PM on October 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
Huh. I see why discovery is necessary in the context of a lawsuit. Is it serving a public purpose for what is discovered to be put on the Internet in this way? Perhaps some of MeFi’s attorneys could comment?
posted by eirias at 4:57 PM on October 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by eirias at 4:57 PM on October 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
The New Yorker takes a look at the story "The Kindness" itself.
The final product lacks both the texture of realism and the courage and clarity of satire. In a fiction-worthy twist, one quality above all sabotaged Larson’s story in absentia: kindness.
posted by orange swan at 5:32 PM on October 10, 2021 [10 favorites]
The final product lacks both the texture of realism and the courage and clarity of satire. In a fiction-worthy twist, one quality above all sabotaged Larson’s story in absentia: kindness.
posted by orange swan at 5:32 PM on October 10, 2021 [10 favorites]
"You probably shouldn't commit anything to writing in a professional capacity that would be mortifying or damaging to have printed on the front page of the New York Times. "
Your mother should have told you never to commit anything to writing that you'd be embarrassed to have your mother read on the front page of the New York Times! (But no, we totally all do it, no judgment; just that it is an oft-repeated piece of advice.)
"Its current form of a legal-arms race of sorts, with each side escalating with new claims, sounds exhausting and to nobody's benefit (but perhaps the lawyers)."
So, it's pretty clear Larson has some bad legal counsel, but it's also very clear from the filings that Larson, both in her individual capacity and as the client of a kind-of crap lawyer, is the one who has been dragging out the legal proceedings. And as Dorland is seeking to recoup her legal costs, it's not that "Dorland is never satisfied and keeps escalating what she's asking for"; it's that Larson keeps dragging out the litigation, so Dorland's costs keep going up.
Larson and/or her lawyer also chose to sue Dorland's lawyer for representing Dorland, and that is a massively effed up choice that guarantees Larson's time in court will be lengthy and very, very costly. There are very few cases where you can legitimately sue opposing counsel for being opposing counsel. (I can literally think of cases where a lawyer advocated for racialized violence against the opposing client in the press and there was no cause of action.)
I know it seems like, from the popular reporting, "both these people got lawyers and escalated." But if you go read the legal filings, this is very asymmetric escalation. Larson has repeatedly and deliberately escalated; Larson has drawn out the proceedings over and over again, sometimes when Dorland has tried to settle.
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.
And, not for nothing, but she has lied under oath at least once; as I read the legal documents, I believe I see multiple instances, but would have to double-check the dates. (I'm obsessive, but not that obsessive.) Perjury is a crime. She appears to have perjured herself, knowingly and repeatedly, and continued to do so in 2021 in legal filings after she knew the New York Times was working on story about this.
And look, it looks like Larson has such a shit lawyer that even the court is rebuking him, which courts can rarely be arsed to do. She is getting bad legal counsel, and that sucks, and I literally do think, after reading a bunch of filings, that she should sue her lawyer for malpractice. Because no competent attorney would allow a client to swear an affidavit contradicting facts that the client had put into the record herself. (I mean, suborn perjury much?) But Larson individually is also continuing to make choices to swear, "I never saw Dawn's letter, I didn't plagiarize it, I didn't intend to plagiarize it" under oath when she herself has given the court group chats and texts showing otherwise. She made choices to sign contracts with false assurances; she admits in the group chats that she had misgivings about even submitting the story because of the plagiarism. The failed contracts, and the lawsuit, and the perjury, are all acts that she chose to commit, knowing -- as evidenced by her group chats -- that she was making false claims.
And look, I have very complicated feelings about Dorland, as I said in my first comment in this thread. I have a lot of sympathy for her as a human being and I recognize the impulses at work in her, but I also 100% understand why other people would withdraw from her, and why some people would feel the need to protect themselves from her.
But Larson has lied about this for five years, filed a lawsuit knowing that she was lying, and has continued to lie about it, including under oath, including after her group chats were given to the court, including after she knew the New York Times was working on an in-depth story about it. That's messed up. And saying, "Well, art lifts from life" or "this has been going on a long time, everyone should drop it," doesn't really excuse lying about it to Dorland, to publishers, and to the court.
"Is it serving a public purpose for what is discovered to be put on the Internet in this way? Perhaps some of MeFi’s attorneys could comment?"
I mean, yes and no? You would be shocked by some of the cases I've seen: Senior hospital executives whose e-mail had been "discovered" in several prior cases who still carried out extramarital affairs on their hospital e-mail so that their wife wouldn't see it in their personal e-mail, and then had those e-mails discovered in a lawsuit and ended up on the front page of a local paper. Principals who were using school computers to access very problematic porn during school hours, whose internet history was splashed across the local media during the trial. The former is arguably just gossip (although if the affair was between two people who had a business relationship, maybe relevant?); the latter seems like something the community would want to know.
If you were a publisher considering publishing Larson, you'd want to know about this, right? You'd want to know that she'd signed multiple contracts over the course of multiple years with assurances that she knew were false. That's not a one-off; that's a pattern. There's a reason most court records are public. And I generally oppose (and have opposed, for 20 years) non-disclosure agreements in settlements that prevent illegal or civilly wrong behavior from becoming public -- I think generally if someone is a sexual harasser, we all have a right to know that. Or that if someone is abusing their employees, they shouldn't be able to sweep that under the rug with a settlement and an NDA. I think the popularity of NDAs reflects how heavily the legal system is tilted towards people with money, not any actual benefit to the public.
I absolutely recognize the ethical question you're putting forward, and I think it's a good one. And maybe this is a place where my ethical radar is broken. I always consider that a possibility in legal ethics situations; legal ethics bear very little relation to actual ethics -- and I don't mean that in a "dunking on legal ethics" way (although sometimes I am!) but mostly that American legal ethics are geared towards the unique situation of adversarial attorneys practicing in common-law courts, which is not remotely the same thing as right and wrong. I'm trying very hard to activate my "ethics professor" gland (taught ethics for five years), but it's not working, and I honestly don't know if that's because my legal ethics gland is overriding it and drowning out my ethics professor gland. But I am finding it very difficult to feel bad about digging into legal filings and analyzing them, and I don't know how much of that is because law school works hard to train you not to think outside the law, and when I read legal filings, I'm a lawyer on my insides.
I do have enormous sympathy for both women, and when people say it's a Greek tragedy, that feels very correct to me; they're both incredibly human, and have both made incredibly human mistakes. I feel awful for them both that this has become so unrelentingly public and gone viral. That sucks. But I also ... don't really feel bad about reading and analyzing the legal filings? I don't know; like everybody else, including these two women, I contain multitudes. Some of those multitudes kinda suck. It's very possible, even likely!, that you have highlighted a major flaw in my ethical imagination, and I will definitely be ruminating on that for a while.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:41 PM on October 10, 2021 [59 favorites]
Your mother should have told you never to commit anything to writing that you'd be embarrassed to have your mother read on the front page of the New York Times! (But no, we totally all do it, no judgment; just that it is an oft-repeated piece of advice.)
"Its current form of a legal-arms race of sorts, with each side escalating with new claims, sounds exhausting and to nobody's benefit (but perhaps the lawyers)."
So, it's pretty clear Larson has some bad legal counsel, but it's also very clear from the filings that Larson, both in her individual capacity and as the client of a kind-of crap lawyer, is the one who has been dragging out the legal proceedings. And as Dorland is seeking to recoup her legal costs, it's not that "Dorland is never satisfied and keeps escalating what she's asking for"; it's that Larson keeps dragging out the litigation, so Dorland's costs keep going up.
Larson and/or her lawyer also chose to sue Dorland's lawyer for representing Dorland, and that is a massively effed up choice that guarantees Larson's time in court will be lengthy and very, very costly. There are very few cases where you can legitimately sue opposing counsel for being opposing counsel. (I can literally think of cases where a lawyer advocated for racialized violence against the opposing client in the press and there was no cause of action.)
I know it seems like, from the popular reporting, "both these people got lawyers and escalated." But if you go read the legal filings, this is very asymmetric escalation. Larson has repeatedly and deliberately escalated; Larson has drawn out the proceedings over and over again, sometimes when Dorland has tried to settle.
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.
And, not for nothing, but she has lied under oath at least once; as I read the legal documents, I believe I see multiple instances, but would have to double-check the dates. (I'm obsessive, but not that obsessive.) Perjury is a crime. She appears to have perjured herself, knowingly and repeatedly, and continued to do so in 2021 in legal filings after she knew the New York Times was working on story about this.
And look, it looks like Larson has such a shit lawyer that even the court is rebuking him, which courts can rarely be arsed to do. She is getting bad legal counsel, and that sucks, and I literally do think, after reading a bunch of filings, that she should sue her lawyer for malpractice. Because no competent attorney would allow a client to swear an affidavit contradicting facts that the client had put into the record herself. (I mean, suborn perjury much?) But Larson individually is also continuing to make choices to swear, "I never saw Dawn's letter, I didn't plagiarize it, I didn't intend to plagiarize it" under oath when she herself has given the court group chats and texts showing otherwise. She made choices to sign contracts with false assurances; she admits in the group chats that she had misgivings about even submitting the story because of the plagiarism. The failed contracts, and the lawsuit, and the perjury, are all acts that she chose to commit, knowing -- as evidenced by her group chats -- that she was making false claims.
And look, I have very complicated feelings about Dorland, as I said in my first comment in this thread. I have a lot of sympathy for her as a human being and I recognize the impulses at work in her, but I also 100% understand why other people would withdraw from her, and why some people would feel the need to protect themselves from her.
But Larson has lied about this for five years, filed a lawsuit knowing that she was lying, and has continued to lie about it, including under oath, including after her group chats were given to the court, including after she knew the New York Times was working on an in-depth story about it. That's messed up. And saying, "Well, art lifts from life" or "this has been going on a long time, everyone should drop it," doesn't really excuse lying about it to Dorland, to publishers, and to the court.
"Is it serving a public purpose for what is discovered to be put on the Internet in this way? Perhaps some of MeFi’s attorneys could comment?"
I mean, yes and no? You would be shocked by some of the cases I've seen: Senior hospital executives whose e-mail had been "discovered" in several prior cases who still carried out extramarital affairs on their hospital e-mail so that their wife wouldn't see it in their personal e-mail, and then had those e-mails discovered in a lawsuit and ended up on the front page of a local paper. Principals who were using school computers to access very problematic porn during school hours, whose internet history was splashed across the local media during the trial. The former is arguably just gossip (although if the affair was between two people who had a business relationship, maybe relevant?); the latter seems like something the community would want to know.
If you were a publisher considering publishing Larson, you'd want to know about this, right? You'd want to know that she'd signed multiple contracts over the course of multiple years with assurances that she knew were false. That's not a one-off; that's a pattern. There's a reason most court records are public. And I generally oppose (and have opposed, for 20 years) non-disclosure agreements in settlements that prevent illegal or civilly wrong behavior from becoming public -- I think generally if someone is a sexual harasser, we all have a right to know that. Or that if someone is abusing their employees, they shouldn't be able to sweep that under the rug with a settlement and an NDA. I think the popularity of NDAs reflects how heavily the legal system is tilted towards people with money, not any actual benefit to the public.
I absolutely recognize the ethical question you're putting forward, and I think it's a good one. And maybe this is a place where my ethical radar is broken. I always consider that a possibility in legal ethics situations; legal ethics bear very little relation to actual ethics -- and I don't mean that in a "dunking on legal ethics" way (although sometimes I am!) but mostly that American legal ethics are geared towards the unique situation of adversarial attorneys practicing in common-law courts, which is not remotely the same thing as right and wrong. I'm trying very hard to activate my "ethics professor" gland (taught ethics for five years), but it's not working, and I honestly don't know if that's because my legal ethics gland is overriding it and drowning out my ethics professor gland. But I am finding it very difficult to feel bad about digging into legal filings and analyzing them, and I don't know how much of that is because law school works hard to train you not to think outside the law, and when I read legal filings, I'm a lawyer on my insides.
I do have enormous sympathy for both women, and when people say it's a Greek tragedy, that feels very correct to me; they're both incredibly human, and have both made incredibly human mistakes. I feel awful for them both that this has become so unrelentingly public and gone viral. That sucks. But I also ... don't really feel bad about reading and analyzing the legal filings? I don't know; like everybody else, including these two women, I contain multitudes. Some of those multitudes kinda suck. It's very possible, even likely!, that you have highlighted a major flaw in my ethical imagination, and I will definitely be ruminating on that for a while.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:41 PM on October 10, 2021 [59 favorites]
Based on their reactions and their conversations with her, I doubt Larson will be losing any friends or professional contacts over this. None of them thought what she was doing was wrong and I'd be really surprised if that changed.
posted by Anonymous at 6:02 PM on October 10, 2021
posted by Anonymous at 6:02 PM on October 10, 2021
Based on their reactions and their conversations with her, I doubt Larson will be losing any friends or professional contacts over this. None of them thought what she was doing was wrong and I'd be really surprised if that changed.
I don't know. An amazing amount of douchebaggery on display in the emails. Alison Murphy? Chip Cheek? I don't doubt for a minute they'll drop Larson like a hot potato. There is probably a separate smaller, Chunky Monkeys group chat dedicated to roasting Sonya and plotting how they'll avoid getting caught up in the fallout as we speak.
posted by coffeeand at 6:26 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
I don't know. An amazing amount of douchebaggery on display in the emails. Alison Murphy? Chip Cheek? I don't doubt for a minute they'll drop Larson like a hot potato. There is probably a separate smaller, Chunky Monkeys group chat dedicated to roasting Sonya and plotting how they'll avoid getting caught up in the fallout as we speak.
posted by coffeeand at 6:26 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
... I take online workshops and would not consider Grub Street after this.
Earlier, I posted that Grub Street didn't do anything to deserve this. I hadn't caught this part yet. Well. I can tell you that it was incredibly valuable to my future career and that I'd go back and etc., etc., but do I know -- do I know beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that there's not a group chat of other writers who made fun of my accent? I do not.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:20 PM on October 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
Earlier, I posted that Grub Street didn't do anything to deserve this. I hadn't caught this part yet. Well. I can tell you that it was incredibly valuable to my future career and that I'd go back and etc., etc., but do I know -- do I know beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that there's not a group chat of other writers who made fun of my accent? I do not.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:20 PM on October 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
neroli: Fair enough. For Reasons, I am completely inured to the fact that everything I write could end up in litigation completely unrelated to me or become a public record in some other way. But it's a fair point that other people don't foresee that. I won't bring up correspondence between non-litigants here again.
posted by creepygirl at 7:30 PM on October 10, 2021
posted by creepygirl at 7:30 PM on October 10, 2021
Even Plagiarism Today has now weighed in with its verdict (Larson guilty as charged).
I started out thinking that both Dorland and Larson were awful, but after being mesmerized by the details for the last few days, I have a lot more sympathy for Dorland.
She may never get proper redress, but maybe the New Yorker's comment that "“The Kindness” falls short in precisely the ways the saga laid out in the Times Magazine piece might lead us to expect: it makes a cartoon of the donor character, and it over-relies on identity-inflected hand-waving. Also, the prose is bad" might offer some consolation. Larson might not care about the way she treated a fellow writer and human being, but she probably cares about this.
posted by rpfields at 8:14 PM on October 10, 2021 [15 favorites]
I started out thinking that both Dorland and Larson were awful, but after being mesmerized by the details for the last few days, I have a lot more sympathy for Dorland.
She may never get proper redress, but maybe the New Yorker's comment that "“The Kindness” falls short in precisely the ways the saga laid out in the Times Magazine piece might lead us to expect: it makes a cartoon of the donor character, and it over-relies on identity-inflected hand-waving. Also, the prose is bad" might offer some consolation. Larson might not care about the way she treated a fellow writer and human being, but she probably cares about this.
posted by rpfields at 8:14 PM on October 10, 2021 [15 favorites]
A writer once said to me (about a character who was a fascist running a concentration camp) ‘everyone deserves their best argument’.
posted by bq at 8:55 PM on October 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by bq at 8:55 PM on October 10, 2021 [4 favorites]
This is some thread. I changed some of my views -- got some more insight into my own reactions -- over the course of the last umpteen comments, and obviously, I'm not the only one. This is a valuable discussion (and I hope it stays that way).
Maybe one reduction of the problem is to frame it as "What, exactly, is a Friend?" But, oh, that raises so much else. And that is why Dorland/Larson is so involving.
posted by CCBC at 9:04 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maybe one reduction of the problem is to frame it as "What, exactly, is a Friend?" But, oh, that raises so much else. And that is why Dorland/Larson is so involving.
posted by CCBC at 9:04 PM on October 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm starting to question Kolker, the NYT author. Obviously he hit a hot button, but how much did he distort the facts to create that "Rohrschach test" that he aimed for? Maybe the facts were not incredibly balanced in such a way that readers' reactions revealed more about themselves than the reality so he leaned on one side of the scale.
I know this for sure: he could EASILY have ended the story by saying "Whoever you think is right or wronged, there is a huge and crying need to kidney donors out there and anyone with a glimmer that it might be a good idea should call this number" or some such.
And he chose not to.
posted by msalt at 10:31 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
I know this for sure: he could EASILY have ended the story by saying "Whoever you think is right or wronged, there is a huge and crying need to kidney donors out there and anyone with a glimmer that it might be a good idea should call this number" or some such.
And he chose not to.
posted by msalt at 10:31 PM on October 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
If we take Kolker's letter to Sonya at face value, he was more interested in telling a story about an artist fighting for her reputation after her work is discredited. [Link to email published in the discovery.]
posted by asteria at 12:25 AM on October 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by asteria at 12:25 AM on October 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
I also have gotten some lovely DMs of thanks from this thread, which I treasure.
My husband has often gotten angry at me for not standing up for myself. He has read the article and a significant amount of the response on Twitter. Yesterday I was able to discuss an update with him to an aspect of an ongoing heck that I am going through, was able to cite this article and Dawn’s experience as a shorthand for why I am not, tactically, standing up for myself.
As my AskMe about donating seems to have been deleted, I will update here - I’ve written to Kolker gently asking if it’s possible to donate to Dorland and I’ll keep folks posted as to what I find out.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:08 AM on October 11, 2021 [10 favorites]
My husband has often gotten angry at me for not standing up for myself. He has read the article and a significant amount of the response on Twitter. Yesterday I was able to discuss an update with him to an aspect of an ongoing heck that I am going through, was able to cite this article and Dawn’s experience as a shorthand for why I am not, tactically, standing up for myself.
As my AskMe about donating seems to have been deleted, I will update here - I’ve written to Kolker gently asking if it’s possible to donate to Dorland and I’ll keep folks posted as to what I find out.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:08 AM on October 11, 2021 [10 favorites]
Earlier, I posted that Grub Street didn't do anything to deserve this. I hadn't caught this part yet. Well. I can tell you that it was incredibly valuable to my future career and that I'd go back and etc., etc., but do I know -- do I know beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that there's not a group chat of other writers who made fun of my accent? I do not.
First of all, I'm pleased to hear that it was valuable to your future career. One of the takes on Twitter is that places like Grub Street exploit sad people who are delusional about becoming writers, though maybe it's OK for people who just want to write for a hobby. As a person who enrolls in workshops at similar places because I take my writing seriously (and don't want to borrow 40K for an MFA), I was disturbed by that. So congratulations for what success you've had.
And - maybe you know this - but the issue isn't just that some writers there are mean. Dorland and Larson were both employed by Grub Street- Larson higher up. And when Dorland filed a complaint to HR, it was at least partially handled - and dismissed - by people who were trashing her with Larson in group chat. So at least some of the Chunky Monkeys had power over Dorland and were using it against her. I don't know anything about employment law, but this seems super fucked up.
There have also been people on Twitter noting that the One City One Story winners seem to disproportionately be people involved with Grub Street and suggesting that there are some shenanigans going on with that as well.
posted by FencingGal at 4:14 AM on October 11, 2021 [19 favorites]
First of all, I'm pleased to hear that it was valuable to your future career. One of the takes on Twitter is that places like Grub Street exploit sad people who are delusional about becoming writers, though maybe it's OK for people who just want to write for a hobby. As a person who enrolls in workshops at similar places because I take my writing seriously (and don't want to borrow 40K for an MFA), I was disturbed by that. So congratulations for what success you've had.
And - maybe you know this - but the issue isn't just that some writers there are mean. Dorland and Larson were both employed by Grub Street- Larson higher up. And when Dorland filed a complaint to HR, it was at least partially handled - and dismissed - by people who were trashing her with Larson in group chat. So at least some of the Chunky Monkeys had power over Dorland and were using it against her. I don't know anything about employment law, but this seems super fucked up.
There have also been people on Twitter noting that the One City One Story winners seem to disproportionately be people involved with Grub Street and suggesting that there are some shenanigans going on with that as well.
posted by FencingGal at 4:14 AM on October 11, 2021 [19 favorites]
Video of man inspired by Dorland to donate a kidney.
posted by FencingGal at 4:30 AM on October 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 4:30 AM on October 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
OK wow. Just wow.
Go click on that video link from FencingGal's comment, above. It's about Brian Gilliam, a huge Lakers fan whose dad was on dialysis. Brian and his dad were on the fence about him donating a kidney to his dad, but the tipping point for Brian was when Dawn Dorland came out on center court during halftime at a Lakers game. Brian said, "This was completely my tipping point... If she could do it, I could do it. That's my point of being here, to be like Dawn, ... "
Scroll up one comment on that twitter page, and you'll find Sonya Larson's catty and cruel commentary (from 2017) on this exact same video with Dawn Dorland on center court.
Wow.
How many lives has Dawn Dorland saved, directly or by inspiration? A fuckton more than Sonya Larson has.
Not sure if there's anyone left to defend Sonya at this point.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 5:56 AM on October 11, 2021 [27 favorites]
Go click on that video link from FencingGal's comment, above. It's about Brian Gilliam, a huge Lakers fan whose dad was on dialysis. Brian and his dad were on the fence about him donating a kidney to his dad, but the tipping point for Brian was when Dawn Dorland came out on center court during halftime at a Lakers game. Brian said, "This was completely my tipping point... If she could do it, I could do it. That's my point of being here, to be like Dawn, ... "
Scroll up one comment on that twitter page, and you'll find Sonya Larson's catty and cruel commentary (from 2017) on this exact same video with Dawn Dorland on center court.
Wow.
How many lives has Dawn Dorland saved, directly or by inspiration? A fuckton more than Sonya Larson has.
Not sure if there's anyone left to defend Sonya at this point.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 5:56 AM on October 11, 2021 [27 favorites]
I've not yet read the New Yorker's take, but several people on twitter have pointed out that it's written by a white woman, which strikes me as not that great. If the New Yorker couldn't find an Asian American writer for that assignment, they could have just let themselves miss out on the clicks.
It's very hard to talk about this whole situation without it slipping over into some kind of referendum on criticizing white womanhood, which it shouldn't be. Larson could be a monster and Dorland could be a saint and that would not mean that white saviorism doesn't exist or that Larson hasn't deal with a lot of racist treatment. It seems to me that it's going to be very hard to evaluate the story in this context and so evaluation should either be done be someone who has some relevant experience or left out.
It's like, how do you criticize an Asian American writer who very much appears to have been unprincipled in writing a story about a problem that actually exists? How do you do that in a racist society without it semi-secretly being a criticism of the whole ability to write about racism? Looking at this situation, there's always going to be at least some ambiguity and bad faith, which is why this situation is so godawful. But at least white people ought to avoid making things worse and less clear, which is what having a white writer review the story does.
The entertainment economy is a big player here, too, with a bunch of websites stirring the pot about this story while caring neither about kidney donation nor about racism, only about clicks.
~~
This whole thing is why it seems to me a bad idea to make your average lit fic moral tale a portrait of one specific person right down to their identifiable use of language. If that person is so terrible, why not write a memoir or an article and go full on with identifying and calling them out, or at least free yourself up to write a complete portrait even if anonymized? If that person is only an inspiration, an ambiguous figure, etc, tying the story to them forces the story to be about what kind of person they "really" are rather than about the issue at hand. Like, it appears that Dorland is maybe non-neurotypical and definitely passionate about kidney donation and Larson's social circle is deeply unappealing and that can't help but complicate our read of the story. On the one hand, this provides a fascinating insight into the writing process; on the other, it's probably not what Larson would prefer if you asked her about her big, long-term writerly goals.
posted by Frowner at 6:16 AM on October 11, 2021 [12 favorites]
It's very hard to talk about this whole situation without it slipping over into some kind of referendum on criticizing white womanhood, which it shouldn't be. Larson could be a monster and Dorland could be a saint and that would not mean that white saviorism doesn't exist or that Larson hasn't deal with a lot of racist treatment. It seems to me that it's going to be very hard to evaluate the story in this context and so evaluation should either be done be someone who has some relevant experience or left out.
It's like, how do you criticize an Asian American writer who very much appears to have been unprincipled in writing a story about a problem that actually exists? How do you do that in a racist society without it semi-secretly being a criticism of the whole ability to write about racism? Looking at this situation, there's always going to be at least some ambiguity and bad faith, which is why this situation is so godawful. But at least white people ought to avoid making things worse and less clear, which is what having a white writer review the story does.
The entertainment economy is a big player here, too, with a bunch of websites stirring the pot about this story while caring neither about kidney donation nor about racism, only about clicks.
~~
This whole thing is why it seems to me a bad idea to make your average lit fic moral tale a portrait of one specific person right down to their identifiable use of language. If that person is so terrible, why not write a memoir or an article and go full on with identifying and calling them out, or at least free yourself up to write a complete portrait even if anonymized? If that person is only an inspiration, an ambiguous figure, etc, tying the story to them forces the story to be about what kind of person they "really" are rather than about the issue at hand. Like, it appears that Dorland is maybe non-neurotypical and definitely passionate about kidney donation and Larson's social circle is deeply unappealing and that can't help but complicate our read of the story. On the one hand, this provides a fascinating insight into the writing process; on the other, it's probably not what Larson would prefer if you asked her about her big, long-term writerly goals.
posted by Frowner at 6:16 AM on October 11, 2021 [12 favorites]
I know this for sure: he could EASILY have ended the story by saying "Whoever you think is right or wronged, there is a huge and crying need to kidney donors out there and anyone with a glimmer that it might be a good idea should call this number" or some such.
Sorry, no. It was his job to write an accurate and good story, and we can agree or disagree on whether he did that.
But it is not writers' jobs to advocate for kidney donation or good in the world. Some writers do specialize in that and that's a great service (it is, in fact, called service journalism.) But he doesn't have to promote kidney donation OR goodness in order to be doing his job. It wasn't the job of people covering Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding to promote knee replacement surgery or anything else.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:48 AM on October 11, 2021 [18 favorites]
Sorry, no. It was his job to write an accurate and good story, and we can agree or disagree on whether he did that.
But it is not writers' jobs to advocate for kidney donation or good in the world. Some writers do specialize in that and that's a great service (it is, in fact, called service journalism.) But he doesn't have to promote kidney donation OR goodness in order to be doing his job. It wasn't the job of people covering Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding to promote knee replacement surgery or anything else.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:48 AM on October 11, 2021 [18 favorites]
Wow, saying she is "just like Trump" because she's on the jumbotron? Wild. Kolker clearly left out a lot of the juiciest bits of the group chats.
I'm surprised by the somewhat buddy-buddy tone of the letter to Larson from Kolker. Still, I think it's worth noting that the majority of the comments in the NYTimes article, contrary to Twitter, were more sympathetic with Dorland from the get go. And I'd assume the average NYTimes reader is a bit closer to the average American than the average active Twitter user is (which obviously slants media/entertainment).
Anyhow, I'm not sure one can blame Kolker for the range of initial readings. I've got some small quibbles (would have been nice to have explained the size of the private FB group, for example), but overall, the original article lays out all the broad strokes. Larson's meanness and duplicity are all there, if not the full scale that's apparent in the discovery materials.
I do wonder how much some of the initial responses, especially on Twitter, are in part of a reflection of current reading practices. How many read the article straight-through, in a quiet room, without interruption? Vs. how many people read it in chunks, while waiting for the subway, in between errands, interruptions from their kid, etc? I'm a teacher, I'm always evaluating reading comprehension, and I'll just say, I'm not exactly surprised a lot of people missed some facts included in the original article. (The pandemic has definitely not been kind to our attention spans either)
I'd also be curious how widely the assumption that "social media isn't copyright" is held by the general public. Looking over the original article, this quote from Larson stands out:
“Her letter, it wasn’t art! It was informational. It doesn’t have market value. It’s like language that we glean from menus, from tombstones, from tweets.” [Emphasis added]
It is clear from a number of group chats that Larson and co. thought she was safe in part because it was on "Facebook" and here she also mentions tweets as fair game. Which reminds me, I've seen a number of academics in recent years claim that other academics have plagiarized the ideas/thoughts expressed in their tweets in published work. I have no way of evaluating these claims - but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would check out.
posted by coffeecat at 8:16 AM on October 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
I'm surprised by the somewhat buddy-buddy tone of the letter to Larson from Kolker. Still, I think it's worth noting that the majority of the comments in the NYTimes article, contrary to Twitter, were more sympathetic with Dorland from the get go. And I'd assume the average NYTimes reader is a bit closer to the average American than the average active Twitter user is (which obviously slants media/entertainment).
Anyhow, I'm not sure one can blame Kolker for the range of initial readings. I've got some small quibbles (would have been nice to have explained the size of the private FB group, for example), but overall, the original article lays out all the broad strokes. Larson's meanness and duplicity are all there, if not the full scale that's apparent in the discovery materials.
I do wonder how much some of the initial responses, especially on Twitter, are in part of a reflection of current reading practices. How many read the article straight-through, in a quiet room, without interruption? Vs. how many people read it in chunks, while waiting for the subway, in between errands, interruptions from their kid, etc? I'm a teacher, I'm always evaluating reading comprehension, and I'll just say, I'm not exactly surprised a lot of people missed some facts included in the original article. (The pandemic has definitely not been kind to our attention spans either)
I'd also be curious how widely the assumption that "social media isn't copyright" is held by the general public. Looking over the original article, this quote from Larson stands out:
“Her letter, it wasn’t art! It was informational. It doesn’t have market value. It’s like language that we glean from menus, from tombstones, from tweets.” [Emphasis added]
It is clear from a number of group chats that Larson and co. thought she was safe in part because it was on "Facebook" and here she also mentions tweets as fair game. Which reminds me, I've seen a number of academics in recent years claim that other academics have plagiarized the ideas/thoughts expressed in their tweets in published work. I have no way of evaluating these claims - but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them would check out.
posted by coffeecat at 8:16 AM on October 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
How many read the article straight-through, in a quiet room, without interruption? Vs. how many people read it in chunks, while waiting for the subway, in between errands, interruptions from their kid, etc?
vs. how many people didn't read it at all, but gleaned the contents from Twitter (or Metafilter) and had an opinion on it anyway? I confess that I didn't want to exert any effort getting around the NYT paywall, and therefore have been trying not to have an opinion, but I do read lots of Literary Twitter and... if you were reading Literary Twitter in the day after the article was published, before moorehn and dancow's tweets started getting traction, you were getting a very skewed read on the situation.
posted by Jeanne at 8:51 AM on October 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
vs. how many people didn't read it at all, but gleaned the contents from Twitter (or Metafilter) and had an opinion on it anyway? I confess that I didn't want to exert any effort getting around the NYT paywall, and therefore have been trying not to have an opinion, but I do read lots of Literary Twitter and... if you were reading Literary Twitter in the day after the article was published, before moorehn and dancow's tweets started getting traction, you were getting a very skewed read on the situation.
posted by Jeanne at 8:51 AM on October 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
I've not yet read the New Yorker's take, but several people on twitter have pointed out that it's written by a white woman, which strikes me as not that great.
That Katy Waldman -- oh, snap, that Katy Waldman??
Waldman in the New Yorker, 10/10/21: When you put a person’s life in your art, you risk misrepresenting them. But when you put another writer’s life in your art, you commit a kind of proleptic plagiarism—you steal their material. Not referenced in this essay is...
Waldman in the New Yorker, 04/17/19: Who Owns a Story? I was reviewing a novel. Then I found myself in it. Waldman wrote about anorexia in her family (hers, her twin sister's) in There Once Was a Girl: Against the false narratives of anorexia for Slate in Dec. 2015. Reviewing Louisa Hall's Trinity (2018), Waldman recognized distinct elements of her life in the "Sally" character.
When I asked Hall, on the phone, what role, if any, the essay played in her creative process, she told me that she had read and “enjoyed” it, in 2015, but that her novel is her own. (Ultimately, my editor and I decided not to publish my review.) Who owns a story? [...]
After Slate published my essay, in 2015, I received an e-mail from an author named Kelsey Osgood. I’d read her memoir, “How to Disappear Completely: On Modern Anorexia,” while researching my piece, which benefitted from her perceptive analysis of a lineage of anorexic writing. Osgood’s examples were different, and the nature of the disorder’s pull on her was different. Our families were different. But our sense of anorexia as a narrative malady was the same. In her e-mail, Osgood claimed that I had annexed the themes of “How to Disappear Completely” and that I owed her a more significant citation than the one that appeared in my essay. At the time, I dismissed Osgood’s claim and moved on; my editor reassured me that my story was mine alone. But I have been thinking about Osgood’s e-mail again, and the reading experience that could have prompted it.
The 2019 essay closes with a text exchange between Katy Waldman and her twin sister, Emmy:
I sent an early draft of this piece to my sister.
Emmy: I don’t like “metafictional clowning.”
Emmy: metaliterary high jinx?
Katy: (clown emoji)
Katy: thanks dude
[= They have an interesting discussion = ]
Katy: It might be cool to include some of these texts if you are OK with that? (I can also cut the mentions of you if you want! I just liked the part in the other essay where we talk on the phone.)
Emmy: lol
Emmy: YES PUT ME IN ANOTHER ESSAY WHAT COULD GO WRONG
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:32 AM on October 11, 2021 [9 favorites]
That Katy Waldman -- oh, snap, that Katy Waldman??
Waldman in the New Yorker, 10/10/21: When you put a person’s life in your art, you risk misrepresenting them. But when you put another writer’s life in your art, you commit a kind of proleptic plagiarism—you steal their material. Not referenced in this essay is...
Waldman in the New Yorker, 04/17/19: Who Owns a Story? I was reviewing a novel. Then I found myself in it. Waldman wrote about anorexia in her family (hers, her twin sister's) in There Once Was a Girl: Against the false narratives of anorexia for Slate in Dec. 2015. Reviewing Louisa Hall's Trinity (2018), Waldman recognized distinct elements of her life in the "Sally" character.
When I asked Hall, on the phone, what role, if any, the essay played in her creative process, she told me that she had read and “enjoyed” it, in 2015, but that her novel is her own. (Ultimately, my editor and I decided not to publish my review.) Who owns a story? [...]
After Slate published my essay, in 2015, I received an e-mail from an author named Kelsey Osgood. I’d read her memoir, “How to Disappear Completely: On Modern Anorexia,” while researching my piece, which benefitted from her perceptive analysis of a lineage of anorexic writing. Osgood’s examples were different, and the nature of the disorder’s pull on her was different. Our families were different. But our sense of anorexia as a narrative malady was the same. In her e-mail, Osgood claimed that I had annexed the themes of “How to Disappear Completely” and that I owed her a more significant citation than the one that appeared in my essay. At the time, I dismissed Osgood’s claim and moved on; my editor reassured me that my story was mine alone. But I have been thinking about Osgood’s e-mail again, and the reading experience that could have prompted it.
The 2019 essay closes with a text exchange between Katy Waldman and her twin sister, Emmy:
I sent an early draft of this piece to my sister.
Emmy: I don’t like “metafictional clowning.”
Emmy: metaliterary high jinx?
Katy: (clown emoji)
Katy: thanks dude
[= They have an interesting discussion = ]
Katy: It might be cool to include some of these texts if you are OK with that? (I can also cut the mentions of you if you want! I just liked the part in the other essay where we talk on the phone.)
Emmy: lol
Emmy: YES PUT ME IN ANOTHER ESSAY WHAT COULD GO WRONG
posted by Iris Gambol at 10:32 AM on October 11, 2021 [9 favorites]
Captain Awkward declines to weigh in on this, but posts a related question: “Can I use my ex’s pseudonym in my novel?” My opinion: DON'T DO ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:29 AM on October 11, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:29 AM on October 11, 2021
Steve Almond claims to know/like both of them, tries to...defend..both?
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:14 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:14 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Last Sockpuppet, and others, may I suggest that a donation to a kidney health organization would probably be welcome and ethical.
posted by bq at 12:40 PM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by bq at 12:40 PM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
The Last Sockpuppet, and others, may I suggest that a donation to a kidney health organization would probably be welcome and ethical.
I was thinking that if you made a donation in honor of Dorland to the organization she worked through, they might be willing to notify her, especially if you asked them to keep your donation anonymous.
I think it's admirable that you're moved by her and want to do something concrete.
posted by FencingGal at 12:45 PM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
I was thinking that if you made a donation in honor of Dorland to the organization she worked through, they might be willing to notify her, especially if you asked them to keep your donation anonymous.
I think it's admirable that you're moved by her and want to do something concrete.
posted by FencingGal at 12:45 PM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
Courtney Milan Twitter thread on the pragmatic reasons that copying and pasting someone else's words is a bad idea, and the people who advised Larson that it was ok were giving her bad advice:
It may be fair use and it may be fine but lawsuits absofuckinglutely are the worst, and if you can possibly avoid one you probably should do so.
posted by creepygirl at 12:53 PM on October 11, 2021 [6 favorites]
It may be fair use and it may be fine but lawsuits absofuckinglutely are the worst, and if you can possibly avoid one you probably should do so.
posted by creepygirl at 12:53 PM on October 11, 2021 [6 favorites]
"It's okay to plagiarize" is bad advice.
Larson is "Director of GrubStreet‘s Muse and the Marketplace writing conference, and is an organizer for the Boston Writers of Color Group. She received her MFA in fiction from the Program for Writers at Warren Wilson College." She earned a bachelor's in "English-Creative Writing and Sociology, with Comprehensive Honors at University of Wisconsin-Madison" in 2005 -- the same year she started at GrubStreet as a program coordinator. Her list of publications/honors/awards stretches back over a decade.
"It's not okay to plagiarize" was in the 101 class 20 years ago.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:23 PM on October 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
Larson is "Director of GrubStreet‘s Muse and the Marketplace writing conference, and is an organizer for the Boston Writers of Color Group. She received her MFA in fiction from the Program for Writers at Warren Wilson College." She earned a bachelor's in "English-Creative Writing and Sociology, with Comprehensive Honors at University of Wisconsin-Madison" in 2005 -- the same year she started at GrubStreet as a program coordinator. Her list of publications/honors/awards stretches back over a decade.
"It's not okay to plagiarize" was in the 101 class 20 years ago.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:23 PM on October 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
Katy Waldman in The New Yorker: “The Short Story At The Center Of The ‘Bad Art Friend’ Saga”
By my reading, [Larson] did not [do a better job of exploiting Dorland’s kidney donation for personal gain than Dorland herself]. Larson lifted an extremely potent premise—the needy organ donor, seeking connection and validation—and crafted a story that manages to diminish its built-in intrigue. In fact, “The Kindest” falls short in precisely the ways the saga laid out in the Times Magazine piece might lead us to expect: it makes a cartoon of the donor character, and it over-relies on identity-inflected hand-waving. Also, the prose is bad.posted by Going To Maine at 1:27 PM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think Steve Almond was trying to humanize both of the writers.
"There is no binary here. As I wrote some years back: "The point isn’t to take sides. There are no sides. There’s just the one side. And we’re all on it.”
The hubbub around this story feels creepily familiar. The patriarchy loves a story in which two ambitious women are in conflict. It reinforces ancient bigotries. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Our cultural misogyny is so deeply ingrained that we think nothing of the disparity between how we regard male and female aggression. We laud the former as toughness and courage while we pathologize the latter as hysteria, or reduce it to “cattiness."
I can feel — in the froth around this piece — the flattening of Dawn and Sonya’s complex inner lives into a canvas onto which the reader can smear our own unexamined neurosis. Or worse, a “girl fight” in which we’re expected to take sides, like those disgustingly engineered "Housewives" brawls. How about if we stop doing that?
What Dawn and Sonya deserve right now isn’t our scorn, but our support and self-reflection."
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:34 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
"There is no binary here. As I wrote some years back: "The point isn’t to take sides. There are no sides. There’s just the one side. And we’re all on it.”
The hubbub around this story feels creepily familiar. The patriarchy loves a story in which two ambitious women are in conflict. It reinforces ancient bigotries. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Our cultural misogyny is so deeply ingrained that we think nothing of the disparity between how we regard male and female aggression. We laud the former as toughness and courage while we pathologize the latter as hysteria, or reduce it to “cattiness."
I can feel — in the froth around this piece — the flattening of Dawn and Sonya’s complex inner lives into a canvas onto which the reader can smear our own unexamined neurosis. Or worse, a “girl fight” in which we’re expected to take sides, like those disgustingly engineered "Housewives" brawls. How about if we stop doing that?
What Dawn and Sonya deserve right now isn’t our scorn, but our support and self-reflection."
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:34 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
you don't get to
I am with you most of the way on the rest of this and your other comments, but getting to do things is a concept from childhood with no meaning in adult situations. setting aside plagiarism and other things the law touches, moving into pure morality, you get to do anything you want. Writing about someone else's intimate life history without permission is something you most certainly do get to do. it is a spectacular way to express malice and contempt outside the small and frustratingly closed circle of a group chat and it is a terrific way to make people think less of you for the rest of your life. or to make them think less of your victim, if you are not just scum but scum with talent. there is no body of grown-ups to appeal to on the question of what you "get to" do within the bounds of the law. you get to be a life-ruining prick, if you want to be.
I wish fewer writers wanted to be, I wish more of them had enough talent to work more than one angle or enough morality to abandon an angle that is wrong, even if it is the only one they are good at. but both specific appropriation and directed malice in art are certainly allowed, in that there is no one to disallow it. it isn't even always as artistically and morally bankrupt as it is in this particular case, every so often it's aimed at someone who deserves it. though the one group of people no honest person would go to for feedback on this point is a group of friends who hate the same people you do.
but regardless, you get to. and "you don't get to do that" is the weakest of weak responses to someone who did get to do it. and I am not hammering away at an irritating but harmless widespread idiom for no reason, although I am sure it sounds like it -- Larson's approval-seeking messages to Ng and others were stuffed full of this kind of thinking and insistent authority-checking, simultaneously self-righteous and tee-hee-I'm-so-bad: Do I get to do this? Do I get to? Can I, can I, are we there yet, what if I do it THIS much, look at me, I'm not touching you, why are you hitting yourself, I get to do this, don't I, don't I, my lawyer says I get to, Celeste says I get to (Celeste, are you sure I get to?), you don't get to be mad because I get to do this.
and so many of the repugnant responses from other professional writers have been, likewise, about the very important-to-them fact that writers get to do this that & the other. "what do I get to do" is the most important thing in the world to a small group of really awful people, and for this reason I believe it is a terrible way to think & talk about serious things, like what a person should do.
posted by queenofbithynia at 2:13 PM on October 11, 2021 [51 favorites]
I am with you most of the way on the rest of this and your other comments, but getting to do things is a concept from childhood with no meaning in adult situations. setting aside plagiarism and other things the law touches, moving into pure morality, you get to do anything you want. Writing about someone else's intimate life history without permission is something you most certainly do get to do. it is a spectacular way to express malice and contempt outside the small and frustratingly closed circle of a group chat and it is a terrific way to make people think less of you for the rest of your life. or to make them think less of your victim, if you are not just scum but scum with talent. there is no body of grown-ups to appeal to on the question of what you "get to" do within the bounds of the law. you get to be a life-ruining prick, if you want to be.
I wish fewer writers wanted to be, I wish more of them had enough talent to work more than one angle or enough morality to abandon an angle that is wrong, even if it is the only one they are good at. but both specific appropriation and directed malice in art are certainly allowed, in that there is no one to disallow it. it isn't even always as artistically and morally bankrupt as it is in this particular case, every so often it's aimed at someone who deserves it. though the one group of people no honest person would go to for feedback on this point is a group of friends who hate the same people you do.
but regardless, you get to. and "you don't get to do that" is the weakest of weak responses to someone who did get to do it. and I am not hammering away at an irritating but harmless widespread idiom for no reason, although I am sure it sounds like it -- Larson's approval-seeking messages to Ng and others were stuffed full of this kind of thinking and insistent authority-checking, simultaneously self-righteous and tee-hee-I'm-so-bad: Do I get to do this? Do I get to? Can I, can I, are we there yet, what if I do it THIS much, look at me, I'm not touching you, why are you hitting yourself, I get to do this, don't I, don't I, my lawyer says I get to, Celeste says I get to (Celeste, are you sure I get to?), you don't get to be mad because I get to do this.
and so many of the repugnant responses from other professional writers have been, likewise, about the very important-to-them fact that writers get to do this that & the other. "what do I get to do" is the most important thing in the world to a small group of really awful people, and for this reason I believe it is a terrible way to think & talk about serious things, like what a person should do.
posted by queenofbithynia at 2:13 PM on October 11, 2021 [51 favorites]
I thought the Steve Almond thing was totally pro-Larson, but with a passive-aggressive framing that dishonestly suggested that he also sympathized with Dorland. Basically, he is saying that he sympathizes with Larson for being in the right, and he pities Dorland because it must be terribly humiliating to have a more-talented writer publicly reveal you to be a narcissistic piece of trash.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:16 PM on October 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:16 PM on October 11, 2021 [14 favorites]
Humanize?!? Both Larson and Dorland are already messily human. Almond is, too; you can tell by that hit piece in defense of his friend and colleague: Sonya is a casual friend and a long-time colleague from Grub Street, the creative writing center in Boston where I’ve taught for two decades. Dawn was a student of mine, also at Grub. I like and admire both women very much. [...]
I don’t think anyone’s in a position to judge Dawn Dorland unless they imagine a scenario in which a more celebrated writer (who they admire and want to befriend, from the same writing community they ardently wish to join) writes a story inspired by their act of altruism, which instead spotlights their desire for acclaim.
I don’t think anyone is in a position to judge Sonya Larson unless they have been the subject of a sustained literary and legal campaign against them for the crime of writing a short story that is a work of deep compassion and piercing insight.
The precision of Sonya’s insight into Dawn — and the way she chose to amplify Dawn’s narcissism for fictional purposes — was the real dagger. Her refusal to acknowledge this dagger stabbed it even deeper. A different person might not have been so wounded, and thus so retaliatory. But Dawn (as Sonya well knew) was eager to be recognized for her generosity, not ridiculed. She was openly insecure.
And so am I. And so are you.
Did Dawn go overboard against Sonya? Yes. Do we all go overboard when we feel humiliated? Yes. Does Sonya have a right to write the fictional stories she feels called to write? Yes. Was Dorland understandably upset to discover herself in Sonya’s story? Yes. Did she feel even more wounded at Sonya’s refusal to acknowledge her pain? Yes.
Emphasis mine. He's "sad that these two women got into such an intractable dispute and that this dispute has become a public scandal." Moreover interest in the dispute is prurient, and courtesy of the patriarchy and "cultural misogyny"... but also, Dorland's a needy narcissist attacking Art itself. She's persecuting the wondrously-insightful Larsen for embarrassing her and failing to provide the emotional caretaking she demanded -- making Larsen's main crime a lapse in proper-womaning re: emotional labor. OMG, there's A LOT in Almond's commentary, and it's not paywalled btw. WBUR is Boston’s NPR News Station.
Close: "As writers, we all share the same goal: to convince those who don’t read books that literary art isn’t some esoteric tradition, but a direct path to meaning, a way of coping with (and being less alone in) our pain and bewilderment. It’s hard to make this case if all we do is squabble and gossip." The word gossip has certain associations. Without "gossip," Larsen would still be dominating in the court of public opinion. What a sanctimonious, cynical bit of writing, when Almond's more concerned with protecting increasingly-grubby GrubStreet than in either of these human beings he claims to like and admire. Who are both women, did he happen to mention that?
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:22 PM on October 11, 2021 [16 favorites]
I don’t think anyone’s in a position to judge Dawn Dorland unless they imagine a scenario in which a more celebrated writer (who they admire and want to befriend, from the same writing community they ardently wish to join) writes a story inspired by their act of altruism, which instead spotlights their desire for acclaim.
I don’t think anyone is in a position to judge Sonya Larson unless they have been the subject of a sustained literary and legal campaign against them for the crime of writing a short story that is a work of deep compassion and piercing insight.
The precision of Sonya’s insight into Dawn — and the way she chose to amplify Dawn’s narcissism for fictional purposes — was the real dagger. Her refusal to acknowledge this dagger stabbed it even deeper. A different person might not have been so wounded, and thus so retaliatory. But Dawn (as Sonya well knew) was eager to be recognized for her generosity, not ridiculed. She was openly insecure.
And so am I. And so are you.
Did Dawn go overboard against Sonya? Yes. Do we all go overboard when we feel humiliated? Yes. Does Sonya have a right to write the fictional stories she feels called to write? Yes. Was Dorland understandably upset to discover herself in Sonya’s story? Yes. Did she feel even more wounded at Sonya’s refusal to acknowledge her pain? Yes.
Emphasis mine. He's "sad that these two women got into such an intractable dispute and that this dispute has become a public scandal." Moreover interest in the dispute is prurient, and courtesy of the patriarchy and "cultural misogyny"... but also, Dorland's a needy narcissist attacking Art itself. She's persecuting the wondrously-insightful Larsen for embarrassing her and failing to provide the emotional caretaking she demanded -- making Larsen's main crime a lapse in proper-womaning re: emotional labor. OMG, there's A LOT in Almond's commentary, and it's not paywalled btw. WBUR is Boston’s NPR News Station.
Close: "As writers, we all share the same goal: to convince those who don’t read books that literary art isn’t some esoteric tradition, but a direct path to meaning, a way of coping with (and being less alone in) our pain and bewilderment. It’s hard to make this case if all we do is squabble and gossip." The word gossip has certain associations. Without "gossip," Larsen would still be dominating in the court of public opinion. What a sanctimonious, cynical bit of writing, when Almond's more concerned with protecting increasingly-grubby GrubStreet than in either of these human beings he claims to like and admire. Who are both women, did he happen to mention that?
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:22 PM on October 11, 2021 [16 favorites]
Steve Almond was coworkers with Sonya.
I'm really tired of people who have close professional connections with Sonya, have been honored by grub street, or were actively involved in the chunky monkey mailing list weighing in with their stale, stale takes about how Sonya totally is a great person really.
Every single part of the initial framing of Dawn's behavior as unacceptable turned out to be framing only. She wasn't suing Larson for "plagiarizing her life", she was saying Larson for actual textbook legally actionable plagiarism. She wasn't begging for accolades, she was doing normal donor advocacy and also, at one point, very graciously and leaving lots of outs, checking out wtf Sonya was doing. She wasn't the one who initiated litigation, Sonya was (Dawn,in an act of insane generosity only undersandable if you remember this woman donated a kidney, offered mediation). She wasn't a crazy stalker, she quietly unfriended Sonya (versus, say, Sonya obsessively reading and attacking everything Dawn wrote). She wasn't demanding insane compensation, she was demanding the legal costs.
Meanwhile Sonya has plagiarized, perjured herself, ignored court orders, lied to her friends, lied to the press, lied to her publishers, orchestrated a harassment campaign, made cynical use of her race to get defense for her behaviors, sent friends to harass BBF, had friends in HR bury Dawn's complaints....
Oh no but this is a both sides story! Dawn was annoying, see, and that's totally the same!!!
(There's no evidence Dawn was actually annoying, btw. The only sources of her supposed annoyingness are not exactly reliable, and even they can't keep themselves from describing her as sunny, cheerful, kind when they're insulting her)
posted by Cozybee at 2:29 PM on October 11, 2021 [46 favorites]
I'm really tired of people who have close professional connections with Sonya, have been honored by grub street, or were actively involved in the chunky monkey mailing list weighing in with their stale, stale takes about how Sonya totally is a great person really.
Every single part of the initial framing of Dawn's behavior as unacceptable turned out to be framing only. She wasn't suing Larson for "plagiarizing her life", she was saying Larson for actual textbook legally actionable plagiarism. She wasn't begging for accolades, she was doing normal donor advocacy and also, at one point, very graciously and leaving lots of outs, checking out wtf Sonya was doing. She wasn't the one who initiated litigation, Sonya was (Dawn,in an act of insane generosity only undersandable if you remember this woman donated a kidney, offered mediation). She wasn't a crazy stalker, she quietly unfriended Sonya (versus, say, Sonya obsessively reading and attacking everything Dawn wrote). She wasn't demanding insane compensation, she was demanding the legal costs.
Meanwhile Sonya has plagiarized, perjured herself, ignored court orders, lied to her friends, lied to the press, lied to her publishers, orchestrated a harassment campaign, made cynical use of her race to get defense for her behaviors, sent friends to harass BBF, had friends in HR bury Dawn's complaints....
Oh no but this is a both sides story! Dawn was annoying, see, and that's totally the same!!!
(There's no evidence Dawn was actually annoying, btw. The only sources of her supposed annoyingness are not exactly reliable, and even they can't keep themselves from describing her as sunny, cheerful, kind when they're insulting her)
posted by Cozybee at 2:29 PM on October 11, 2021 [46 favorites]
"what do I get to do" is the most important thing in the world to a small group of really awful people, and for this reason I believe it is a terrible way to think & talk about serious things, like what a person should do.
I haven’t read anything that struck me with this degree of moral clarity for quite a while.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:15 PM on October 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
I haven’t read anything that struck me with this degree of moral clarity for quite a while.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:15 PM on October 11, 2021 [5 favorites]
I have always kinda vaguely disliked Steve Almond and I have never been able to explain why he puts me off. But I just thought, "I don't WANT to give these people my support!" Sure, he actually knows them and he's biased, I get that. But when people I like do shitty things, and it's really clear (plagiarism!) that they did it, I don't think I could continue to defend them.
The closest analogue I can think of to my life is I used to know a person I thought was great, never had any bad experiences with her. A while after she left town, someone I'm very close to told me that person had done some shitty behavior. Sure, I didn't experience said behavior at all, but I don't have any reason to think that person's lying. So I wouldn't exactly stand up and defend the person I knew when apparently there was a side to her I didn't know and it wasn't good. I'd probably politely stay quiet if she came up in conversation, or say "I didn't have any bad experiences with X but I know someone who has."
I pretty much don't get why Steve wants to defend Sonya after what she's done here. Is she that awesome IRL?
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:16 PM on October 11, 2021 [6 favorites]
The closest analogue I can think of to my life is I used to know a person I thought was great, never had any bad experiences with her. A while after she left town, someone I'm very close to told me that person had done some shitty behavior. Sure, I didn't experience said behavior at all, but I don't have any reason to think that person's lying. So I wouldn't exactly stand up and defend the person I knew when apparently there was a side to her I didn't know and it wasn't good. I'd probably politely stay quiet if she came up in conversation, or say "I didn't have any bad experiences with X but I know someone who has."
I pretty much don't get why Steve wants to defend Sonya after what she's done here. Is she that awesome IRL?
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:16 PM on October 11, 2021 [6 favorites]
Dorland should offer to settle all her legal claims with Larson for one undirected kidney donation - not necessarily from Larson ( have no idea if she's medically able but I can't imagine she'd pass the psych screening for it) but by any single person prompted to do so by Larson. I think her search for that person would make a great story.
posted by bashing rocks together at 4:18 PM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by bashing rocks together at 4:18 PM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
^I think the premise of your comment would make for a fine dystopian science fiction/legal thriller story, with the Larson character's crummy lawyer's POV.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:00 PM on October 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:00 PM on October 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
And the Bad Art Friend fan-fiction begins...(though "fan" is probably the wrong term here?)
posted by coffeecat at 5:12 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by coffeecat at 5:12 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Like I get dunking on a villain can be a fulfilling release, but the angry mob vibe of this thread is weird. The vibe is reminiscent of fandom, so I guess fan-fic makes sense?
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 5:19 PM on October 11, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 5:19 PM on October 11, 2021 [8 favorites]
Apparently we need a new word: hate-fiction
posted by bq at 6:10 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 6:10 PM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Now the Twitter Kidneygate account has posted, "Some of the best commentary about this whole saga has come out of MetaFilter", with a link to this thread, specifically a comment by Eyebrows McGee.
posted by FencingGal at 6:24 PM on October 11, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 6:24 PM on October 11, 2021 [15 favorites]
New York Times writer Robert Kolker did a terrible job of explaining how a person running a private Facebook group would notice a lack of engagement from a member of that group. He made it sound weird and stalkery, but it isn't.
I run a Facebook group with a few dozen members, like Dawn Dorland did. Every group post has a "Seen By" link that shows the admin who viewed it. Sonya Larson was seeing every post and never interacting with any of them. At some point Dorland noticed this and asked her about it.
I've been invited to a few private groups on Facebook where a friend wanted to discuss something deeply personal they were experiencing. One was seeking support as he fought stage 4 pancreatic cancer, which sadly ended up taking his life within a year. Dorland's group was set up because she was experiencing something amazing by virtue of becoming a non-directed kidney donor and she wanted to talk about it in detail without imposing on her whole Facebook wall.
I can't imagine joining a deeply personal private group like that, taking content from it for a short story, and sticking around because I found it so cringeworthy I could mock it with my writer buddies.
And I don't think Dorland was being narcissistic by expressing her feelings about giving a stranger a kidney in a private place set up for people who wanted to hear about it.
It's OK to express pride in yourself for doing something good.
posted by rcade at 6:35 PM on October 11, 2021 [39 favorites]
I run a Facebook group with a few dozen members, like Dawn Dorland did. Every group post has a "Seen By" link that shows the admin who viewed it. Sonya Larson was seeing every post and never interacting with any of them. At some point Dorland noticed this and asked her about it.
I've been invited to a few private groups on Facebook where a friend wanted to discuss something deeply personal they were experiencing. One was seeking support as he fought stage 4 pancreatic cancer, which sadly ended up taking his life within a year. Dorland's group was set up because she was experiencing something amazing by virtue of becoming a non-directed kidney donor and she wanted to talk about it in detail without imposing on her whole Facebook wall.
I can't imagine joining a deeply personal private group like that, taking content from it for a short story, and sticking around because I found it so cringeworthy I could mock it with my writer buddies.
And I don't think Dorland was being narcissistic by expressing her feelings about giving a stranger a kidney in a private place set up for people who wanted to hear about it.
It's OK to express pride in yourself for doing something good.
posted by rcade at 6:35 PM on October 11, 2021 [39 favorites]
...taking content from it for a short story...
The word used in the court filing: harvesting.
Following Ms. Dorland’s successful surgery, she crafted a heartfelt letter to the final kidney recipient in the donation chain. This was not the individual who received Ms. Dorland’s kidney, but rather another individual who was able to receive a viable organ as a result of the chain in which Ms. Dorland participated. Ms. Dorland provided the letter to the administrators of the UCLA kidney transplant team so that they could in turn provide it to the anonymous kidney recipient. After learning that her transplant coordinator had been moved and inspired by her letter, Ms. Dorland shared the letter with the members of her private and secret Facebook group. She did not post the letter to her own broader Facebook page. [...]
Unbeknownst to Ms. Dorland, Ms. Larson was harvesting Ms. Dorland's posts, both from her private and secret group and from her own Facebook page, and was writing what was later termed a "take down" of Ms. Dorland.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:54 PM on October 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
The word used in the court filing: harvesting.
Following Ms. Dorland’s successful surgery, she crafted a heartfelt letter to the final kidney recipient in the donation chain. This was not the individual who received Ms. Dorland’s kidney, but rather another individual who was able to receive a viable organ as a result of the chain in which Ms. Dorland participated. Ms. Dorland provided the letter to the administrators of the UCLA kidney transplant team so that they could in turn provide it to the anonymous kidney recipient. After learning that her transplant coordinator had been moved and inspired by her letter, Ms. Dorland shared the letter with the members of her private and secret Facebook group. She did not post the letter to her own broader Facebook page. [...]
Unbeknownst to Ms. Dorland, Ms. Larson was harvesting Ms. Dorland's posts, both from her private and secret group and from her own Facebook page, and was writing what was later termed a "take down" of Ms. Dorland.
posted by Iris Gambol at 7:54 PM on October 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
From coffeeand's post yesterday:
There is probably a separate smaller, Chunky Monkeys group chat dedicated to roasting Sonya and plotting how they'll avoid getting caught up in the fallout as we speak.
And it's already happening: Becky Tuch, member of the Chunky Monkeys and ally to Sonya Larson, has renounced her position.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 7:56 PM on October 11, 2021 [10 favorites]
There is probably a separate smaller, Chunky Monkeys group chat dedicated to roasting Sonya and plotting how they'll avoid getting caught up in the fallout as we speak.
And it's already happening: Becky Tuch, member of the Chunky Monkeys and ally to Sonya Larson, has renounced her position.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 7:56 PM on October 11, 2021 [10 favorites]
It was [Kolker's] job to write an accurate and good story, and we can agree or disagree on whether he did that. But it is not writers' jobs to advocate for kidney donation or good in the world.
How can you write "an accurate and good story" about this situation without describing the real world need for kidney donations? It makes a big difference whether this is some esoteric obsession of Dorland's, or a life-and-death matter for 10,000 people (which it literally is). Kolker barely nods at the possibility that Dorland could have actually wanted to help people obtain kidneys, as opposed to indulging her narcissistic selfishness.
It looks to me like Kolker thought his job was to write a compelling and viral story, which he certainly did, at the expense of "accurate and good."
posted by msalt at 8:05 PM on October 11, 2021 [12 favorites]
How can you write "an accurate and good story" about this situation without describing the real world need for kidney donations? It makes a big difference whether this is some esoteric obsession of Dorland's, or a life-and-death matter for 10,000 people (which it literally is). Kolker barely nods at the possibility that Dorland could have actually wanted to help people obtain kidneys, as opposed to indulging her narcissistic selfishness.
It looks to me like Kolker thought his job was to write a compelling and viral story, which he certainly did, at the expense of "accurate and good."
posted by msalt at 8:05 PM on October 11, 2021 [12 favorites]
It does not make a difference. She could have been doing any number of altruistic acts and it doesn’t materially change the story. Look, obviously kidney donation is important to you but there isn’t a scale of altruism where at point a (helping at a food bank say) it’s obviously ok to write a story about her but at the point that you’re a bone marrow donor it’s not.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:16 PM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 8:16 PM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
It looks to me like Kolker thought his job was to write a compelling and viral story, which he certainly did, at the expense of "accurate and good."
The sociologist and New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci is asking whether the story was written purposely ambiguous to increase its virality. She asks, "With a basic timeline (including a two year period when it’s calm and Larson has a chance to ameliorate but comes back with more provocation so things heat up again), the story is less ambiguous -- less suited to viral disagreement?"
But as a former journalist myself, I think Kolker put his thumb on the scale to favor Larson.
As asteria noted upthread, Kolker told Larson in his email requesting an interview that in his opinion "this case was about an artist who became the target of a protracted effort to discredit her work, and now is fighting to preserve control of her creative life."
By structuring the story the way he did -- making Dorland seem weird and insufferably needy before explaining what Larson did to her -- he gave Larson more sympathy than a simpler recounting of the facts might have elicited.
posted by rcade at 8:36 PM on October 11, 2021 [12 favorites]
The sociologist and New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci is asking whether the story was written purposely ambiguous to increase its virality. She asks, "With a basic timeline (including a two year period when it’s calm and Larson has a chance to ameliorate but comes back with more provocation so things heat up again), the story is less ambiguous -- less suited to viral disagreement?"
But as a former journalist myself, I think Kolker put his thumb on the scale to favor Larson.
As asteria noted upthread, Kolker told Larson in his email requesting an interview that in his opinion "this case was about an artist who became the target of a protracted effort to discredit her work, and now is fighting to preserve control of her creative life."
By structuring the story the way he did -- making Dorland seem weird and insufferably needy before explaining what Larson did to her -- he gave Larson more sympathy than a simpler recounting of the facts might have elicited.
posted by rcade at 8:36 PM on October 11, 2021 [12 favorites]
fuzzy.little.sock. OMG that thread. 'While reports of us being vicious backstabbing a-holes are being widely circulated.... I just want everyone to know... that we had fun together doing it. brb signing off before any further damage is done to my career.'
Okay, trying to be more charitable. At least this is evidence that if Sonya and Dawn have to endure being dragged through the public square, then the rest of the writers group isn't escaping unscathed. In situations like this I really think the best case scenario here is that the sick system itself gets destroyed, and the humans that were part of it get to go heal and grow and whatever away from it.
posted by coffeeand at 8:46 PM on October 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
Okay, trying to be more charitable. At least this is evidence that if Sonya and Dawn have to endure being dragged through the public square, then the rest of the writers group isn't escaping unscathed. In situations like this I really think the best case scenario here is that the sick system itself gets destroyed, and the humans that were part of it get to go heal and grow and whatever away from it.
posted by coffeeand at 8:46 PM on October 11, 2021 [7 favorites]
I don’t disagree - I’m ambivalent - but it’s pretty repugnant to me that the implication is that we have to have a background on kidney donation in order to decide whether Dorland was too needy or not needy enough.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:49 PM on October 11, 2021
posted by warriorqueen at 8:49 PM on October 11, 2021
I still don't get how Dawn was being needy at all. She lived on the opposite coast from these people and made a Facebook group that she invited them to. After sending out the invite, she put up a post telling them they could leave if they felt "squeamish" (thus giving them a way to bow out and save face).
Instead of doing the reasonable thing and keeping someone she disliked at a distance, Sonya chose to join a private Facebook group, share the posts with friends who are apparently also the people in charge of GrubStreet (ie Dawn's employers and teachers,), talk about how they're going to destroy Dawn's career so she has to be a "truck driver" because she won't get hired, talk about how they're going to squash Dawn's HR complaints, gaslights Dawn when she asks and then when Dawn the "crazy stalker" quietly unfriends her and lets the topic drop for two whole years still does not fix the story and basically defrauds everyone who publishes it as Deborah Porter of the Boston Book Festival rightly notes.
All for a story that isn't that good precisely because the "Dawn" character is flat and ridiculous. Unless there's something really good that everyone on Sonya's side is holding back, there's no way to both sides this. Sonya is a bad person and I think GrubStreet needs to clean house asap.
posted by asteria at 9:01 PM on October 11, 2021 [26 favorites]
Instead of doing the reasonable thing and keeping someone she disliked at a distance, Sonya chose to join a private Facebook group, share the posts with friends who are apparently also the people in charge of GrubStreet (ie Dawn's employers and teachers,), talk about how they're going to destroy Dawn's career so she has to be a "truck driver" because she won't get hired, talk about how they're going to squash Dawn's HR complaints, gaslights Dawn when she asks and then when Dawn the "crazy stalker" quietly unfriends her and lets the topic drop for two whole years still does not fix the story and basically defrauds everyone who publishes it as Deborah Porter of the Boston Book Festival rightly notes.
All for a story that isn't that good precisely because the "Dawn" character is flat and ridiculous. Unless there's something really good that everyone on Sonya's side is holding back, there's no way to both sides this. Sonya is a bad person and I think GrubStreet needs to clean house asap.
posted by asteria at 9:01 PM on October 11, 2021 [26 favorites]
Sure, but the idea that it’s relevant how many people need kidney donations is still playing moral yardstick based on Dorland’s pereceived level of altruism rather than Larson’s actions.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:06 PM on October 11, 2021
posted by warriorqueen at 9:06 PM on October 11, 2021
I've been sort of passively following this story (and thread) for days, but I've finally caught up on this thread and honestly, the thing that made me finally want to comment is that just godawful WBUR post by Steve Almond. I've always found him vaguely smarmy, but figured that was because I knew him primarily through advice-giving. But the smarm in that post was off-the-charts. I mean, the absolute gall to call Dorland a narcissist, after saying he admires her, and then paragraphs later say "oh how sad that the patriarchy makes us do this to women! Aren't we just awful?" What a mess of an essay.
The other thing I can't get over is the absolutely bald mean-spiritedness of some of those email and text chains. After I read the initial story, I had the impression that Dorland was obsessed with what Larson had done to her, and was hounding her down relentlessly to punish her. But after reading those transcripts, it really seems like Larson was at least as obsessed, if not more, and her obsession began before Dorland had even done anything to her.
Like, Dorland was just going along, living her life, talking about this big part of her life on social media, as we all do, and Larson and her friends were tracking her on social media and savaging her behind her back. I've seen bad in-group, cliquish behavior but this is on another level and I was honestly sort of shocked by the vitriol of it, before Dorland even knew about the plagiarism.
posted by lunasol at 10:30 PM on October 11, 2021 [27 favorites]
The other thing I can't get over is the absolutely bald mean-spiritedness of some of those email and text chains. After I read the initial story, I had the impression that Dorland was obsessed with what Larson had done to her, and was hounding her down relentlessly to punish her. But after reading those transcripts, it really seems like Larson was at least as obsessed, if not more, and her obsession began before Dorland had even done anything to her.
Like, Dorland was just going along, living her life, talking about this big part of her life on social media, as we all do, and Larson and her friends were tracking her on social media and savaging her behind her back. I've seen bad in-group, cliquish behavior but this is on another level and I was honestly sort of shocked by the vitriol of it, before Dorland even knew about the plagiarism.
posted by lunasol at 10:30 PM on October 11, 2021 [27 favorites]
Also, I'm super-late in this thread so maybe too late for a point like this but: as someone who's worked as an organizer/progressive campaigner in one way or another for most of my life, I can't express how frustrating it is to see someone mocked for talking about a good thing she'd done. Or to see people, as I've seen all over the place, say that Dorland negated the good of her kidney donation by talking about or wanting recognition for having done it.
As others have pointed out, kidney donors are encouraged to do exactly what Dorland did. And this is because we know, both from an understanding of human nature, and from research, that people are more likely to do something if they see people they know doing it and talking about it. This applies to both "good" and "bad" behaviors. When I managed volunteers, I was always happy to see them talking about it on social media, because I hoped it would encourage their friends to volunteer too.
And as for wanting praise, well, yeah. People are social animals and most of us want to have our good deeds recognized. You don't need to be neurodivergent or have had a traumatic childhood to want that. And the idea that such a need negates the good of the deed is just very silly. The recipient still has his new kidney, regardless of whether or not the donor wants praise from the people she believes to be her friends.
The mental image I keep getting when I think about this argument is the Good Place Committee from The Good Place. Early on (6 year old SPOILERS) we learn good deeds only count if your intentions were admirable. Someone who did good things for the wrong reasons could end up in the Bad Place. But then in a later season (EVEN SPOILERIER!) we learn these rules were devised and enforced by a group of well-meaning but clueless types who never bothered to make sure this system worked in our world, and had resulted in basically all of humanity being tortured in the Bad Place for centuries.
This has gotten kind of rambly but basically: people have all sorts of reasons for doing good things, and I'm just always going to have more respect for the person who did a good thing for complex reasons than the person who mocked them for it.
posted by lunasol at 10:51 PM on October 11, 2021 [21 favorites]
As others have pointed out, kidney donors are encouraged to do exactly what Dorland did. And this is because we know, both from an understanding of human nature, and from research, that people are more likely to do something if they see people they know doing it and talking about it. This applies to both "good" and "bad" behaviors. When I managed volunteers, I was always happy to see them talking about it on social media, because I hoped it would encourage their friends to volunteer too.
And as for wanting praise, well, yeah. People are social animals and most of us want to have our good deeds recognized. You don't need to be neurodivergent or have had a traumatic childhood to want that. And the idea that such a need negates the good of the deed is just very silly. The recipient still has his new kidney, regardless of whether or not the donor wants praise from the people she believes to be her friends.
The mental image I keep getting when I think about this argument is the Good Place Committee from The Good Place. Early on (6 year old SPOILERS) we learn good deeds only count if your intentions were admirable. Someone who did good things for the wrong reasons could end up in the Bad Place. But then in a later season (EVEN SPOILERIER!) we learn these rules were devised and enforced by a group of well-meaning but clueless types who never bothered to make sure this system worked in our world, and had resulted in basically all of humanity being tortured in the Bad Place for centuries.
This has gotten kind of rambly but basically: people have all sorts of reasons for doing good things, and I'm just always going to have more respect for the person who did a good thing for complex reasons than the person who mocked them for it.
posted by lunasol at 10:51 PM on October 11, 2021 [21 favorites]
Honestly the most surprising thing to me about the Steve Almond essay to me is that WBUR published it. The rot seems to go pretty far at Grub Street so I wouldn't be surprised if everyone there was fine with employees trashing a former student/employee. As far as I know, they haven't even released an generic "We believe in treating everyone with respect" message that just about every org puts out when their employees are caught behaving badly.
But I thought someone at WBUR might read it and say, "Are you sure you want to call a former student a narcissist? Seems kind of unprofessional for a teacher to do that." or "You're calling for compassion and fairness for both women, but you actually sound kind of insulting towards one of them, do you think you're maybe too close to this story to write a good essay about it?"
posted by creepygirl at 10:59 PM on October 11, 2021 [21 favorites]
But I thought someone at WBUR might read it and say, "Are you sure you want to call a former student a narcissist? Seems kind of unprofessional for a teacher to do that." or "You're calling for compassion and fairness for both women, but you actually sound kind of insulting towards one of them, do you think you're maybe too close to this story to write a good essay about it?"
posted by creepygirl at 10:59 PM on October 11, 2021 [21 favorites]
"This is to say as well that Dorland's behavior is not unusual in our community. We have a name for ourselves (the "one-bean" club) and we have facebook pages and meetups IRL's and online support groups and we have lots and lots of people who write self-published books about their Journey because, and I hope I've made this clear, it really does change you."
This is something that has been totally lost it seems. I was curious to see what Dorland's Facebook activity that Larson and friends found so objectionable looked like for myself and to be honest I was floored by just how unremarkable it was. It looked a lot like the type of earnest advocacy posts I see from an acquaintance I am Facebook friends with who gave a kidney to her brother when he needed one. She just is quite active as an advocate (and appears to be effective based on some of the comments).
Before the short story had ever been recorded or published, before there were any emails exchanged between them on this subject, and years before there was ever any threat of legal action or legal actions taken, Larson and her friends were talking about how creepy and gross they found Dorland's wholly inoffensive posts about her kidney donation. Looking at the posts they found objectionable makes it very clear that this is a bitch eating crackers situation. Here are two examples of their comments and the corresponding posts (on imgur): October 17, 2015 and December 17, 2015
A third example from January 2017 is from after they had discussed Larson's story by email in the summer of 2016, but otherwise nothing else had transpired between them to date. While the messages themselves are pretty mild, the posts that prompted them reveal just how much they reacted negatively Dawn Dorland (i.e., the bitch eating crackers) for no clear reason.
On this date, Larson and Whitney Scharer mock Dorland and compare her to Trump for because she appeared on the jumbotron at a Lakers game as their "Laker for a Day" feature at halftime where they honored her for her kidney donation. The feature that they were mocking? A man cited seeing the UCLA Lakers video posted on Facebook as the tipping point that led him to donate his kidney to his father and made him want to spread the word to encourage living organ donation — just like what the insightful post on here suggested the goal is with raising awareness about your experience as a donor.
More on their story below (source) (or video here):
"His father’s failing health weighed on his mind every day. Brian Gilliam, a shoe salesman at Nordstrom’s, had been watching his dad, Dana, 69, slowly deteriorate from end stage kidney disease for more than two years. His father endured daily, 12-hour dialysis treatments while he waited for a kidney donation.
Brian and his wife, Roxie, started seriously discussing the idea of Brian donating a kidney to his dad. “I was thankful that he wanted to donate his kidney but I was mindful of what that might do to him,” Dana said. “But he was very plain about what he wanted to do.”
Once Brian made the decision to donate, he said he noticed little signs reinforcing his choice starting popping up . . . Then came the biggest sign.
An avid Los Angeles Lakers fan, Brian always watched the team’s social media feeds. He was casually scrolling his Facebook page when he saw a video about a woman named Dawn Dorland Perry, who was being recognized as a Laker for a Day in February 2017 by the team and its health partner, UCLA Health, for donating her kidney to a stranger. As it turned out, she and Brian’s dad shared the same surgical team at UCLA. “This was my final sign, my tipping point, my inspiration,” Brian recalled. “It felt like a calling to me.”
With his mind made up, Brian contacted the UCLA kidney transplant program and began the donor evaluation process. Even if he was not a match, Brian was determined to donate his organ as part of a kidney chain at UCLA. A chain is where donors who don’t match with a loved one give their kidney to someone else. In turn, it helps their loved one get a kidney from another donor in the chain.
After the donor evaluation, the family learned that the father and son were a match. On Aug. 9, 2017, the team removed Brian’s kidney and immediately transplanted it into Dana, who lives in Los Alamitos, California. The healthy, pink kidney started working immediately.
Months later, that Lakers connection with Dawn’s video was still on Brian’s mind. He emailed the Lakers to tell them how her story affected his family. And he wrote that he wanted to nominate his dad, a lifelong Lakers fan, to be a Laker for A Day to help raise awareness of the need for organ donation."
posted by wkndworrier at 5:10 AM on October 12, 2021 [14 favorites]
This is something that has been totally lost it seems. I was curious to see what Dorland's Facebook activity that Larson and friends found so objectionable looked like for myself and to be honest I was floored by just how unremarkable it was. It looked a lot like the type of earnest advocacy posts I see from an acquaintance I am Facebook friends with who gave a kidney to her brother when he needed one. She just is quite active as an advocate (and appears to be effective based on some of the comments).
Before the short story had ever been recorded or published, before there were any emails exchanged between them on this subject, and years before there was ever any threat of legal action or legal actions taken, Larson and her friends were talking about how creepy and gross they found Dorland's wholly inoffensive posts about her kidney donation. Looking at the posts they found objectionable makes it very clear that this is a bitch eating crackers situation. Here are two examples of their comments and the corresponding posts (on imgur): October 17, 2015 and December 17, 2015
A third example from January 2017 is from after they had discussed Larson's story by email in the summer of 2016, but otherwise nothing else had transpired between them to date. While the messages themselves are pretty mild, the posts that prompted them reveal just how much they reacted negatively Dawn Dorland (i.e., the bitch eating crackers) for no clear reason.
On this date, Larson and Whitney Scharer mock Dorland and compare her to Trump for because she appeared on the jumbotron at a Lakers game as their "Laker for a Day" feature at halftime where they honored her for her kidney donation. The feature that they were mocking? A man cited seeing the UCLA Lakers video posted on Facebook as the tipping point that led him to donate his kidney to his father and made him want to spread the word to encourage living organ donation — just like what the insightful post on here suggested the goal is with raising awareness about your experience as a donor.
More on their story below (source) (or video here):
"His father’s failing health weighed on his mind every day. Brian Gilliam, a shoe salesman at Nordstrom’s, had been watching his dad, Dana, 69, slowly deteriorate from end stage kidney disease for more than two years. His father endured daily, 12-hour dialysis treatments while he waited for a kidney donation.
Brian and his wife, Roxie, started seriously discussing the idea of Brian donating a kidney to his dad. “I was thankful that he wanted to donate his kidney but I was mindful of what that might do to him,” Dana said. “But he was very plain about what he wanted to do.”
Once Brian made the decision to donate, he said he noticed little signs reinforcing his choice starting popping up . . . Then came the biggest sign.
An avid Los Angeles Lakers fan, Brian always watched the team’s social media feeds. He was casually scrolling his Facebook page when he saw a video about a woman named Dawn Dorland Perry, who was being recognized as a Laker for a Day in February 2017 by the team and its health partner, UCLA Health, for donating her kidney to a stranger. As it turned out, she and Brian’s dad shared the same surgical team at UCLA. “This was my final sign, my tipping point, my inspiration,” Brian recalled. “It felt like a calling to me.”
With his mind made up, Brian contacted the UCLA kidney transplant program and began the donor evaluation process. Even if he was not a match, Brian was determined to donate his organ as part of a kidney chain at UCLA. A chain is where donors who don’t match with a loved one give their kidney to someone else. In turn, it helps their loved one get a kidney from another donor in the chain.
After the donor evaluation, the family learned that the father and son were a match. On Aug. 9, 2017, the team removed Brian’s kidney and immediately transplanted it into Dana, who lives in Los Alamitos, California. The healthy, pink kidney started working immediately.
Months later, that Lakers connection with Dawn’s video was still on Brian’s mind. He emailed the Lakers to tell them how her story affected his family. And he wrote that he wanted to nominate his dad, a lifelong Lakers fan, to be a Laker for A Day to help raise awareness of the need for organ donation."
posted by wkndworrier at 5:10 AM on October 12, 2021 [14 favorites]
Oops — sorry for presenting the part about the Lakers game as if it were new information... I wanted to see if it had come up already and just realized that I accidentally ctrl-f'd "Laker's" instead of "Lakers" (I'm tired)
posted by wkndworrier at 5:24 AM on October 12, 2021
posted by wkndworrier at 5:24 AM on October 12, 2021
I was thinking that Dorland seems kind of like the Patty character in the 1978 movie Grease (which it's possible I'm misremembering). She is kind and enthusiastic and she never does anything mean or cruel, yet the other characters in the movie all hate her, mock her, and play mean pranks on her. It's set up for the audience to also think she's awful and to see the cruelty as funny. If someone in that movie were going to donate a kidney to a stranger, it would be her.
I'm not letting myself off the hook with this - I also find that character annoying. And I've thought that I can see where Dawn Dorland might be hard to be around. But it's making me wonder why there's this hatred of people who are mostly just too good to seem real. (Are they mostly women? The only similar man I can think is the "too nice" agent in an episode of Frasier. But I don't watch a lot of movies or TV these days.)
With Dawn Dorland, the main criticism seems to be motive - she only does this for adulation. But is there any reason to think this aside from it's the way the NYT article sets it up? We know now that the Facebook group was misrepresented (though people still bring it up as proof of how awful she is). And we also know that her letter to Sonya was not "what's wrong with you for not liking my kidney posts" but "I want to make sure you know you can drop out of this group if you want to."
posted by FencingGal at 6:12 AM on October 12, 2021 [11 favorites]
I'm not letting myself off the hook with this - I also find that character annoying. And I've thought that I can see where Dawn Dorland might be hard to be around. But it's making me wonder why there's this hatred of people who are mostly just too good to seem real. (Are they mostly women? The only similar man I can think is the "too nice" agent in an episode of Frasier. But I don't watch a lot of movies or TV these days.)
With Dawn Dorland, the main criticism seems to be motive - she only does this for adulation. But is there any reason to think this aside from it's the way the NYT article sets it up? We know now that the Facebook group was misrepresented (though people still bring it up as proof of how awful she is). And we also know that her letter to Sonya was not "what's wrong with you for not liking my kidney posts" but "I want to make sure you know you can drop out of this group if you want to."
posted by FencingGal at 6:12 AM on October 12, 2021 [11 favorites]
I've noticed that intelligent and/or overconfident and/or very online people repeatedly make the mistake of assuming that they know how a complex system works despite being totally unfamiliar with it. I mean, we all do this up to a point, it's a failing to try to avoid, but for instance since the pandemic I've encountered people who have made really inaccurate criticisms of medical research not because they are anti-vaxxers etc but because it has never occurred to them that it takes more than a week or two to set up a lab from scratch, hire scientists and begin spending money.
Similarly, a bunch of the stuff that Larson et al criticize about Dorland seems to come from ignorance about organ donation - and from radical individualism. They assume that there's absolutely no advice given to or requests made of donors, so everything Dorland does must be just her own choices, made of course from the worst possible motives. They assume that having major surgery to make the donation is no more intense and produces no stronger feelings than, eg, donating blood, so making a big deal about it is inexcusable. And basically they assume that you just sort of donate a kidney by waltzing in on impulse - the worst possible impulse, of course - and then you waltz out again, that it's a totally individualist, detached, uncomplicated act like buying a trendy tote bag, that it's normal to read this act through the usual lens of consumerism and self-promotion because it's something you do just like you retweet your positive book reviews.
It looked like a relative of mine was going to need organ donation. I was pretty scared, actually, because I felt like if I was a match I would be morally bound to donate and I was afraid of the pain, etc. The more I found out about it, the more I wasn't sure I would pass the screening because my ambivalence was so strong that it would come out during the screening process. I mean, it's not just "walk in off the street and you're in surgery the next day". Ultimately I was not put to the test because my relative made an unexpected recovery, which is amazing. But it did show me something about myself that I would have to overcome if things ever took a turn for the worse. I add that I will totally do good but inconvenient stuff because I want to feel okay about myself - I have altruistic motivations but also self-serving ones. And the whole "major abdominal surgery also you are missing a kidney" part totally overrode my desire to be a good person.
It feels like a lot of people have not really thought about what is involved in organ donation - and I mean, I never had until it seemed like I might be a match. But again, they use the same "my lens is the lens of constant career struggles and personal self-promotion" thing. By the time you get to the "you might be having surgery actually" stage, it's a good bit beyond mere self-promotion and good feels.
posted by Frowner at 6:16 AM on October 12, 2021 [35 favorites]
Similarly, a bunch of the stuff that Larson et al criticize about Dorland seems to come from ignorance about organ donation - and from radical individualism. They assume that there's absolutely no advice given to or requests made of donors, so everything Dorland does must be just her own choices, made of course from the worst possible motives. They assume that having major surgery to make the donation is no more intense and produces no stronger feelings than, eg, donating blood, so making a big deal about it is inexcusable. And basically they assume that you just sort of donate a kidney by waltzing in on impulse - the worst possible impulse, of course - and then you waltz out again, that it's a totally individualist, detached, uncomplicated act like buying a trendy tote bag, that it's normal to read this act through the usual lens of consumerism and self-promotion because it's something you do just like you retweet your positive book reviews.
It looked like a relative of mine was going to need organ donation. I was pretty scared, actually, because I felt like if I was a match I would be morally bound to donate and I was afraid of the pain, etc. The more I found out about it, the more I wasn't sure I would pass the screening because my ambivalence was so strong that it would come out during the screening process. I mean, it's not just "walk in off the street and you're in surgery the next day". Ultimately I was not put to the test because my relative made an unexpected recovery, which is amazing. But it did show me something about myself that I would have to overcome if things ever took a turn for the worse. I add that I will totally do good but inconvenient stuff because I want to feel okay about myself - I have altruistic motivations but also self-serving ones. And the whole "major abdominal surgery also you are missing a kidney" part totally overrode my desire to be a good person.
It feels like a lot of people have not really thought about what is involved in organ donation - and I mean, I never had until it seemed like I might be a match. But again, they use the same "my lens is the lens of constant career struggles and personal self-promotion" thing. By the time you get to the "you might be having surgery actually" stage, it's a good bit beyond mere self-promotion and good feels.
posted by Frowner at 6:16 AM on October 12, 2021 [35 favorites]
They assume that having major surgery to make the donation is no more intense and produces no stronger feelings than, eg, donating blood, so making a big deal about it is inexcusable. And basically they assume that you just sort of donate a kidney by waltzing in on impulse - the worst possible impulse, of course - and then you waltz out again, that it's a totally individualist, detached, uncomplicated act like buying a trendy tote bag, that it's normal to read this act through the usual lens of consumerism and self-promotion because it's something you do just like you retweet your positive book reviews.I actually don't think that's where they're coming from, for what it's worth. I think it's kind of the opposite: they think that donating a kidney is such a ridiculously huge sacrifice, especially when it's for a complete stranger, that the only possible motivation is some kind of grandiose savior complex. And because they think she could only be acting on bad motives, they're reading all of her Facebook posts through that lens. They wouldn't be nearly as annoyed by someone sharing positive book reviews, because they understand that impulse and don't find it suspect.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:49 AM on October 12, 2021 [24 favorites]
FencingGal wrote:
posted by brainwane at 7:02 AM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
But it's making me wonder why there's this hatred of people who are mostly just too good to seem real. (Are they mostly women? The only similar man I can think is the "too nice" agent in an episode of Frasier. But I don't watch a lot of movies or TV these days.)I don't want to utterly derail this thread, but criticisms and smears and jokes and rumors about Fred Rogers circulated partly based on this dynamic.
posted by brainwane at 7:02 AM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
criticisms and smears and jokes and rumors about Fred Rogers circulated partly based on this dynamic
yeah but that's a great comparison because most of them were jokes, and they co-existed with a much stronger sense that only a monster would or could sincerely hate mister rogers. certainly I never in my life heard a joke whose punchline came down to a cozy man-to-man disclosure of "we've all had a friend like fred rogers in real life, and we all hated him because we all hate saintly nice men, don't we, fellas." that just isn't a peer expectation of other men looking at a gratingly (because sincerely, and universally) nice man, male hatred of other men goes other places than that. I mean I am sure there is someone, somewhere, who called mr. rogers a white knight or a beta male in all sincerity. but it was not common.
and if there were such a widespread real perception, nobody would make "mean boys" jokes in response to noticing it. which is maybe more to the point.
all the documents make it so clear that all but one man in the inner circle, like that "chip" guy and the Steve creep who tried to humanize that inhuman creature, Woman, were just as happy to pick on the designated victim. but because the cultural model is Women Beware Women, that sort of falls away in the Discourse.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:17 AM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
yeah but that's a great comparison because most of them were jokes, and they co-existed with a much stronger sense that only a monster would or could sincerely hate mister rogers. certainly I never in my life heard a joke whose punchline came down to a cozy man-to-man disclosure of "we've all had a friend like fred rogers in real life, and we all hated him because we all hate saintly nice men, don't we, fellas." that just isn't a peer expectation of other men looking at a gratingly (because sincerely, and universally) nice man, male hatred of other men goes other places than that. I mean I am sure there is someone, somewhere, who called mr. rogers a white knight or a beta male in all sincerity. but it was not common.
and if there were such a widespread real perception, nobody would make "mean boys" jokes in response to noticing it. which is maybe more to the point.
all the documents make it so clear that all but one man in the inner circle, like that "chip" guy and the Steve creep who tried to humanize that inhuman creature, Woman, were just as happy to pick on the designated victim. but because the cultural model is Women Beware Women, that sort of falls away in the Discourse.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:17 AM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
Just saw this on twitter and for some reason it made me feel a little sad. The OP replied that Dorland's donation got them thinking about non-directed organ donation as something to pursue and that they were going to speak to their doctor about it, which made me remember something I saw the other day.
I was curious to see if anyone who knew Dorland had said anything about her on social media since this all started. (With the caveat that I didn't look very hard so there might be others I missed or who posted after I checked) I came across one person who said that she did not know Dorland well enough to judge whether or not she is a narcissist, but that she's always seemed very nice and has helped people. She also said that she's part of the reason she donated a kidney.
posted by wkndworrier at 7:20 AM on October 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
I was curious to see if anyone who knew Dorland had said anything about her on social media since this all started. (With the caveat that I didn't look very hard so there might be others I missed or who posted after I checked) I came across one person who said that she did not know Dorland well enough to judge whether or not she is a narcissist, but that she's always seemed very nice and has helped people. She also said that she's part of the reason she donated a kidney.
posted by wkndworrier at 7:20 AM on October 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
I think it's kind of the opposite: they think that donating a kidney is such a ridiculously huge sacrifice, especially when it's for a complete stranger, that the only possible motivation is some kind of grandiose savior complex.
Dorland's non-directed kidney donation challenges people to think about whether they could do that for a stranger.
If someone else's exceptional sacrifice makes you feel insecure about not doing it yourself -- or even believing yourself capable of such an act -- you can protect your ego by recasting their motivations as self-serving or vain instead of altruistic.
posted by rcade at 7:27 AM on October 12, 2021 [20 favorites]
Dorland's non-directed kidney donation challenges people to think about whether they could do that for a stranger.
If someone else's exceptional sacrifice makes you feel insecure about not doing it yourself -- or even believing yourself capable of such an act -- you can protect your ego by recasting their motivations as self-serving or vain instead of altruistic.
posted by rcade at 7:27 AM on October 12, 2021 [20 favorites]
But it's making me wonder why there's this hatred of people who are mostly just too good to seem real. (Are they mostly women? The only similar man I can think is the "too nice" agent in an episode of Frasier. But I don't watch a lot of movies or TV these days.)
Weirdly enough this is something that some of the more mean girl types in my social circle in college were rude about when I first started dating my boyfriend of 9 years. They'd frequently comment on how nice he was (he really is an angel), but they'd say it as if it were weird or uncool. I remember they'd do things like look at each other and smirk if he did something a little extra nice in their presence (e.g., randomly get me flowers, do a favor unprompted, offer to help with something or do an errand, etc.). It makes me sad to remember now, but for a short period it actually created a dynamic where I'd feel uncomfortable about how nice he was (especially toward me) when we weren't at home or alone and I started to respond awkwardly to him sometimes as a result (I was young and insecure at that point in time and it was during the first year we were together). This was something that even the people involved seemed to grow out pretty quickly though and I never encounter it now. I still hear a lot about how nice he is, but only as a positive.
posted by wkndworrier at 8:00 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
Weirdly enough this is something that some of the more mean girl types in my social circle in college were rude about when I first started dating my boyfriend of 9 years. They'd frequently comment on how nice he was (he really is an angel), but they'd say it as if it were weird or uncool. I remember they'd do things like look at each other and smirk if he did something a little extra nice in their presence (e.g., randomly get me flowers, do a favor unprompted, offer to help with something or do an errand, etc.). It makes me sad to remember now, but for a short period it actually created a dynamic where I'd feel uncomfortable about how nice he was (especially toward me) when we weren't at home or alone and I started to respond awkwardly to him sometimes as a result (I was young and insecure at that point in time and it was during the first year we were together). This was something that even the people involved seemed to grow out pretty quickly though and I never encounter it now. I still hear a lot about how nice he is, but only as a positive.
posted by wkndworrier at 8:00 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
Washington Post, Alexandra Petri: Speaking of bad art friends, I, Jay Gatsby, have a complaint
I could not believe that Nick Carraway, whom I thought of as more of a friend than a neighbor, was only following me around to mine my life for content for his book about the American Dream. It turns out he’s been making fun of me as long as he has known me?
When a guy has sat there making positive or neutral comments about your pink suits all summer long and has never once objected to your story that you are an Oxford man, it is kind of stunning to find out in print that he thought all of it was lies and the pink suits were tacky and he is just using you as a metaphor.
I would have given him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he just made this character up, but he literally includes in the book the to-do schedule I wrote for myself as a young man, with all the spellings intact and everything. Also the character calls everyone “old sport.” I call everyone “old sport!” Apparently he told Jordan Baker it was “too good to change?”
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:13 AM on October 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
I could not believe that Nick Carraway, whom I thought of as more of a friend than a neighbor, was only following me around to mine my life for content for his book about the American Dream. It turns out he’s been making fun of me as long as he has known me?
When a guy has sat there making positive or neutral comments about your pink suits all summer long and has never once objected to your story that you are an Oxford man, it is kind of stunning to find out in print that he thought all of it was lies and the pink suits were tacky and he is just using you as a metaphor.
I would have given him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he just made this character up, but he literally includes in the book the to-do schedule I wrote for myself as a young man, with all the spellings intact and everything. Also the character calls everyone “old sport.” I call everyone “old sport!” Apparently he told Jordan Baker it was “too good to change?”
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:13 AM on October 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
I made a mean-spirited joke upthread about Dawn Dorland that I'd officially like to apologize for and take back.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:23 AM on October 12, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 8:23 AM on October 12, 2021 [18 favorites]
Another "too nice" character that is male is Ned Flanders. But yes, I think these characters are mostly female, and in my life, I've definitely known more women than men who resemble Dorland - perhaps this would be different if I hung out with a less secular crowd?
Anyway, another point I realize the article misses is that Dorland actually removed Larson from the FB group after she realized she didn't seem interested (it's mentioned in one court doc/letter, forget which one), which certainly belies the impression she was needy or couldn't read social cues.
They assume that having major surgery to make the donation is no more intense and produces no stronger feelings than, eg, donating blood.
In one of the court documents, Larson is asked to list out all of her research she did for the story. For organ donation, it's solely "Letters from organ donors, recipients, and family members of donors and recipients in 2015." Of course, donor/recipient letters are a genre, and genre has a way of constraining/shaping truth, as Larson must know. I'm a historian - if I am writing an article about organ donation in the 1950s, donor letters from the 1950s might allow me to make an argument about how donors back then publicly narrated their donation, but that's about all - if I wanted to write a broader article about donation, I'd have to draw on a wider range of sources. Of course, fiction writers are not historians - I don't expect their research to be like mine - but it still boggles my mind that an author would feel confident in writing a story the relies pretty heavily on undirected donation as a premise, based primarily on a grudge with an acquaintance/colleague.
They assume that there's absolutely no advice given to or requests made of donors, so everything Dorland does must be just her own choices
On that note, this thread by someone who "studies the psychology of altruism" makes clear Dorland is more or less following directions in her advocacy.
posted by coffeecat at 8:41 AM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
Anyway, another point I realize the article misses is that Dorland actually removed Larson from the FB group after she realized she didn't seem interested (it's mentioned in one court doc/letter, forget which one), which certainly belies the impression she was needy or couldn't read social cues.
They assume that having major surgery to make the donation is no more intense and produces no stronger feelings than, eg, donating blood.
In one of the court documents, Larson is asked to list out all of her research she did for the story. For organ donation, it's solely "Letters from organ donors, recipients, and family members of donors and recipients in 2015." Of course, donor/recipient letters are a genre, and genre has a way of constraining/shaping truth, as Larson must know. I'm a historian - if I am writing an article about organ donation in the 1950s, donor letters from the 1950s might allow me to make an argument about how donors back then publicly narrated their donation, but that's about all - if I wanted to write a broader article about donation, I'd have to draw on a wider range of sources. Of course, fiction writers are not historians - I don't expect their research to be like mine - but it still boggles my mind that an author would feel confident in writing a story the relies pretty heavily on undirected donation as a premise, based primarily on a grudge with an acquaintance/colleague.
They assume that there's absolutely no advice given to or requests made of donors, so everything Dorland does must be just her own choices
On that note, this thread by someone who "studies the psychology of altruism" makes clear Dorland is more or less following directions in her advocacy.
posted by coffeecat at 8:41 AM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
Grub Street has issued a statement.
I can't figure out how to cut and paste from it. They say they're "engaging an independent expert" to review what happened. I hope it is someone who actually is independent. Their dealing with Dorland's harassment complaint does not make me feel trusting.
posted by FencingGal at 8:48 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
I can't figure out how to cut and paste from it. They say they're "engaging an independent expert" to review what happened. I hope it is someone who actually is independent. Their dealing with Dorland's harassment complaint does not make me feel trusting.
posted by FencingGal at 8:48 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
Better late than never, but Grub Street had years to investigate itself and undertake a course correction. The Boston Globe wrote two stories about the alleged plagiarism in 2018 and Larson filed suit in January 2019, opening up a massive amount of texts and emails from Grub Street-affiliated writers in her discovery filings.
posted by rcade at 8:56 AM on October 12, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by rcade at 8:56 AM on October 12, 2021 [4 favorites]
well, yes, but who was paying attention back then.
The one thing that never changes - groups/institutions will always protect themselves first.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:05 AM on October 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
The one thing that never changes - groups/institutions will always protect themselves first.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:05 AM on October 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
The one thing that never changes - groups/institutions will always protect themselves first.
I think that’s mostly true in terms of their motivations and desires, but I also think this frame assumes institutions will always correctly assess risk to themselves. And I don’t think that’s right. I get the sense from the documents I’ve seen that this Grub Street group is kind of insular and tends to … proceed by back rubbing each other? The awards record someone mentioned upthread is an example of this, I think.
I was a fly on a wall at a meeting recently for a small community org where someone quite candidly said that they’d assembled a committee to give them feedback on some aspect of performance and had deliberately appointed people who have already privately been rather critical. This is genius but I have to emphasize, I think it is genius precisely because it is so easy not to do this, to stack the deck with cheerleaders instead. I was relieved in this specific case because the org is conservative and insular in its culture and that can bring death by inbreeding, basically, so it was good to see a move in another direction.
Thinking about the workplace part of this. For me, that’s research and research communities can be insular and self-reinforcing as well. Scientists asked to name peer reviewers for their papers naming their friends, eg, when the smart move is to name people who disagree with you so you can make the paper better before any actual mistakes on your part get out there and embarrass you on a larger stage. Like any train wreck I think this one offers quite a lot of lessons.
posted by eirias at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
I think that’s mostly true in terms of their motivations and desires, but I also think this frame assumes institutions will always correctly assess risk to themselves. And I don’t think that’s right. I get the sense from the documents I’ve seen that this Grub Street group is kind of insular and tends to … proceed by back rubbing each other? The awards record someone mentioned upthread is an example of this, I think.
I was a fly on a wall at a meeting recently for a small community org where someone quite candidly said that they’d assembled a committee to give them feedback on some aspect of performance and had deliberately appointed people who have already privately been rather critical. This is genius but I have to emphasize, I think it is genius precisely because it is so easy not to do this, to stack the deck with cheerleaders instead. I was relieved in this specific case because the org is conservative and insular in its culture and that can bring death by inbreeding, basically, so it was good to see a move in another direction.
Thinking about the workplace part of this. For me, that’s research and research communities can be insular and self-reinforcing as well. Scientists asked to name peer reviewers for their papers naming their friends, eg, when the smart move is to name people who disagree with you so you can make the paper better before any actual mistakes on your part get out there and embarrass you on a larger stage. Like any train wreck I think this one offers quite a lot of lessons.
posted by eirias at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
Absolutely - wasn't clear - I don't think the institution was protecting itself in the smart long term fashion - they were protecting their good name immediately and sweeping it under the rug, hoping that it would go away. (while protecting their friends)
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:53 AM on October 12, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:53 AM on October 12, 2021 [2 favorites]
Another "too nice" character that is male is Ned Flanders. But yes, I think these characters are mostly female, and in my life, I've definitely known more women than men who resemble Dorland
One of the cringier ways that Kolker manipulates the reader in this article is by feminizing Dorland in a way that we are supposed to dislike, beginning with the first paragraph of this 10,000-word piece. Larson, in contrast, is presented as cold, calculating, ruthless -- and successful.
One of the cringier ways that Kolker manipulates the reader in this article is by feminizing Dorland in a way that we are supposed to dislike, beginning with the first paragraph of this 10,000-word piece. Larson, in contrast, is presented as cold, calculating, ruthless -- and successful.
There is a sunny earnestness to Dawn Dorland, an un-self-conscious openness that endears her to some people and that others have found to be a little extra. Her friends call her a “feeler”: openhearted and eager, pressing to make connections with others even as, in many instances, she feels like an outsider. An essayist and aspiring novelist who has taught writing classes in Los Angeles, she is the sort of writer who, in one authorial mission statement, declares her faith in the power of fiction to “share truth,” to heal trauma, to build bridges.posted by msalt at 10:04 AM on October 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
In one of the court documents, Larson is asked to list out all of her research she did for the story. For organ donation, it's solely "Letters from organ donors, recipients, and family members of donors and recipients in 2015."
On a somewhat related note, during discovery, Dorland asked Larson to produce documents related to her research concerning the concept of a paired exchange and Larson reported no responding documents (her response can be seen here).
A brief definition of the term and its relevance can be seen here (excerpted from one of Dorland's court filings). Dorland's letter includes a sentence that references a paired exchange.
In both audio recordings of The Kindest and in the ASF web version, the letter in the story similarly references a paired exchange; these three versions of the letter can be seen here.
However, the donation described in The Kindest is not and has never been a paired exchange. This discrepancy is noted in one of Dorland's filings (and can be seen here).
posted by wkndworrier at 10:08 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
On a somewhat related note, during discovery, Dorland asked Larson to produce documents related to her research concerning the concept of a paired exchange and Larson reported no responding documents (her response can be seen here).
A brief definition of the term and its relevance can be seen here (excerpted from one of Dorland's court filings). Dorland's letter includes a sentence that references a paired exchange.
In both audio recordings of The Kindest and in the ASF web version, the letter in the story similarly references a paired exchange; these three versions of the letter can be seen here.
However, the donation described in The Kindest is not and has never been a paired exchange. This discrepancy is noted in one of Dorland's filings (and can be seen here).
posted by wkndworrier at 10:08 AM on October 12, 2021 [7 favorites]
Larson is asked to list out all of her research she did for the story. For organ donation, it's solely "Letters from organ donors, recipients, and family members of donors and recipients in 2015."
More precisely, letter from organ donor in 2015.
posted by msalt at 11:01 AM on October 12, 2021 [6 favorites]
More precisely, letter from organ donor in 2015.
posted by msalt at 11:01 AM on October 12, 2021 [6 favorites]
Of course, fiction writers are not historians - I don't expect their research to be like mine - but it still boggles my mind that an author would feel confident in writing a story the relies pretty heavily on undirected donation as a premise, based primarily on a grudge with an acquaintance/colleague.
I'm a writer, not a historian, and it boggles my mind too. All of the fiction writers I know personally go to great lengths to make sure they're as accurate as possible. I said I wasn't going to read the Larson story because I didn't want to put money in her pocket, but I ended up reading it because it was available through court documents, and I felt like this can't possibly be how kidney donations work. (I didn't want to get into whether it's a good story because I hate it when people do that "I never did like his work anyway" when an artist has done something terrible. Maybe it's true, but it always seems so self-serving to me - like I knew he was a bad person before everyone else did because I didn't like his aesthetic judgment).
posted by FencingGal at 11:02 AM on October 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
I'm a writer, not a historian, and it boggles my mind too. All of the fiction writers I know personally go to great lengths to make sure they're as accurate as possible. I said I wasn't going to read the Larson story because I didn't want to put money in her pocket, but I ended up reading it because it was available through court documents, and I felt like this can't possibly be how kidney donations work. (I didn't want to get into whether it's a good story because I hate it when people do that "I never did like his work anyway" when an artist has done something terrible. Maybe it's true, but it always seems so self-serving to me - like I knew he was a bad person before everyone else did because I didn't like his aesthetic judgment).
posted by FencingGal at 11:02 AM on October 12, 2021 [8 favorites]
hades, that article is fascinating and worth a front page post on its own, in my opinion.
posted by brainwane at 11:16 AM on October 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by brainwane at 11:16 AM on October 12, 2021 [1 favorite]
Many people have already explained upthread, but someone has finally published a new article with context for the lack of kidney donors and the advocacy that donors are encouraged to undertake: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/bad-art-friend-kidney-crisis-donation-altruism.html
posted by typetypetype at 11:34 AM on October 12, 2021 [17 favorites]
posted by typetypetype at 11:34 AM on October 12, 2021 [17 favorites]
... I get the sense from the documents I’ve seen that this Grub Street group is kind of insular and tends to … proceed by back rubbing each other? The awards record someone mentioned upthread is an example of this, I think.
Logrolling is a huge part of the business of writing at all levels. I mean to say this as neutrally as possible. I honestly hope I don't sound otherwise; it's just the fact of the matter. I am not great at friend-have, at least in a professional networking sense, so I have had to make my peace with this. That's why I was not too shocked that Dorland was excluded, and felt that she too should not have been shocked, when I should indeed have been appalled. That's on me. I need to rethink that.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:46 PM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
Logrolling is a huge part of the business of writing at all levels. I mean to say this as neutrally as possible. I honestly hope I don't sound otherwise; it's just the fact of the matter. I am not great at friend-have, at least in a professional networking sense, so I have had to make my peace with this. That's why I was not too shocked that Dorland was excluded, and felt that she too should not have been shocked, when I should indeed have been appalled. That's on me. I need to rethink that.
posted by Countess Elena at 1:46 PM on October 12, 2021 [9 favorites]
I said I wasn't going to read the Larson story because I didn't want to put money in her pocket, but I ended up reading it because it was available through court documents, and I felt like this can't possibly be how kidney donations work.
Okay, so after seeing only excerpts before, I read the whole thing. Larson could have easily avoided the whole kidney thing to begin with. At its core, the story is this: A character, for reasons of her own, who desperately and eagerly wants to have a particular experience, meets our protagonist, who for reasons of her own feels rightfully objectified and increasingly resists a starring role in the experience the other character is insisting on. It's a legitimately good basis for a story conflict. Does it have to be a kidney? No. But it needed to be something valuable, rare, and irreplaceable.
In the story, the donor sends an effusive, highly personal six-page letter by way of introduction. In real life, the process looks more like this (guidance from the National Kidney Foundation). You're encouraged to keep the message pretty basic and avoiding too much personal information. You're not supposed to include your full name or city. You're not supposed to offer to meet, just connect.
The letter first goes to the transplant center, and typically the transplant center will contact the recipient of the letter (either the donor or recipient, these go both ways) to say, hey, a letter is here for you, do you want to receive this? Plenty of times, the letter recipient says no, and that's 100% an acceptable option. After all, a donor or grieving donor family may not be ready to read a letter, or a recipient may be feeling overwhelmed, having a difficult recovery, etc. But the important thing is that there's zero pressure at any stage because every bit of this is super personal, and communications are guided with that understanding. You can always say no.
In the story, the protagonist had suddenly lost her kidneys because she was in a car accident due to drunk driving. Her difficulties with alcohol are a known issue, at least to her husband, who has removed even the mouthwash and vanilla extract from the house. I'm not sure whether the protagonist would have been in a position to receive a kidney donation so soon afterward.
It's a ton of work to get approved as a recipient. There are vaccinations, psych assessments, medical exams, mammogram, women's health, dental approval, scans. You have to do that same cognitive function test as our former president (red, church, daisy, velvet, face, man, woman, camera, tv). I even had to get new glasses before being approved. They ask everything about your support system and home life, your personal habits with various substances, your histories. You are fully scrutinized. They warn you in advance that it's exhausting and it absolutely is. I'd get home and pass out in my clothes afterward. And as part of the assessment, they ask you very bluntly about your motivation, why you think this is your best option. The answers matter. All of this goes to a transplant medical board for review.
I'm not positive that our protagonist, recovering from the shock of the accident and her new reality, would be in a position to be a recipient at that point. If she was recovering from alcoholism, or recovering from an accident that even temporarily cost her her mobility, the transplant review doctors might possibly put her on dialysis for a while while she works on regaining mobility. Transplant surgeons do not like any sort of medical complications that could jeopardize the success of the surgery and recovery, and those situations can add complexity. For example, I would have been medically unable to accept a kidney while I was directly recovering from surgeries for other things.
But during the assessment, they would have asked our protagonist point blank if she wanted a kidney. And if she'd said no, they would have directed her to other options. But if she'd said yes, that puts her in an interesting place: She'd signed on to the transplant and then regretted it. Which sometimes happens to actual patients in real life, for lots of reasons: delayed grief for their health, the pressure of uncertainty, the emotional knot and body horror weirdness of having someone else's kidney under your skin. There's a story there.
Other notes: After four months after nephrectomy or transplant, you can most definitely tie your own shoes. Larson was correct in that you can actually feel the kidney when it's on your hip, and it's super weird and tight feeling. The steroids can make you super emotional. For me, everything felt like it was bathed in a heavenly golden light. Still kind of does. Some steroids though can elevate feelings of anger or upset -- I'm not sure if Larson was implying that the protagonist was impacted by that. I was very much okay with my disheveled house and would have never painted baseboards for anyone. I do struggle with the enormity of the gift sometimes, and my overall luck, so maybe that was Larson's method of showing the protagonist's feelings of something like anxiety.
posted by mochapickle at 1:57 PM on October 12, 2021 [50 favorites]
Okay, so after seeing only excerpts before, I read the whole thing. Larson could have easily avoided the whole kidney thing to begin with. At its core, the story is this: A character, for reasons of her own, who desperately and eagerly wants to have a particular experience, meets our protagonist, who for reasons of her own feels rightfully objectified and increasingly resists a starring role in the experience the other character is insisting on. It's a legitimately good basis for a story conflict. Does it have to be a kidney? No. But it needed to be something valuable, rare, and irreplaceable.
In the story, the donor sends an effusive, highly personal six-page letter by way of introduction. In real life, the process looks more like this (guidance from the National Kidney Foundation). You're encouraged to keep the message pretty basic and avoiding too much personal information. You're not supposed to include your full name or city. You're not supposed to offer to meet, just connect.
The letter first goes to the transplant center, and typically the transplant center will contact the recipient of the letter (either the donor or recipient, these go both ways) to say, hey, a letter is here for you, do you want to receive this? Plenty of times, the letter recipient says no, and that's 100% an acceptable option. After all, a donor or grieving donor family may not be ready to read a letter, or a recipient may be feeling overwhelmed, having a difficult recovery, etc. But the important thing is that there's zero pressure at any stage because every bit of this is super personal, and communications are guided with that understanding. You can always say no.
In the story, the protagonist had suddenly lost her kidneys because she was in a car accident due to drunk driving. Her difficulties with alcohol are a known issue, at least to her husband, who has removed even the mouthwash and vanilla extract from the house. I'm not sure whether the protagonist would have been in a position to receive a kidney donation so soon afterward.
It's a ton of work to get approved as a recipient. There are vaccinations, psych assessments, medical exams, mammogram, women's health, dental approval, scans. You have to do that same cognitive function test as our former president (red, church, daisy, velvet, face, man, woman, camera, tv). I even had to get new glasses before being approved. They ask everything about your support system and home life, your personal habits with various substances, your histories. You are fully scrutinized. They warn you in advance that it's exhausting and it absolutely is. I'd get home and pass out in my clothes afterward. And as part of the assessment, they ask you very bluntly about your motivation, why you think this is your best option. The answers matter. All of this goes to a transplant medical board for review.
I'm not positive that our protagonist, recovering from the shock of the accident and her new reality, would be in a position to be a recipient at that point. If she was recovering from alcoholism, or recovering from an accident that even temporarily cost her her mobility, the transplant review doctors might possibly put her on dialysis for a while while she works on regaining mobility. Transplant surgeons do not like any sort of medical complications that could jeopardize the success of the surgery and recovery, and those situations can add complexity. For example, I would have been medically unable to accept a kidney while I was directly recovering from surgeries for other things.
But during the assessment, they would have asked our protagonist point blank if she wanted a kidney. And if she'd said no, they would have directed her to other options. But if she'd said yes, that puts her in an interesting place: She'd signed on to the transplant and then regretted it. Which sometimes happens to actual patients in real life, for lots of reasons: delayed grief for their health, the pressure of uncertainty, the emotional knot and body horror weirdness of having someone else's kidney under your skin. There's a story there.
Other notes: After four months after nephrectomy or transplant, you can most definitely tie your own shoes. Larson was correct in that you can actually feel the kidney when it's on your hip, and it's super weird and tight feeling. The steroids can make you super emotional. For me, everything felt like it was bathed in a heavenly golden light. Still kind of does. Some steroids though can elevate feelings of anger or upset -- I'm not sure if Larson was implying that the protagonist was impacted by that. I was very much okay with my disheveled house and would have never painted baseboards for anyone. I do struggle with the enormity of the gift sometimes, and my overall luck, so maybe that was Larson's method of showing the protagonist's feelings of something like anxiety.
posted by mochapickle at 1:57 PM on October 12, 2021 [50 favorites]
And it's funny, but by coincidence this past week I'd finally started writing a letter to the family of my donor. It's an impossible thing as it is -- there's a weird kind of survivor guilt that keeps bubbling up, and you very much hope you are worthy enough. You worry that there's nothing you could possibly say that would begin to balance their grief. This whole story makes it so much harder.
posted by mochapickle at 2:13 PM on October 12, 2021 [27 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 2:13 PM on October 12, 2021 [27 favorites]
it's been a weird week to be a living organ donor, that's for sure.
A few months before my liver donation I was on a walk with my partner and we were talking through the reasons I wanted to do it. And I went on this whole weird anxiety rant, where I was like "You know, I want to do it because it will save someone's life and livers are in short supply and I'm healthy and able and it's the right thing to do. But you know what? I'm also doing it because I want to be the kind of person who does this. I want to think good about myself and I want other people to think good of me. It's not all that altruistic! I'm doing this for me! I don't want everyone to think I'm this amazing selfless person! I'm not!"
And my partner was like "yes, you are a truly selfish person. But you're a selfish person who is donating 33% of their liver to a stranger, so..."
And it has been weird to talk about it since, and I try not to bring it up much, sometimes I know there are people who will interpret any attempt to share the experience in the worst possible light, but also the Trillium Network had a whole awareness week this month where we were encouraged to share our stories!
So it's been weird and a little sad to see how people discuss organ donors. But that's fine, I didn't really do it to make people say nice things about me. I'm happy with my choice, I did something pretty cool, I got a badass scar and anytime someone snaps "oh yeah? What have *YOU* done for the world, recently?" I have a great comeback.
Oh, and I got a rad tattoo as well
posted by robot-hugs at 2:19 PM on October 12, 2021 [57 favorites]
A few months before my liver donation I was on a walk with my partner and we were talking through the reasons I wanted to do it. And I went on this whole weird anxiety rant, where I was like "You know, I want to do it because it will save someone's life and livers are in short supply and I'm healthy and able and it's the right thing to do. But you know what? I'm also doing it because I want to be the kind of person who does this. I want to think good about myself and I want other people to think good of me. It's not all that altruistic! I'm doing this for me! I don't want everyone to think I'm this amazing selfless person! I'm not!"
And my partner was like "yes, you are a truly selfish person. But you're a selfish person who is donating 33% of their liver to a stranger, so..."
And it has been weird to talk about it since, and I try not to bring it up much, sometimes I know there are people who will interpret any attempt to share the experience in the worst possible light, but also the Trillium Network had a whole awareness week this month where we were encouraged to share our stories!
So it's been weird and a little sad to see how people discuss organ donors. But that's fine, I didn't really do it to make people say nice things about me. I'm happy with my choice, I did something pretty cool, I got a badass scar and anytime someone snaps "oh yeah? What have *YOU* done for the world, recently?" I have a great comeback.
Oh, and I got a rad tattoo as well
posted by robot-hugs at 2:19 PM on October 12, 2021 [57 favorites]
^ This is rad and you are rad.
posted by mochapickle at 2:22 PM on October 12, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by mochapickle at 2:22 PM on October 12, 2021 [12 favorites]
I did a big thing for someone a couple of years ago because there was no one else to do it and the consequences for the person would be very bad if it weren't done. It took a few months and there were some downsides. Let me tell you, I wanted people to tell me that I was doing a good thing and to think that I was a caring person, because that made the downsides better. "This is pretty stressful," I would think. "But it made me feel good to have Someone tell me that I was being really unselfish!!" I certainly did tell some people about it (it wasn't a secret) at least partly because I wanted to hear them say I was doing a good job. I was under stress, the big thing was a worrying process with a lot of moving parts and doing the thing did not come naturally to me.
I mean, I don't think liking praise is weird? It would be weird if I told every passing stranger about it, or brought it up at random or inappropriate times, or kept talking about it beyond when the intense parts more or less wrapped up, but really I talked about it because it was difficult and important and feeling good about it kept me going. Further, I'm kind of proud that I did the thing. I could have declined and then something shitty would have happened, and it didn't happen. Someone's life is a lot better because I did the thing.
I don't think that feeling good about yourself or feeling proud that you did something for someone is weird or pathological, I don't think that wanting to feel good about yourself because you do good things is weird or pathological. A lot of people would be 100% understanding if I said, "I am proud that I trained for this marathon so that I would be thinner and fitter, yay me!" but would, I guess, be baffled if I said, "I'm proud that I helped a friend in need even when it required a stressful commitment". I mean, I could put up a poster of some marathon that I ran or display a running award on my wall and no one would think it was weird.
posted by Frowner at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2021 [37 favorites]
I mean, I don't think liking praise is weird? It would be weird if I told every passing stranger about it, or brought it up at random or inappropriate times, or kept talking about it beyond when the intense parts more or less wrapped up, but really I talked about it because it was difficult and important and feeling good about it kept me going. Further, I'm kind of proud that I did the thing. I could have declined and then something shitty would have happened, and it didn't happen. Someone's life is a lot better because I did the thing.
I don't think that feeling good about yourself or feeling proud that you did something for someone is weird or pathological, I don't think that wanting to feel good about yourself because you do good things is weird or pathological. A lot of people would be 100% understanding if I said, "I am proud that I trained for this marathon so that I would be thinner and fitter, yay me!" but would, I guess, be baffled if I said, "I'm proud that I helped a friend in need even when it required a stressful commitment". I mean, I could put up a poster of some marathon that I ran or display a running award on my wall and no one would think it was weird.
posted by Frowner at 2:41 PM on October 12, 2021 [37 favorites]
(I have never trained for a marathon, for the record.)
posted by Frowner at 2:42 PM on October 12, 2021
posted by Frowner at 2:42 PM on October 12, 2021
From the article typetypetype linked above,
But in reality, there just aren’t that many nondirected donors—in 2019, there were only 388.
This article says that there were 529 players in the NBA in the 2019-2020 season.
Somehow I suspect that a lot of people (I'm talking about generally online, not metafilter) who criticize Dorland for being proud of donating her kidney wouldn't blink at someone being proud of playing in the NBA. Both of these accomplishments are pretty rare, but only one of them saved someone's life.
posted by creepygirl at 3:13 PM on October 12, 2021 [16 favorites]
But in reality, there just aren’t that many nondirected donors—in 2019, there were only 388.
This article says that there were 529 players in the NBA in the 2019-2020 season.
Somehow I suspect that a lot of people (I'm talking about generally online, not metafilter) who criticize Dorland for being proud of donating her kidney wouldn't blink at someone being proud of playing in the NBA. Both of these accomplishments are pretty rare, but only one of them saved someone's life.
posted by creepygirl at 3:13 PM on October 12, 2021 [16 favorites]
wouldn't blink at someone being proud of playing in the NBA
Heck, tons of people brag about the most tangential connections to someone who might have played in the NBA.
posted by HiddenInput at 3:19 PM on October 12, 2021 [5 favorites]
Heck, tons of people brag about the most tangential connections to someone who might have played in the NBA.
posted by HiddenInput at 3:19 PM on October 12, 2021 [5 favorites]
A Twitter thread suggests that the class conflict aspects of this dispute have been underappreciated, and in particular discusses how the hidden rules of humblebragging played a role.
posted by brainwane at 5:59 PM on October 12, 2021 [24 favorites]
posted by brainwane at 5:59 PM on October 12, 2021 [24 favorites]
Oh wow, so much is coming back to me in reading this thread and in reading the many wonderful comments, especially from those like mochapickle and robot-hugs who have lived through transplants.
I had forgotten this, I had worked hard to bury all of this, but I remember now. I remember it all. I remember when my wife and I first found out that she was going on dialysis and would need a transplant. We were herded into a room with other dialysis patients, and a nurse and a doctor gave presentations on, believe it or not, How to Ask Someone to Give You a Kidney. This is because it is an INCREDIBLY difficult thing to ask. In our atomized and individualized society where self-sufficiency and self-reliance are the paramount virtues, to even admit to weakness is seen as somehow degrading, and to then have to ask someone for such an intimate gift is such a barrier that many dialysis patients simply don't.
They don't ask, because they're too afraid to ask, and they die on dialysis because we are all too afraid to ask for help.
This is such an issue that the National Kidney Foundation has a whole campaign around it ("The Big Ask, The Big Give") at https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors. Check it out.
This is such an issue that every transplant center in the country has a team of social workers to help with this and other problems, because people die on dialysis every day and because there are not enough cadaver kidneys and not enough selfless donors and not enough people who even know about undirected donation.
But despite what Sonya Larson and her fellow insects at Grub Street would lead you to believe, people really do want to help. They want to help, we all want to help because that is the best angel of our nature, that is the common thread of humanity that ties us together and makes us human and gives us that deep connection which so profoundly nurtures our sprits and reminds us of our place in this vast ship of lost and foolish little souls.
So, a friend of my wife set up a food train on some website, and then colleagues and distant friends and a few people who were so many degrees of separation away that I had no idea who they were, they dropped off meals during our recovery. Friends took our children to the movies and then kept them for the night, just to give us some space. Relatives gave up their lives for months to help nurse my wife back to health. Someone just had to ask, and sometimes it was me and sometimes it was a friend and sometimes I don't know who it was who asked for people to help us, and they jumped at the chance.
This is us, in all our messy complexity and beautiful kindness. This is us, humans being humans. And sometimes all we need is to be asked, or sometimes even less than that; all we need is a nudge. All we need is a reminder that angels walk among us because we are those angels, fussy and catty and silly as we are in every way.
All we need is a nudge, all we need is an ask, and we step up to the goddam plate and we do the right thing. And that, my fellow travelers, that is why the doctors and nurses tell us before the fact to tell everyone early and often that we might need a kidney. And that is why they tell us after the fact to tell everyone that we gave a kidney and it wasn't so bad and it didn't make us heroes or saints but just made us a little bit more human.
That is why we take the stage at the Rose Bowl parade or at the center court of a Lakers game, so that Brian Gilliam can see Dawn Dorland on the Jumbotron and think to himself, "Huh. If she can do it, I can do it". That is how we save lives. That is how we become, whether for a moment or for a life, just a little bit closer to each other.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 6:01 PM on October 12, 2021 [59 favorites]
I had forgotten this, I had worked hard to bury all of this, but I remember now. I remember it all. I remember when my wife and I first found out that she was going on dialysis and would need a transplant. We were herded into a room with other dialysis patients, and a nurse and a doctor gave presentations on, believe it or not, How to Ask Someone to Give You a Kidney. This is because it is an INCREDIBLY difficult thing to ask. In our atomized and individualized society where self-sufficiency and self-reliance are the paramount virtues, to even admit to weakness is seen as somehow degrading, and to then have to ask someone for such an intimate gift is such a barrier that many dialysis patients simply don't.
They don't ask, because they're too afraid to ask, and they die on dialysis because we are all too afraid to ask for help.
This is such an issue that the National Kidney Foundation has a whole campaign around it ("The Big Ask, The Big Give") at https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors. Check it out.
This is such an issue that every transplant center in the country has a team of social workers to help with this and other problems, because people die on dialysis every day and because there are not enough cadaver kidneys and not enough selfless donors and not enough people who even know about undirected donation.
But despite what Sonya Larson and her fellow insects at Grub Street would lead you to believe, people really do want to help. They want to help, we all want to help because that is the best angel of our nature, that is the common thread of humanity that ties us together and makes us human and gives us that deep connection which so profoundly nurtures our sprits and reminds us of our place in this vast ship of lost and foolish little souls.
So, a friend of my wife set up a food train on some website, and then colleagues and distant friends and a few people who were so many degrees of separation away that I had no idea who they were, they dropped off meals during our recovery. Friends took our children to the movies and then kept them for the night, just to give us some space. Relatives gave up their lives for months to help nurse my wife back to health. Someone just had to ask, and sometimes it was me and sometimes it was a friend and sometimes I don't know who it was who asked for people to help us, and they jumped at the chance.
This is us, in all our messy complexity and beautiful kindness. This is us, humans being humans. And sometimes all we need is to be asked, or sometimes even less than that; all we need is a nudge. All we need is a reminder that angels walk among us because we are those angels, fussy and catty and silly as we are in every way.
All we need is a nudge, all we need is an ask, and we step up to the goddam plate and we do the right thing. And that, my fellow travelers, that is why the doctors and nurses tell us before the fact to tell everyone early and often that we might need a kidney. And that is why they tell us after the fact to tell everyone that we gave a kidney and it wasn't so bad and it didn't make us heroes or saints but just made us a little bit more human.
That is why we take the stage at the Rose Bowl parade or at the center court of a Lakers game, so that Brian Gilliam can see Dawn Dorland on the Jumbotron and think to himself, "Huh. If she can do it, I can do it". That is how we save lives. That is how we become, whether for a moment or for a life, just a little bit closer to each other.
posted by fuzzy.little.sock at 6:01 PM on October 12, 2021 [59 favorites]
I don't understand how the most harmful aspects of this discourse are becoming more toxic as the initial portrayal of this story continues to unreal. This kind of shit makes me feel insane (link is imgur/screenshots)
posted by wkndworrier at 4:31 AM on October 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by wkndworrier at 4:31 AM on October 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
(should have said unravel* not unreal)^
posted by wkndworrier at 5:12 AM on October 13, 2021
posted by wkndworrier at 5:12 AM on October 13, 2021
Some people on Twitter have also pointed out that if, instead of donating a kidney, Dorland had gotten married or had a baby and none of her friends said anything when she saw them, it would seem very odd that they were just ignoring it.
Of course, as Ng has told us, they weren't "really" her friends. They just acted like they were, and she couldn't tell the difference.
posted by FencingGal at 8:06 AM on October 13, 2021 [23 favorites]
Of course, as Ng has told us, they weren't "really" her friends. They just acted like they were, and she couldn't tell the difference.
posted by FencingGal at 8:06 AM on October 13, 2021 [23 favorites]
I will say that the donation screening process was (for me at least) pretty isolating. In Toronto they ask that you don't post excessively or in too much detail on social media before your surgery, because it makes it easy to search and identify what is supposed to be an anonymous donation. And I didn't tell that many people at first - so many people are rejected from the donation pool that I wanted to wait and see if I was eligible. I didn't tell my parents until a few weeks before, because I didn't want to deal with their anxiety.
The screening process was months long, and involved a lot of things like 3am MRIs and telling the transplant psychologist about my sexual assault and lots of that usual cis-centrisicm and heteronormativity that is baked into medical systems and politely declining drinks at events without being able to say why without it turning into a giant derail. The screening process was mostly boring but also easy to obsess over and it was this Giant Thing that was happening to me for months (and might not resolve into anything - I was convinced they'd reject me right up to the surgery date), but nothing was for certain or even really happening so I just didn't have a lot of ways to talk about it without it seeming weird.
So I can kind of understand the Facebook Group thing, even if there's no way I would have done that. It's too bad she thought these people would be more interested in her and the process than they were. I felt like the whole transplant screening and management process was like, objectively fascinating from a systems point of view, and I can see thinking 'other people will also find this fascinating and interesting!" I guess this approach backfired on her. If i were her friend I might have suggested a different approach to keeping people informed, but yeah, she maybe just didn't really understand the role of secret bad actors in her circles and did not really foresee how much people are made uncomfortable by Knowing Someone who is Donating An Organ. It makes people kinda uncomfortable! Ask me how I know.
If i found out a friend had used my transplant writings as Material I would flip my absolute shit tho, I can tell you that.
posted by robot-hugs at 8:37 AM on October 13, 2021 [41 favorites]
The screening process was months long, and involved a lot of things like 3am MRIs and telling the transplant psychologist about my sexual assault and lots of that usual cis-centrisicm and heteronormativity that is baked into medical systems and politely declining drinks at events without being able to say why without it turning into a giant derail. The screening process was mostly boring but also easy to obsess over and it was this Giant Thing that was happening to me for months (and might not resolve into anything - I was convinced they'd reject me right up to the surgery date), but nothing was for certain or even really happening so I just didn't have a lot of ways to talk about it without it seeming weird.
So I can kind of understand the Facebook Group thing, even if there's no way I would have done that. It's too bad she thought these people would be more interested in her and the process than they were. I felt like the whole transplant screening and management process was like, objectively fascinating from a systems point of view, and I can see thinking 'other people will also find this fascinating and interesting!" I guess this approach backfired on her. If i were her friend I might have suggested a different approach to keeping people informed, but yeah, she maybe just didn't really understand the role of secret bad actors in her circles and did not really foresee how much people are made uncomfortable by Knowing Someone who is Donating An Organ. It makes people kinda uncomfortable! Ask me how I know.
If i found out a friend had used my transplant writings as Material I would flip my absolute shit tho, I can tell you that.
posted by robot-hugs at 8:37 AM on October 13, 2021 [41 favorites]
Magdi Semrau, the author of the Slate kidney donation article linked upthread, wrote this on Twitter today:
"I've heard from quite a few kidney donors since I published this piece. Some felt isolated after reading 'Bad Art Friend.' Others felt shamed. Some reported removing mentions of their donations from social media. I really hope the impact of the NYT story is not negative."
posted by rcade at 9:13 AM on October 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
"I've heard from quite a few kidney donors since I published this piece. Some felt isolated after reading 'Bad Art Friend.' Others felt shamed. Some reported removing mentions of their donations from social media. I really hope the impact of the NYT story is not negative."
posted by rcade at 9:13 AM on October 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
If we have any fans of Maintenance Phase or You're Wrong About, Michael Hobbes retweeted the post highlighting this thread.
Maybe YWA will do an episode on this?
posted by asteria at 10:19 AM on October 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maybe YWA will do an episode on this?
posted by asteria at 10:19 AM on October 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
I haven’t read all 500 comments but I do think it’s pretty important that Dorland’s Facebook group was small and it seems quite clear that the intention was an intimate group who were genuinely cheering her on and where she could share the rollercoaster of intense emotion around the major donation. Her messages to Larsen when she found that she was not participating were probably because she found it suspicious that Larsen was not participating and probably suspected that she joined to stalk the group or gossip outside of it, not that she was worried she wasn’t getting enough attention.
As a veteran of the Livejournal days, it was so common back then to have a small online friend group to share your intimate feelings with. A lot of my friends from those days went to Twitter, but the longform writers (many of them professional & published) tend to use Facebook for their scratch writing, as “uncool” as that is.
posted by stoneandstar at 10:29 AM on October 13, 2021 [9 favorites]
As a veteran of the Livejournal days, it was so common back then to have a small online friend group to share your intimate feelings with. A lot of my friends from those days went to Twitter, but the longform writers (many of them professional & published) tend to use Facebook for their scratch writing, as “uncool” as that is.
posted by stoneandstar at 10:29 AM on October 13, 2021 [9 favorites]
Maybe YWA will do an episode on this?
This would be AMAZING FOR YWA, but sadly they announced this week that Mike is leaving the podcast. However, Sarah will continue with guest hosts, and I'd love to see her talk about this with someone who is really familiar with organ donation, as those perspectives have been the most illuminating for me in this whole discussion.
posted by lunasol at 10:31 AM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
This would be AMAZING FOR YWA, but sadly they announced this week that Mike is leaving the podcast. However, Sarah will continue with guest hosts, and I'd love to see her talk about this with someone who is really familiar with organ donation, as those perspectives have been the most illuminating for me in this whole discussion.
posted by lunasol at 10:31 AM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
Her messages to Larsen when she found that she was not participating were probably because she found it suspicious that Larsen was not participating
Not only that, but if you read their full correspondence, it's clear she only contacted her when she found out Larson was writing a story about kidney donation. This letter makes clear she had messaged her once before to see if she still wanted to be in the group and giving her an out, since she understood it made some people uncomfortable. In a later email in the chain, she further explains that what felt weird was learning Larson was writing a story about kidney donation when it appeared she hadn't supported/seemed interested in Dorland's donation.
Despite telling myself I'd pull away from this story, today I saw these documents for the first time, which detail their friendship a bit. Perhaps the most striking detail is that when Dorland left Boston to go do an MFA, at her going away party Larson gave her a homemade gift with a number of references to their friendship - I can't think of anyone I've given a personalized gift to that I didn't consider at least a low-level friend.
posted by coffeecat at 11:58 AM on October 13, 2021 [12 favorites]
Not only that, but if you read their full correspondence, it's clear she only contacted her when she found out Larson was writing a story about kidney donation. This letter makes clear she had messaged her once before to see if she still wanted to be in the group and giving her an out, since she understood it made some people uncomfortable. In a later email in the chain, she further explains that what felt weird was learning Larson was writing a story about kidney donation when it appeared she hadn't supported/seemed interested in Dorland's donation.
Despite telling myself I'd pull away from this story, today I saw these documents for the first time, which detail their friendship a bit. Perhaps the most striking detail is that when Dorland left Boston to go do an MFA, at her going away party Larson gave her a homemade gift with a number of references to their friendship - I can't think of anyone I've given a personalized gift to that I didn't consider at least a low-level friend.
posted by coffeecat at 11:58 AM on October 13, 2021 [12 favorites]
Threadreader link for brainwane's interesting 'class conflict aspects of this dispute' Paul Matzko Twitter find. Excerpt, about how Dorland (raised on "government flour" in rural poverty in Iowa per the NYT) appeared "bad at humble-bragging" to her writing peers:
You see, the humble-brag is a middle-class art form. The middle class valuation of moral self-improvement and social elevation--which you've probably heard described colloquially as "keeping up with the Joneses"--can't be expressed too baldly The bourgeois will brag about their wins while pretending they are losses. You would NEVER openly say you were in a parade because you donated a kidney; no, instead you'd drop the hint that you "couldn't make it to _______ because you're tied up with a parade."
And then when the others ask, "What parade?" you bashfully--but oh-so-knowingly--let drop, "Well, it's kinda embarrassing, but I donated a kidney and they asked me to...but normally I wouldn't...but they insisted..." and nauseatingly so on and so forth. [Dorland], however, just said it outright. And why shouldn't she? Faux Victorian modesty might be all the rage in the circles of, well, writers' circles, but that's not a normative judgement. [Dorland] was, quite simply, too sincere for polite society. Too earnest. Too honest.
Of course, [Dorland]'s behavior in response to Larson's story is obsessive. But THAT'S CLASS TOO!!! There's a large literature on the ties between lower-class status and honor cultures. Honor acts as a substitute for the power and wealth you don't have.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:14 PM on October 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
You see, the humble-brag is a middle-class art form. The middle class valuation of moral self-improvement and social elevation--which you've probably heard described colloquially as "keeping up with the Joneses"--can't be expressed too baldly The bourgeois will brag about their wins while pretending they are losses. You would NEVER openly say you were in a parade because you donated a kidney; no, instead you'd drop the hint that you "couldn't make it to _______ because you're tied up with a parade."
And then when the others ask, "What parade?" you bashfully--but oh-so-knowingly--let drop, "Well, it's kinda embarrassing, but I donated a kidney and they asked me to...but normally I wouldn't...but they insisted..." and nauseatingly so on and so forth. [Dorland], however, just said it outright. And why shouldn't she? Faux Victorian modesty might be all the rage in the circles of, well, writers' circles, but that's not a normative judgement. [Dorland] was, quite simply, too sincere for polite society. Too earnest. Too honest.
Of course, [Dorland]'s behavior in response to Larson's story is obsessive. But THAT'S CLASS TOO!!! There's a large literature on the ties between lower-class status and honor cultures. Honor acts as a substitute for the power and wealth you don't have.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:14 PM on October 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
coffeecat:
(I included a little bit of the set of interrogatories right above it too because there's a bizarre footnote at the end of it...)
posted by wkndworrier at 2:58 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
Perhaps the most striking detail is that when Dorland left Boston to go do an MFA, at her going away party Larson gave her a homemade gift with a number of references to their friendship - I can't think of anyone I've given a personalized gift to that I didn't consider at least a low-level friend.The response to the filing where Dorland mentioned the gift is a bummer. I feel like even Larson's legal filings go out of their way to be hurtful. Here are two screenshots of the response to the part about them being friends. They want her to substantiate that because it "goes to her credibility as a witness."
(I included a little bit of the set of interrogatories right above it too because there's a bizarre footnote at the end of it...)
posted by wkndworrier at 2:58 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
I’m honestly a little confused about the friendship being a point of contention. Why does it matter to the legal question whether they were friends or acquaintances?
posted by bq at 3:18 PM on October 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by bq at 3:18 PM on October 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
I have some sympathy for Robert Kolker and his editor, as I think they make a logical fallacy that I have seen many other people blunder into, and have indeed made myself, even when I was in prime position to know better.
When a person is the target of denigration by a whole bunch of seemingly normal and well-adjusted people, there’s a strong tendency to think that there must be a reason. Maybe not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. Some reason, surely.
But there often isn’t. Usually not, as far as I can tell. In most cases I’ve observed or heard of, there is no reason why a particular target was selected.
What usually seems to happen is that a particular group has some dynamic that rewards denigrating others, usually someone on the outskirts of the group. At this point any person can become a target, and then a member of the group finds some way to get strong reactions from the other people in the group by denigrating a particular target on the outskirts of the group. And because it gets a good reaction, those denigrations continue.
And then, after a while, it becomes orthodoxy in the group that the constantly denigrated person is bad. Everything about them is suspect at best, proof of their badness at worst.
But the thing is, it’s random who becomes the target of that dynamic. Usually before an especially fruitful target is found, many other people get denigrated, until someone comes up with an angle that allows everyone else to join in, and to do so repeatedly.
Now, like with everything else, racism, ableism, sexism, classism, and the other ways societies are structured to harm everyone who isn’t part of the dominant social strata, makes certain people more likely to be bullied. So while it is a roll of the dice, the dice are weighted for certain outcomes. But which individual becomes the target for bullying is still a random result.
Humans aren’t good at parsing randomness. We want there to be clear cause and effect. If twenty seemingly well-adjusted people despise another person, surely the root cause must be found in the target.
But that isn’t the case. The root cause is in the group dynamics. But that’s a harder thing to interrogate, than to look at a single human being in minute detail.
I can see that fallacy in how the story is structured. It only really makes sense to organize it in the way it is if the mystery that is there to be solved, is what it is about Dawn Dorland that makes all these other writers despise her. And then everything else is supposed to follow logically from that.
But Dorland seems like a fairly normal person, in fact much more well adjusted than most, and with a clear sense of ethics. But the story spends an awful lot of time worrying away at what it is about her that makes the Chunky Monkeys despise her.
When really the question should be what it is about the Chunky Monkeys that makes them despise her.
I said earlier that I had fallen into that logical fallacy myself, even when I should have been in a prime position to know better. Though I forgive myself, as I was a child.
When I was 9 years old I transferred to a different school. Slowly, but surely, I became the target for bullying. Long story short, I ended up transferring out of that school to another school.
At first things were just fine, but then some kids from my new school met kids from my old school at a sports thing, and the stories which had built up around my awfulness were shared to my new classmates. And I became a target for bullying at my new school.
I remember observing this happening, but my reaction wasn’t that the stories were the problem, but that there must be something uniquely terrible about me that makes everyone despise me.
Luckily, I had just discovered science fiction so I took a break from reality for a few years. Also, I eventually transferred to a third school, and for whatever reason the stories, even though they were shared with my new classmates, didn’t stick. There wasn’t the right group dynamic.
But I still believed that there must be something uniquely terrible about me, and it probably took me until my early thirties to sort through those experiences, and recover. Well, mostly recover, as I still sometimes catch myself thinking along those lines.
And the thing about that logical fallacy, that there must be a reason why certain people get targeted, which is inherent in the target itself, is that it’s so ingrained in our culture that it becomes a part of the suffering of bullied people.
If only I were different, if only I weren’t me, if only I didn’t exist, then I wouldn’t be in pain.
posted by Kattullus at 3:37 PM on October 13, 2021 [42 favorites]
When a person is the target of denigration by a whole bunch of seemingly normal and well-adjusted people, there’s a strong tendency to think that there must be a reason. Maybe not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. Some reason, surely.
But there often isn’t. Usually not, as far as I can tell. In most cases I’ve observed or heard of, there is no reason why a particular target was selected.
What usually seems to happen is that a particular group has some dynamic that rewards denigrating others, usually someone on the outskirts of the group. At this point any person can become a target, and then a member of the group finds some way to get strong reactions from the other people in the group by denigrating a particular target on the outskirts of the group. And because it gets a good reaction, those denigrations continue.
And then, after a while, it becomes orthodoxy in the group that the constantly denigrated person is bad. Everything about them is suspect at best, proof of their badness at worst.
But the thing is, it’s random who becomes the target of that dynamic. Usually before an especially fruitful target is found, many other people get denigrated, until someone comes up with an angle that allows everyone else to join in, and to do so repeatedly.
Now, like with everything else, racism, ableism, sexism, classism, and the other ways societies are structured to harm everyone who isn’t part of the dominant social strata, makes certain people more likely to be bullied. So while it is a roll of the dice, the dice are weighted for certain outcomes. But which individual becomes the target for bullying is still a random result.
Humans aren’t good at parsing randomness. We want there to be clear cause and effect. If twenty seemingly well-adjusted people despise another person, surely the root cause must be found in the target.
But that isn’t the case. The root cause is in the group dynamics. But that’s a harder thing to interrogate, than to look at a single human being in minute detail.
I can see that fallacy in how the story is structured. It only really makes sense to organize it in the way it is if the mystery that is there to be solved, is what it is about Dawn Dorland that makes all these other writers despise her. And then everything else is supposed to follow logically from that.
But Dorland seems like a fairly normal person, in fact much more well adjusted than most, and with a clear sense of ethics. But the story spends an awful lot of time worrying away at what it is about her that makes the Chunky Monkeys despise her.
When really the question should be what it is about the Chunky Monkeys that makes them despise her.
I said earlier that I had fallen into that logical fallacy myself, even when I should have been in a prime position to know better. Though I forgive myself, as I was a child.
When I was 9 years old I transferred to a different school. Slowly, but surely, I became the target for bullying. Long story short, I ended up transferring out of that school to another school.
At first things were just fine, but then some kids from my new school met kids from my old school at a sports thing, and the stories which had built up around my awfulness were shared to my new classmates. And I became a target for bullying at my new school.
I remember observing this happening, but my reaction wasn’t that the stories were the problem, but that there must be something uniquely terrible about me that makes everyone despise me.
Luckily, I had just discovered science fiction so I took a break from reality for a few years. Also, I eventually transferred to a third school, and for whatever reason the stories, even though they were shared with my new classmates, didn’t stick. There wasn’t the right group dynamic.
But I still believed that there must be something uniquely terrible about me, and it probably took me until my early thirties to sort through those experiences, and recover. Well, mostly recover, as I still sometimes catch myself thinking along those lines.
And the thing about that logical fallacy, that there must be a reason why certain people get targeted, which is inherent in the target itself, is that it’s so ingrained in our culture that it becomes a part of the suffering of bullied people.
If only I were different, if only I weren’t me, if only I didn’t exist, then I wouldn’t be in pain.
posted by Kattullus at 3:37 PM on October 13, 2021 [42 favorites]
I’m honestly a little confused about the friendship being a point of contention. Why does it matter to the legal question whether they were friends or acquaintances?Couldn't tell you. To me that reads like it has the same purpose of writing up a bunch of interrogatories clearly intended to make Dorland illustrate that she's less published than Larson (which they also did). I don't see another point other than to try to humiliate her further (possibly with the hopes that she'll call it off and they can recoup fees somehow).
posted by wkndworrier at 3:40 PM on October 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
Another odd thing Larson's attorney keeps pounding on relates to the group membership (it's alluded to right before the odd footnote in this screenshot). Compiled some of what I'm referring to here (imgur album with pics of everything mentioned below). I'm just kind of curious/confused what the angle is there..
Dorland said in a filing that it had roughly three dozen members around the time of her surgery. There's a screenshot in one of the filings that shows that it had 24 likes and was 'seen' by 13 people (I'm not sure how the discrepancy there works, but I think it might have to do with differences in how the two metrics respond when someone temporarily deactivates). Either way, that level of engagement seems realistic for a group roughly the size Dorland says it was at that time.
Larson's court filings repeatedly allege that the group had 250-300 members around the time Larson was added. She even signed an affidavit that says she remembers seeing that the group was that size. It seems the point they're trying to make is that Dorland was not private about the letter or something like that. But it's obvious on it's face that it's highly highly unliked that the group was that big. First, the engagement makes no sense if that were the case (e.g., the announcement with the group description is only viewed by 7 people or so). But the second reason is that facebook caps the "seen" feature at groups with < 250 members (source: fb). And there are screenshots where you can see that count on some of the posts. I just don't get the weird facebook pedantry that seems almost certainly inaccurate...
posted by wkndworrier at 3:47 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Dorland said in a filing that it had roughly three dozen members around the time of her surgery. There's a screenshot in one of the filings that shows that it had 24 likes and was 'seen' by 13 people (I'm not sure how the discrepancy there works, but I think it might have to do with differences in how the two metrics respond when someone temporarily deactivates). Either way, that level of engagement seems realistic for a group roughly the size Dorland says it was at that time.
Larson's court filings repeatedly allege that the group had 250-300 members around the time Larson was added. She even signed an affidavit that says she remembers seeing that the group was that size. It seems the point they're trying to make is that Dorland was not private about the letter or something like that. But it's obvious on it's face that it's highly highly unliked that the group was that big. First, the engagement makes no sense if that were the case (e.g., the announcement with the group description is only viewed by 7 people or so). But the second reason is that facebook caps the "seen" feature at groups with < 250 members (source: fb). And there are screenshots where you can see that count on some of the posts. I just don't get the weird facebook pedantry that seems almost certainly inaccurate...
posted by wkndworrier at 3:47 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Does Larson not realize that these filings make her look shockingly bad?
posted by bq at 3:48 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by bq at 3:48 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
When a person is the target of denigration by a whole bunch of seemingly normal and well-adjusted people, there’s a strong tendency to think that there must be a reason. Maybe not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless. Some reason, surely.
But there often isn’t. Usually not, as far as I can tell. In most cases I’ve observed or heard of, there is no reason why a particular target was selected.
Becky Tuch (the only member of the Chunky Monkeys to apologize so far) says she doesn't know why Dorland was targeted for so much hate:
I don't think it was ever about her, personally. When you enter a groupthink mentality where you are willing to dehumanize someone, you stop seeing them as a person. I was repeatedly told this person is a villain. I believed it and behaved accordingly.
and
I went along with it, in spite of only ever having had pleasant interactions with her in real life. We took a class together. She was nothing but kind to me.
posted by creepygirl at 3:57 PM on October 13, 2021 [19 favorites]
But there often isn’t. Usually not, as far as I can tell. In most cases I’ve observed or heard of, there is no reason why a particular target was selected.
Becky Tuch (the only member of the Chunky Monkeys to apologize so far) says she doesn't know why Dorland was targeted for so much hate:
I don't think it was ever about her, personally. When you enter a groupthink mentality where you are willing to dehumanize someone, you stop seeing them as a person. I was repeatedly told this person is a villain. I believed it and behaved accordingly.
and
I went along with it, in spite of only ever having had pleasant interactions with her in real life. We took a class together. She was nothing but kind to me.
posted by creepygirl at 3:57 PM on October 13, 2021 [19 favorites]
wkndworrier, that footnote!
"The letter was seen by potentially hundreds of people. There is nothing secret or personal about Dorland's 2015 letter, which was very widely disseminated. (1)"
"1. According to Benjamin Franklin, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Benjamin Franklin; (brainyquote.com)"
Beyond bizarre.
And the proper Poor Richard's attribution is *also* within the first 10 Google results for that phrase; it's like, Larson, your legal reps shouldn't share your weaknesses.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:27 PM on October 13, 2021 [4 favorites]
"The letter was seen by potentially hundreds of people. There is nothing secret or personal about Dorland's 2015 letter, which was very widely disseminated. (1)"
"1. According to Benjamin Franklin, "Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Benjamin Franklin; (brainyquote.com)"
Beyond bizarre.
And the proper Poor Richard's attribution is *also* within the first 10 Google results for that phrase; it's like, Larson, your legal reps shouldn't share your weaknesses.
posted by Iris Gambol at 4:27 PM on October 13, 2021 [4 favorites]
Again, everything that comes out keeps making Dorland sound more normal. This doesn’t sound like a weird professional author friendship. It sounds like normal work friends. There are people I consider pretty good friends whom I’ve never seen outside of the office. And on the flip side, there are people whose houses I’ve been to, in one case whose wedding I attended, to whom I haven’t spoken again after one of us changed jobs. Work friendships are weird; “are we real friends or just work friends?” is a classic category on Ask a Manager. It’s not hard to imagine that Dorland, with her history of trauma, might be more inclined to see her work friends as real friends, especially since some of them (like Larson and Celeste Ng) seemed to consider themselves real friends.
I don’t think the homemade going away present proves anything one way or the other. My work friend whose wedding I attended was known for making elaborate hand-drawn art replete with inside jokes for co-workers’ birthdays, like an overgrown birthday card. (I got one with anthropomorphic heads of lettuce.) If I told you I attended the wedding of a co-worker who created original art for me, you might think we were close. But no, I only saw her like twice after I left that job. On the other hand, several of our other co-workers became close friends with her and remained so after changing jobs. My point is that it’s really difficult to evaluate friendships on objective criteria like Larson is trying to do, because friendship is inherently subjective, and it’s pretty well-established that Dorland thought they were friends.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:41 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
I don’t think the homemade going away present proves anything one way or the other. My work friend whose wedding I attended was known for making elaborate hand-drawn art replete with inside jokes for co-workers’ birthdays, like an overgrown birthday card. (I got one with anthropomorphic heads of lettuce.) If I told you I attended the wedding of a co-worker who created original art for me, you might think we were close. But no, I only saw her like twice after I left that job. On the other hand, several of our other co-workers became close friends with her and remained so after changing jobs. My point is that it’s really difficult to evaluate friendships on objective criteria like Larson is trying to do, because friendship is inherently subjective, and it’s pretty well-established that Dorland thought they were friends.
posted by kevinbelt at 4:41 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
From the screenshot wkndworrier posted:
If my understanding is incorrect, I hope someone who knows more will shed light on this.
posted by Lexica at 4:43 PM on October 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
Dorland appears to have done nothing with her 2015 letter other than to post it on Facebook on July 7, 2015, without a copyright notation, and then waiting almost three years before registering the letter with the Copyright Office.This seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, if someone creates work in a fixed medium, copyright immediately inheres to the creator, regardless of whether they file with the copyright office or not. I could go write a paragraph on the back of a napkin, and as long as it was my original work I'd have copyright in it. (Not addressing issues of work for hire etc. as those are very different from this situation.)
If my understanding is incorrect, I hope someone who knows more will shed light on this.
posted by Lexica at 4:43 PM on October 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
A court filing reveals that Grub Street artistic director and author Christopher Castellani wrote this in 2018 on the grubchunkymonkeys mailing list about Dawn Dorland: "My mission in life is going to be to exact revenge on this pestilence of a person."
There's poetic justice in the ugly and cruel behavior of the Grub Street writers coming to light. When they should've been cautioning Sonya Larson that committing plagiarism and mining Dorland's private group for ridicule were wrong, they egged her on.
So Larson never does the decent and sensible by taking Dorland's words out of the story, the dispute becomes a federal case, and now all of her writer pals' worst impulses are a matter of public record.
posted by rcade at 4:48 PM on October 13, 2021 [11 favorites]
There's poetic justice in the ugly and cruel behavior of the Grub Street writers coming to light. When they should've been cautioning Sonya Larson that committing plagiarism and mining Dorland's private group for ridicule were wrong, they egged her on.
So Larson never does the decent and sensible by taking Dorland's words out of the story, the dispute becomes a federal case, and now all of her writer pals' worst impulses are a matter of public record.
posted by rcade at 4:48 PM on October 13, 2021 [11 favorites]
I’m honestly a little confused about the friendship being a point of contention. Why does it matter to the legal question whether they were friends or acquaintances?
It's in the filing, and the post right above yours mentions it: They want her to substantiate that because it "goes to her credibility as a witness." Calling Dorland's credibility into question helps Larson's argument.
And Lexica, you're right. I think the suit's trying to make this about the date of posting, and the 'hundreds of people' alleged to have viewed the letter (before Dorland registered her original copyright), if Larson's arguing the fair use/transformative use of Dorland's work in her own story. If the letter was "published" (widely publicly disseminated; not in any way secret or private) it can then follow that Dorland (the lesser, less-successful writer; more of a hanger-on than a friend, beeteedubs) tried to get Larson to credit her anyway, despite fair use, and embarked on a personal vendetta to try to destroy Larson's career when Larson wouldn't. It's also why Larson would harp on Dorland's publication bona fides, puts the membership of the private FaceBook group where Dorland posted her letter in the hundreds, etc.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:06 PM on October 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
It's in the filing, and the post right above yours mentions it: They want her to substantiate that because it "goes to her credibility as a witness." Calling Dorland's credibility into question helps Larson's argument.
And Lexica, you're right. I think the suit's trying to make this about the date of posting, and the 'hundreds of people' alleged to have viewed the letter (before Dorland registered her original copyright), if Larson's arguing the fair use/transformative use of Dorland's work in her own story. If the letter was "published" (widely publicly disseminated; not in any way secret or private) it can then follow that Dorland (the lesser, less-successful writer; more of a hanger-on than a friend, beeteedubs) tried to get Larson to credit her anyway, despite fair use, and embarked on a personal vendetta to try to destroy Larson's career when Larson wouldn't. It's also why Larson would harp on Dorland's publication bona fides, puts the membership of the private FaceBook group where Dorland posted her letter in the hundreds, etc.
posted by Iris Gambol at 5:06 PM on October 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
“Letter From The GrubStreet Board To The Community” (October 12, 2021)
Bluntly, we are appalled by the disconnect between GrubStreet’s stated values and the alleged behavior by some that has come to light. GrubStreet is meant to be a nurturing and supportive environment for all, a place where our creative work can thrive, and where we are each treated with care and respect. The events described in the article do not describe the environment we strive to create for everyone in our community.
As a Board, we take our role seriously. Recognizing that objectivity is paramount, we are engaging an independent expert to lead a process to gather information and conduct a full review of what happened. Our community’s health depends on being grounded in high ethical standards and a culture where we can respectfully engage and embrace different perspectives in an inclusive manner.posted by Going To Maine at 5:08 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
I am so confused by how offputting their legal strategy is. It's almost starting to feel like that's the point. I just do not understand the goal here. I missed that this transcript existed that relates to the mean interrogatories about whether they were friends I posted earlier.... the following is from pp. 8-9
MR. EPSTEIN: Miss Dorland made an issue about her supposed tough relationship with Miss Larson. This was done in her counterclaim. There were quite a few paragraphs in her counterclaim, paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, where she talks about the true friendship that started to develop between Miss Larson and Miss Dorland, meals they shared together, time, coffee. These are things that normally would happen between friends.posted by wkndworrier at 5:09 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
We just ask Miss Dorland to explain when they shared meals, when they had coffee, when she shared a glass of wine together, when they texted or talked on the telephone, when they visited each other's homes, when they told each other every details of their life, what writings workshops did they participate in together, when did Miss Dorland apparently tell Miss Larson about her difficult childhood upbringing, what was the very thoughtful and personal going away gift that Sonya Larson supposedly put together for Miss Dorland, how did they stay in touch when Miss Dorland moved to Washington D.C. to go to the University of Maryland.
These are questions that go to the credibility of Miss Dorland as a witness, because Miss Larson told me the other day, I don't think I have ever been in a room together with Dawn Dorland, just the two of us, at any time in my entire life. And this is a true friend?
THE COURT: It seems to me that this is material that, while it may be relevant, would be best explored at deposition.
MR. EPSTEIN: Happy to do it at deposition, but I'm limited to seven hours, and we've got 7,000 documents. Not all of them are relevant. We're not going to go through 7,000 documents, but seven hours can get used up in a hurry during deposition. If Miss Dorland would like to say, I was mistaken by calling her a true friend, I thought she was a friend, we just didn't have meals together, we didn't go out for coffee or a glass of wine after work, fine. If she withdraws all of those things, I have no problem with it.
she doesn't know why Dorland was targeted for so much hate:
Humans like to designate someone who is different (in whatever way/reason--maybe Dawn's too cheerful or something IRL, I dunno) and turn them into the group buttmonkey, a target that everyone abuses, is okay to abuse, and loves abusing. Abusing the buttmonkey is a happy group activity. Abusing someone else makes you feel superior, in control, and also that you aren't the bullying target.
Dawn rubbed someone the wrong way and this is what happened. This happens all the time, every day.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:32 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Humans like to designate someone who is different (in whatever way/reason--maybe Dawn's too cheerful or something IRL, I dunno) and turn them into the group buttmonkey, a target that everyone abuses, is okay to abuse, and loves abusing. Abusing the buttmonkey is a happy group activity. Abusing someone else makes you feel superior, in control, and also that you aren't the bullying target.
Dawn rubbed someone the wrong way and this is what happened. This happens all the time, every day.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:32 PM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
The thread hades linked to (link again) provides super valuable context about the original letter. The person she was writing to wasnt the person who got her kidney. It was someone else, who benefited from her act by getting a kidney, but not hers.
I'm not entirely sure why, but that changes the meaning of the "thinking about YOU" wording really substantially. It makes it a very different sort of letter. That thread is definitely worth a read.
posted by meese at 5:50 PM on October 13, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm not entirely sure why, but that changes the meaning of the "thinking about YOU" wording really substantially. It makes it a very different sort of letter. That thread is definitely worth a read.
posted by meese at 5:50 PM on October 13, 2021 [6 favorites]
Here's an earlier interview with several Chunky Monkeys about how they manage their writing group.
This actually made me sad. If we didn't know what a toxic group it became, this would really sound like an ideal support group for writers and I would be jealous. It's interesting to me that they talked about "rigorous critique." Now that I've read "The Kindest," there are a number of things that seem obvious for any writers' group to point out: the lack of research on kidney donation, the one-dimensional donor character. Instead, we see members telling Larson that it's an amazing story and, instead of discussing the plagiarism issue in a helpful way, childishly trashing the person she plagiarized from. Makes me grateful for my little, less "professional "writing group.
posted by FencingGal at 6:08 PM on October 13, 2021 [16 favorites]
This actually made me sad. If we didn't know what a toxic group it became, this would really sound like an ideal support group for writers and I would be jealous. It's interesting to me that they talked about "rigorous critique." Now that I've read "The Kindest," there are a number of things that seem obvious for any writers' group to point out: the lack of research on kidney donation, the one-dimensional donor character. Instead, we see members telling Larson that it's an amazing story and, instead of discussing the plagiarism issue in a helpful way, childishly trashing the person she plagiarized from. Makes me grateful for my little, less "professional "writing group.
posted by FencingGal at 6:08 PM on October 13, 2021 [16 favorites]
I worked inhouse at several different Toronto publishing companies as an editor for quite a number of years, and this whole issue has gotten me thinking about the group dynamics I saw back then among the other editors with whom I worked. There were always some problematic people among us who were hard to take, who behaved bizarrely or badly. Did we gossip and giggle about things they did when they weren't around? Absolutely, and I'd bet money there were stories told of my own behaviour as well.
I'm thinking of one person in particular who was so obnoxious that she basically alienated everyone. People haaaaaated her. We all used to trade stories about her. I've forgotten the details of most of my grudges against her, but I do remember that when it came up that I had gone to York University (she had gone to the University of Toronto), she said to me, loftily, "Well, you go to York to get a degree, and to UofT to get an education." She said the same thing to me a few more times after that in other conversations, bringing it up on very slight pretext each time and as a way to dismiss my opinion about something, such as when I said I liked a writer she didn't care for, and always with the same gloating, superior smile. So I didn't like her much, and I'll admit it was gratifying to hear other people tell their stories of her shitty behaviour. I've forgotten most of these stories, but there was the time her husband, who also worked at the company, was supposed to play third base in a game our company's team was playing against another publishing house's team, and when two of my other co-workers took him over to his place to get his baseball glove, she demanded he go to the movies that night with her instead, and kept at him until he gave in. Or the time she yelled, "EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! SOME OF US HAVE WORK TO DO!!!" at some people for chatting six feet from her desk a few minutes after starting time on her very first day in a new department. Or there was the time she was seen having anal with one of my other co-workers (and to be clear, it was not the co-worker she was married to) in the office building stairwell during a fire drill. (I was told about the last incident in confidence and kept it to myself until well after I left the company, as it was simply too explosive, but God did I enjoy that I knew it.)
As you can imagine, there was much eye rolling and snickering over her behaviour, over our shared dislike of her. It was a way to blow off the steam that came from the frustration and unpleasantness of having to deal with her.
But here's what we didn't do: we didn't plot against her or anybody else in any way shape or form, even when they were assholes. I have never seen anything of the kind. The Grub Street dynamic is a particularly toxic one, and it would be interesting to know how it got that way. Could it be that the group chat was a medium that fostered that kind of behaviour? I try to imagine what I would do if I was in a chat that did that. I studied copyright and permissions law in publishing college and have a good working idea of what plagiarism is. I hope I would speak up. I hope that if that didn't work, I would leave the group. But as I said in an earlier comment in this thread, I avoid making friends with writers, so the situation has never arisen. I can only tell you I've never seen behaviour like this among editors in person. Of course, the nature of editing is such that we don't steal from each other because we can't, so perhaps that's the main reason for the difference.
posted by orange swan at 6:50 PM on October 13, 2021 [9 favorites]
I'm thinking of one person in particular who was so obnoxious that she basically alienated everyone. People haaaaaated her. We all used to trade stories about her. I've forgotten the details of most of my grudges against her, but I do remember that when it came up that I had gone to York University (she had gone to the University of Toronto), she said to me, loftily, "Well, you go to York to get a degree, and to UofT to get an education." She said the same thing to me a few more times after that in other conversations, bringing it up on very slight pretext each time and as a way to dismiss my opinion about something, such as when I said I liked a writer she didn't care for, and always with the same gloating, superior smile. So I didn't like her much, and I'll admit it was gratifying to hear other people tell their stories of her shitty behaviour. I've forgotten most of these stories, but there was the time her husband, who also worked at the company, was supposed to play third base in a game our company's team was playing against another publishing house's team, and when two of my other co-workers took him over to his place to get his baseball glove, she demanded he go to the movies that night with her instead, and kept at him until he gave in. Or the time she yelled, "EXCUSE ME! EXCUSE ME! SOME OF US HAVE WORK TO DO!!!" at some people for chatting six feet from her desk a few minutes after starting time on her very first day in a new department. Or there was the time she was seen having anal with one of my other co-workers (and to be clear, it was not the co-worker she was married to) in the office building stairwell during a fire drill. (I was told about the last incident in confidence and kept it to myself until well after I left the company, as it was simply too explosive, but God did I enjoy that I knew it.)
As you can imagine, there was much eye rolling and snickering over her behaviour, over our shared dislike of her. It was a way to blow off the steam that came from the frustration and unpleasantness of having to deal with her.
But here's what we didn't do: we didn't plot against her or anybody else in any way shape or form, even when they were assholes. I have never seen anything of the kind. The Grub Street dynamic is a particularly toxic one, and it would be interesting to know how it got that way. Could it be that the group chat was a medium that fostered that kind of behaviour? I try to imagine what I would do if I was in a chat that did that. I studied copyright and permissions law in publishing college and have a good working idea of what plagiarism is. I hope I would speak up. I hope that if that didn't work, I would leave the group. But as I said in an earlier comment in this thread, I avoid making friends with writers, so the situation has never arisen. I can only tell you I've never seen behaviour like this among editors in person. Of course, the nature of editing is such that we don't steal from each other because we can't, so perhaps that's the main reason for the difference.
posted by orange swan at 6:50 PM on October 13, 2021 [9 favorites]
There's a really good play that touches on the toxicity of literary workplaces, "Gloria," by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins, who is Black. It was nominated for the Pulitzer the year that Hamilton won All The Things. It's about a magazine like the New Yorker, with a bunch of young, striving writers trying to hit the literary big time, and there's an "office weirdo" that everyone hates and thinks is awkward and likes to mock, who finally snaps. It's also a meditation on American workplace violence, and trauma, and on how the media shapes our narrative of violence, and on how people try to profit off of tragedy, and similar. But my mind keeps jumping back to it as more and more information comes out about the Chunky Monkeys and the Bad Art Friend and Dorland and Larson, and the varying pressures of being a PoC in a white industry and being lower-class in an upper-middle-class industry and knowing the right people and all of that.
Here's the kindle edition. You can find the full text online (with various legality). It's very much worth reading the three sections closely (even taking notes) and comparing what specific characters claim in each section -- stories shift quite a bit -- and worth taking the time to look at the dual casting of various characters, since they illuminate each other. (Personally, I find Nan's pregnancy narrative particularly fucking suspect.) (I'm very emotionally engaged in this play even months and months later.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:33 PM on October 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
Here's the kindle edition. You can find the full text online (with various legality). It's very much worth reading the three sections closely (even taking notes) and comparing what specific characters claim in each section -- stories shift quite a bit -- and worth taking the time to look at the dual casting of various characters, since they illuminate each other. (Personally, I find Nan's pregnancy narrative particularly fucking suspect.) (I'm very emotionally engaged in this play even months and months later.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:33 PM on October 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
The Grub Street dynamic is a particularly toxic one
I assume that this coming to light is why Grub Street belatedly put out their statement about an investigation this week. Who on earth would want to pay for a writing course where people are going to trash you like this behind your back and write take down stories about you? They have some damage control to do.
posted by HiddenInput at 7:40 PM on October 13, 2021 [15 favorites]
I assume that this coming to light is why Grub Street belatedly put out their statement about an investigation this week. Who on earth would want to pay for a writing course where people are going to trash you like this behind your back and write take down stories about you? They have some damage control to do.
posted by HiddenInput at 7:40 PM on October 13, 2021 [15 favorites]
And not just your peers but apparently your teachers too.
posted by asteria at 8:16 PM on October 13, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by asteria at 8:16 PM on October 13, 2021 [8 favorites]
robin on Twitter: I suspected there was a reason for that letter. I was right. Not every person in need of a kidney are willing to accept an altruistic kidney. Dawn's letter was a reassurance that person was meant to have her kidney.
(They attached two image files from this qualitative study in Social Science & Medicine, which notes that among other concerns, "Some renal patients feel unworthy of an altruistic live-donor transplant." and "Some renal patients feel responsible for the risks to an altruistic donor.")
posted by creepygirl at 8:48 PM on October 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
(They attached two image files from this qualitative study in Social Science & Medicine, which notes that among other concerns, "Some renal patients feel unworthy of an altruistic live-donor transplant." and "Some renal patients feel responsible for the risks to an altruistic donor.")
posted by creepygirl at 8:48 PM on October 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
I don't think this has been posted here yet. Post about why it matters that Dorland's letter was to the last person on the chain, not to her direct recipient.
In Larson's story, the letter is handwritten on six pages of daisy-shaped stationery. That's just one example of how the story goes for maximum, over-the-top cringe in order to make the donor character as awful as possible. The New Yorker writer who discussed the story itself said that she found an earlier story by Larson that was extremely well written. I think that it's hard for rage to result in good art. There's one person in my life that I truly hate, and I've thought about writing about her, and I don't think I could write anything good because I hate her too much. Art needs some distance, I think.
posted by FencingGal at 5:19 AM on October 14, 2021 [15 favorites]
In Larson's story, the letter is handwritten on six pages of daisy-shaped stationery. That's just one example of how the story goes for maximum, over-the-top cringe in order to make the donor character as awful as possible. The New Yorker writer who discussed the story itself said that she found an earlier story by Larson that was extremely well written. I think that it's hard for rage to result in good art. There's one person in my life that I truly hate, and I've thought about writing about her, and I don't think I could write anything good because I hate her too much. Art needs some distance, I think.
posted by FencingGal at 5:19 AM on October 14, 2021 [15 favorites]
I think that's very true, FencingGal. It's why drawing a character from real life doesn't work. Whether you're doing it out of anger or frustration, or even more positive emotions such as love and admiration, it flattens out the character, because you're only seeing them from one angle, and you're essentially demanding that your readers see them exactly that way. To create fleshed out characters, you need to conceive of them as whole people with a full complement of both good and bad characteristics, and understand where they are coming from and why they do what they do.
I've found that though sometimes I will base a character on someone I know, at some point the character has to become its own entity in my mind, and develop in directions that have nothing to do with their original model, because only then will the character become real on the page. Larson was too fixated on skewering Dorland to make her literary stand-in a whole person, and as a result she's simply a bizarre caricature.
posted by orange swan at 6:55 AM on October 14, 2021 [11 favorites]
I've found that though sometimes I will base a character on someone I know, at some point the character has to become its own entity in my mind, and develop in directions that have nothing to do with their original model, because only then will the character become real on the page. Larson was too fixated on skewering Dorland to make her literary stand-in a whole person, and as a result she's simply a bizarre caricature.
posted by orange swan at 6:55 AM on October 14, 2021 [11 favorites]
the whole thing is making me truly consider implementing an idea that I have casually thought before: entirely avoid writers of the ambitious literary fiction tribe
posted by thelonius at 7:37 AM on October 14, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 7:37 AM on October 14, 2021 [10 favorites]
Dammit, now a new set of friends has read the NYT story and are all at the "wow the author really did their best to be neutral but you can just tell that Dawn is the worst person ever" stage.
posted by bashing rocks together at 10:03 AM on October 14, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by bashing rocks together at 10:03 AM on October 14, 2021 [14 favorites]
Dammit, now a new set of friends has read the NYT story and are all at the "wow the author really did their best to be neutral but you can just tell that Dawn is the worst person ever" stage.
Has anyone done a really comprehensive write-up of all the things the NYT got wrong, and the stuff that's been unearthed in the last week? Michael Hobbes' piece upthread is pretty good but misses some key pieces (no shade to him, there's a LOT). I shared this story somewhat glibly in a group when it came out and I'd love to be able to come back and be like "oops, I got it all wrong" without having to send people to a bunch of twitter threads.
posted by lunasol at 11:49 AM on October 14, 2021 [10 favorites]
Has anyone done a really comprehensive write-up of all the things the NYT got wrong, and the stuff that's been unearthed in the last week? Michael Hobbes' piece upthread is pretty good but misses some key pieces (no shade to him, there's a LOT). I shared this story somewhat glibly in a group when it came out and I'd love to be able to come back and be like "oops, I got it all wrong" without having to send people to a bunch of twitter threads.
posted by lunasol at 11:49 AM on October 14, 2021 [10 favorites]
For those of us Like Dawn who are following this story this has been a week of grief and mourning. It’s deeply validating to confirm this is not in our heads, and this article may help launch a social movement of people Like Dawn, but it shows what a long way we have to go. I’m just so sad and hopeless and miserable and like always I spend my time helping others because talking about my issues tends to meet silence.
I try to imagine a gentle protective companion is the person suggesting to me, full of love, when to stay quiet in order to keep safe. It’s easier than calling myself a coward.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 12:19 PM on October 14, 2021 [12 favorites]
I try to imagine a gentle protective companion is the person suggesting to me, full of love, when to stay quiet in order to keep safe. It’s easier than calling myself a coward.
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 12:19 PM on October 14, 2021 [12 favorites]
I'm caught up on the thread, after several days away, and I have two thoughts.
First: The Twitter thread linked here, about Dawn's "crime" being a failure to properly perform humility, really jibed with me. You can make the argument that what set Dawn apart from the others in this group was neurodivergence—I'm inclined to too, since I relate!—but regardless of cause, the thing she got singled out for was improper social conditioning. Reading through the discussion up to the point where that thread was linked, the way I was phrasing it in my head was: "Maybe Dawn's only crime was being cringe." And what is cringe, really, other than an inability to precisely calibrate your discourse to match the room?
I think that a lot of the backlash against Larson boils down to the fact that, in this story, you have two sides: the person who violated the norms, and the person who used said violation of the norms as an excuse to justify malice. There's a hint of Sore Winner to it all—Larson, from within the in-group, doing something for the private amusement of said group. And maybe there's a version of this story that examines Larson's feeling the need to perform cruelty for the sake of the group she was in... but that story probably has to be nested within the one where she, for the sake of her asshole friends, acted like a real piece of shit.
Second: I am a little wary of contributing this line of thought, due to my own cishetwhiteman demographic, but... it's been niggling at me all week that the way Larson uses race as a justification for her actions feels identical to the phenomenon Mark Fisher wrote about in his fantastic essay Exiting the Vampire Castle, which feels more prescient year by year. I've been thinking a lot recently about Fisher's definition of the vampire castle, namely this:
It kinda gives the game away a little bit when Larson texts that Dawn's showing up on a Jumbotron is Trump-esque. Like... "equate someone's life and identity to that of the most powerful and wretched person in the world, and then treat that person as maliciously as you'd let yourself treat that person" creates a MASSIVE empathy blind spot. You can do all sorts of horrible things if you manage to convince yourself that a kidney donor and struggling writer is literally Donald Trump. And using race to excuse that feels, well, weaponized best, and extraordinarily cynical at worst.
Threading those two thoughts together, I'll note that both Fisher and the guy who tweeted that thread are talking about the same thing: namely, that we frequently exclude class from any notion of intersectionality, and that intersectional politics minus the belief that using institutions to abuse people is bad winds up, well, justifying using institutions to abuse people, which is the thing that class politics exists to try and dismantle. I'm not gonna pretend like I know how to thread that needle any further, but I think the thread is certainly there.
posted by rorgy at 1:51 PM on October 14, 2021 [20 favorites]
First: The Twitter thread linked here, about Dawn's "crime" being a failure to properly perform humility, really jibed with me. You can make the argument that what set Dawn apart from the others in this group was neurodivergence—I'm inclined to too, since I relate!—but regardless of cause, the thing she got singled out for was improper social conditioning. Reading through the discussion up to the point where that thread was linked, the way I was phrasing it in my head was: "Maybe Dawn's only crime was being cringe." And what is cringe, really, other than an inability to precisely calibrate your discourse to match the room?
I think that a lot of the backlash against Larson boils down to the fact that, in this story, you have two sides: the person who violated the norms, and the person who used said violation of the norms as an excuse to justify malice. There's a hint of Sore Winner to it all—Larson, from within the in-group, doing something for the private amusement of said group. And maybe there's a version of this story that examines Larson's feeling the need to perform cruelty for the sake of the group she was in... but that story probably has to be nested within the one where she, for the sake of her asshole friends, acted like a real piece of shit.
Second: I am a little wary of contributing this line of thought, due to my own cishetwhiteman demographic, but... it's been niggling at me all week that the way Larson uses race as a justification for her actions feels identical to the phenomenon Mark Fisher wrote about in his fantastic essay Exiting the Vampire Castle, which feels more prescient year by year. I've been thinking a lot recently about Fisher's definition of the vampire castle, namely this:
It is driven by a priest’s desire to excommunicate and condemn, an academic-pedant’s desire to be the first to be seen to spot a mistake, and a hipster’s desire to be one of the in-crowd.Again, I am wary of presenting this like it's the only interpretation of events (and I have been appreciating every BIPOC voice in this thread, and hope that what I'm saying here isn't dismissive in any way), but this situation feels like what Fisher was writing about to a tee. And the tangent we've had above about "am I allowed" being a really crappy and childish way to look at the world mirrors how Fisher ends that same paragraph: "The Vampires’ Castle was born the moment when the struggle not to be defined by identitarian categories became the quest to have ‘identities’ recognised by a bourgeois big Other." In other words, the weird reactionary phenomenon of using identity to "buy in" to power, particularly in order to act the way that power usually acts (i.e. sadistically and degradingly).
It kinda gives the game away a little bit when Larson texts that Dawn's showing up on a Jumbotron is Trump-esque. Like... "equate someone's life and identity to that of the most powerful and wretched person in the world, and then treat that person as maliciously as you'd let yourself treat that person" creates a MASSIVE empathy blind spot. You can do all sorts of horrible things if you manage to convince yourself that a kidney donor and struggling writer is literally Donald Trump. And using race to excuse that feels, well, weaponized best, and extraordinarily cynical at worst.
Threading those two thoughts together, I'll note that both Fisher and the guy who tweeted that thread are talking about the same thing: namely, that we frequently exclude class from any notion of intersectionality, and that intersectional politics minus the belief that using institutions to abuse people is bad winds up, well, justifying using institutions to abuse people, which is the thing that class politics exists to try and dismantle. I'm not gonna pretend like I know how to thread that needle any further, but I think the thread is certainly there.
posted by rorgy at 1:51 PM on October 14, 2021 [20 favorites]
This paragraph from this piece annoyed me so much (if you don't want to do the free email subscribe option you can see it archived here).
posted by wkndworrier at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2021 [20 favorites]
I recognized Dawn Dorland as a very particular sort of white woman, invested in what I call “performative kindness.” The goal of performative kindness, fueled as it is by the endless self-branding that social media promotes, is only tangentially to help other people. Its fuel is the dramatized good deed that signals to one and all, the virtue of the performer. It makes sense that Dawn chose an anonymous donor to have the transplant, because the ultimate recipient was not essential to branding herself as an altruistic woman. Dawn, like many other white women, was signing up for the white savior industrial complex where others (particularly racially disparate others) become props there only to highlight the goodness of the central (read white) character.She gave a stranger her fucking kidney. How is that performative.
posted by wkndworrier at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2021 [20 favorites]
To be fair, the piece in general is not totally terrible and it's interesting with respect to how it engages with the ethical dynamic around appropriating someone's life, etc. for a work of fiction, but everything it says about Dorland is absolutely bizarre so even in the decent parts you get (inaccurate) lines like this mixed in. e.g.,
Sonya’s borrowed story came from a white woman who chased her and sued her and almost ruined her.posted by wkndworrier at 4:01 PM on October 14, 2021 [3 favorites]
regardless of cause, the thing she got singled out [and bullied] for was improper social conditioning.
For that reason, I think a lot of people underestimate how long lasting the harm of bullying is. People often dismiss bullying as childhood nastiness that people grow out of. Sometimes that's even true, though obviously not for all.
But for the target of the bullying, who is isolated (sometimes) because they are not properly socialized, they aren't able to grow out of it the same way, because the bullying isolates them from the social milieu that educates people from junior high onwards.
posted by msalt at 11:01 PM on October 14, 2021 [27 favorites]
For that reason, I think a lot of people underestimate how long lasting the harm of bullying is. People often dismiss bullying as childhood nastiness that people grow out of. Sometimes that's even true, though obviously not for all.
But for the target of the bullying, who is isolated (sometimes) because they are not properly socialized, they aren't able to grow out of it the same way, because the bullying isolates them from the social milieu that educates people from junior high onwards.
posted by msalt at 11:01 PM on October 14, 2021 [27 favorites]
I honestly don’t think Dawn really did anything that cringe or inappropriate. She created a small private Facebook groupfor interested parties, and she seems outgoing otherwise. Maybe she’s a little rough around the edges (as a person who grew up working class and went upwardly mobile, I can relate), but her major crime seems to have been doing something altruistic around one of the most self-promoting and socially striving groups of people ever— writers.
When Larson asks her friends “what am I supposed to do, DONATE MY ORGANS,” what she’s implicitly processing is “if I’m to think I’m better than this somewhat socially outre person, I have to outdo her— but I can’t, because I’m not willing to become a living organ donor— how dare she put me in this position!” So hard to look down on that annoying person in your social group when they genuinely do something admirable. Unthinkable to give her the kudos and simply move on. Your fragile self-concept depends too much on appearing to be the moral authority.
I can’t think of any other reason to feel threatened by someone’s good act; the most obvious motivation is that you’ve so far been sure you outranked her. Larson isn’t in need of an organ donation, but fancies herself as one enough to craft a story for her main character because that’s the only position from which you can really critique the sacrifice of the donor herself. Who else would dare? As a non-recipient, the vast majority of recipients or their friends and family would think you a total asshole for discouraging donation. How convenient then is the world of fiction to engineer your moral alibi. What an imagination.
It would be fun to write a short story about an author character who looks down on another, upwardly mobile author in her friend group to such an extent that she needs to contort herself into an avatar of an organ recipient so that she can finally mock her rival and take her down a peg from a position of “victimhood.” Unfortunately I’m not the talent for it.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:51 PM on October 16, 2021 [23 favorites]
When Larson asks her friends “what am I supposed to do, DONATE MY ORGANS,” what she’s implicitly processing is “if I’m to think I’m better than this somewhat socially outre person, I have to outdo her— but I can’t, because I’m not willing to become a living organ donor— how dare she put me in this position!” So hard to look down on that annoying person in your social group when they genuinely do something admirable. Unthinkable to give her the kudos and simply move on. Your fragile self-concept depends too much on appearing to be the moral authority.
I can’t think of any other reason to feel threatened by someone’s good act; the most obvious motivation is that you’ve so far been sure you outranked her. Larson isn’t in need of an organ donation, but fancies herself as one enough to craft a story for her main character because that’s the only position from which you can really critique the sacrifice of the donor herself. Who else would dare? As a non-recipient, the vast majority of recipients or their friends and family would think you a total asshole for discouraging donation. How convenient then is the world of fiction to engineer your moral alibi. What an imagination.
It would be fun to write a short story about an author character who looks down on another, upwardly mobile author in her friend group to such an extent that she needs to contort herself into an avatar of an organ recipient so that she can finally mock her rival and take her down a peg from a position of “victimhood.” Unfortunately I’m not the talent for it.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:51 PM on October 16, 2021 [23 favorites]
Man, I’m still thinking about this. “Gee, wouldn’t it be great to be the recipient of Dawn’s kidney so I could finally put her in her place?” Too bad you’re not, lady, and you’ve not been in a critically ill person’s position, and it shows.
Nice make believe revenge fantasy, though. Hard to get over how insanely lazy both the plagiarism and the short story itself are, very facile.
posted by stoneandstar at 10:54 PM on October 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
Nice make believe revenge fantasy, though. Hard to get over how insanely lazy both the plagiarism and the short story itself are, very facile.
posted by stoneandstar at 10:54 PM on October 16, 2021 [5 favorites]
And THEN ... remember Celeste Ng, the best-selling author and apparently the Queen Bee of the Chunky Monkeys, a person proven in court to have joined in some of the worst attacks on Dawn Dorland for her "narcissistic" do-gooderism and attention-seeking? It turns out that in 2018 -- years into the kidney donation drama -- Celeste Ng sent out a Twitter thread to her 200,000 followers nakedly seeking praise for a good deed that Ng herself did. [Her publicist probably helped make sure that publications saw it, too.] And it went viral! Over 7,000 likes, almost 1,500 retweets, and lots of articles such as these:
Woman’s Story Of Helping Elderly Stranger On Sidewalk Will Touch Your Heart.
Writer's heart-wrenching story about helping a stranger is a reminder to look out for the elderly.
What did Celeste Ng do that was so amazing and clearly better than Dawn Dorland's kidney donation? She saw a woman sitting on a sidewalk, and helped her to her feet. And gave her a ride to her home 3 blocks away. That's it. In her own words:
I helped her to her feet and then I got her into my car and drove her back to where she lived. (A senior center, about 3 blocks away.)
But wait -- there's more! This next tweet got 2.9K likes:
Also, this is 2 days in a row that I have assisted an elderly lady in Cambridge. Seniors of Cambridge: I am at your service!
posted by msalt at 11:00 PM on October 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
Woman’s Story Of Helping Elderly Stranger On Sidewalk Will Touch Your Heart.
Writer's heart-wrenching story about helping a stranger is a reminder to look out for the elderly.
What did Celeste Ng do that was so amazing and clearly better than Dawn Dorland's kidney donation? She saw a woman sitting on a sidewalk, and helped her to her feet. And gave her a ride to her home 3 blocks away. That's it. In her own words:
I helped her to her feet and then I got her into my car and drove her back to where she lived. (A senior center, about 3 blocks away.)
But wait -- there's more! This next tweet got 2.9K likes:
Also, this is 2 days in a row that I have assisted an elderly lady in Cambridge. Seniors of Cambridge: I am at your service!
posted by msalt at 11:00 PM on October 16, 2021 [13 favorites]
I don't know how many people are still checking this thread, but I've been looking for the NYT to print letters responding to Bad Art Friend, and so far, I've found nothing. This seems really weird to me. I had wondered if they were saving them all for their big Sunday issue, but nothing today either.
Do let me know if I'm wrong.
posted by FencingGal at 10:25 AM on October 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
Do let me know if I'm wrong.
posted by FencingGal at 10:25 AM on October 17, 2021 [3 favorites]
What did Celeste Ng do that was so amazing and clearly better than Dawn Dorland's kidney donation? She saw a woman sitting on a sidewalk, and helped her to her feet. And gave her a ride to her home 3 blocks away.
Maybe she meant to send it to a small private Twitter group.
posted by FencingGal at 10:26 AM on October 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
Maybe she meant to send it to a small private Twitter group.
posted by FencingGal at 10:26 AM on October 17, 2021 [10 favorites]
stoneandstar: "Unthinkable to give her the kudos and simply move on. Your fragile self-concept depends too much on appearing to be the moral authority. "
Strongly agree. There's no way to compete on selflessness with a kidney donation, so to preserve the sense of self-worth you have to hate, ostracize, and interpret the donation as somehow selfish (here the white savior narrative is invoked, no matter how badly it fits the actual facts of the case).
I thought this piece on virtue signaling among the Chunky Monkeys was interesting.
posted by crazy with stars at 12:37 PM on October 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
Strongly agree. There's no way to compete on selflessness with a kidney donation, so to preserve the sense of self-worth you have to hate, ostracize, and interpret the donation as somehow selfish (here the white savior narrative is invoked, no matter how badly it fits the actual facts of the case).
I thought this piece on virtue signaling among the Chunky Monkeys was interesting.
posted by crazy with stars at 12:37 PM on October 17, 2021 [6 favorites]
I've been looking for the NYT to print letters responding to Bad Art Friend, and so far, I've found nothing. This seems really weird to me.
Not weird at all -- the piece was in the magazine, which has its own print-only letters column. There's usually a two-week lag between the issue a piece appears in and the issue in which the responses are published.
posted by neroli at 4:19 PM on October 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Not weird at all -- the piece was in the magazine, which has its own print-only letters column. There's usually a two-week lag between the issue a piece appears in and the issue in which the responses are published.
posted by neroli at 4:19 PM on October 17, 2021 [1 favorite]
Thanks neroli. I didn't realize it was two weeks.
posted by FencingGal at 4:28 PM on October 17, 2021
posted by FencingGal at 4:28 PM on October 17, 2021
I thought this piece on virtue signaling among the Chunky Monkeys was interesting.
The thoughts on virtue signaling were indeed interesting, but it's hard at this point for me to read people who start off with the idea that Dorland started a Facebook group to seek praise. If you're interested in this topic enough to write about it, it seems to me you should have looked into it enough to know that the NYT really misrepresented pretty much everything about Dorland.
posted by FencingGal at 4:47 PM on October 17, 2021 [11 favorites]
The thoughts on virtue signaling were indeed interesting, but it's hard at this point for me to read people who start off with the idea that Dorland started a Facebook group to seek praise. If you're interested in this topic enough to write about it, it seems to me you should have looked into it enough to know that the NYT really misrepresented pretty much everything about Dorland.
posted by FencingGal at 4:47 PM on October 17, 2021 [11 favorites]
This whole thing reminds me of the treatment of Garry/Jerry/Larry in Parks and Rec.
Dawn is Jerry. The Chunky Monkeys are the Parks and Rec staff, trying to convince themselves that Jerry "is asking for it" by being...who knows. Jerry is completely unobjectionable and in fact not only goodhearted but also very talented; at the same time, inexplicably, he's also the office scapegoat, so the other characters' treatment of him comes off as pretty despicable.
The author of this article, Charlotte Howell, argues that the true comedy function of Jerry in Parks and Rec is to make the audience laugh at the "delusional" way the other characters regard Jerry and go to such lengths to mock him, which just makes us realize how terrible they are:
And it's all played out on a very large, very public scale. Just as Jerry isn't really the ridiculous butt of P & R, Dawn is not Twitter's Main Character: it's the Chunky Monkeys themselves.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 5:04 PM on October 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
Dawn is Jerry. The Chunky Monkeys are the Parks and Rec staff, trying to convince themselves that Jerry "is asking for it" by being...who knows. Jerry is completely unobjectionable and in fact not only goodhearted but also very talented; at the same time, inexplicably, he's also the office scapegoat, so the other characters' treatment of him comes off as pretty despicable.
The author of this article, Charlotte Howell, argues that the true comedy function of Jerry in Parks and Rec is to make the audience laugh at the "delusional" way the other characters regard Jerry and go to such lengths to mock him, which just makes us realize how terrible they are:
...if I both pity and empathize with Jerry, why do I laugh when others taunt him? The key point...is that I am laughing at the characters mocking Jerry, not really at Jerry. Though I may laugh at a good Jerry pratfall or an inopportunely timed fart, the true deep mine of comedy is the increasingly ludicrous levels the staff goes to justify Jerry’s awfulness. The funniest parts of the following clip are not Jerry’s mishaps but instead the reaction shots, especially Donna’s unbridled joy at Jerry’s split pants.Reading this whole thread and everything that has come out about Dawn Dorland and the Chunky Monkeys has made it clear that--like the Parks and Rec staff who make fun of Jerry while unaware of their own ridiculous shortcomings--the Chunky Monkeys are the ones who do all the things they've accused Dawn of: acting one way in public and another in private, doing things for the applause, being annoying and unselfaware and doubling down when called on their behaviour.
The comedy, in my mind, truly lies in the delusions of the other characters, their stubborn blindness to any of Jerry’s actual achievements in favor of maintaining Jerry as the butt of all jokes. They choose to focus on Jerry as the guy who said “murinal” instead of the guy who created a beautiful–in both sentiment and execution–mural idea. But far funnier than a slip of the tongue is the other characters’ refusal to let such a minimal joke die. They are the joke. Jerry’s just the poor schlemiel/schlemazl who instigates the joke.
And it's all played out on a very large, very public scale. Just as Jerry isn't really the ridiculous butt of P & R, Dawn is not Twitter's Main Character: it's the Chunky Monkeys themselves.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 5:04 PM on October 17, 2021 [9 favorites]
Isn’t Traldi’s point that he’s from a lower social class, but isn’t now? Otherwise he wouldn’t have had to learn the conventions…
I don’t agree with parts of his article or his opinions in general (I see him around Twitter) but it has been the case for me and several of my friends that overestimating how much the upper middle class actually cares about the causes they posture about is an easy mistake, if you didn’t grow up in that milieu.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:41 PM on October 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
I don’t agree with parts of his article or his opinions in general (I see him around Twitter) but it has been the case for me and several of my friends that overestimating how much the upper middle class actually cares about the causes they posture about is an easy mistake, if you didn’t grow up in that milieu.
posted by stoneandstar at 5:41 PM on October 17, 2021 [7 favorites]
I don't think he's saying he's a hick literally. I think he's saying that entering the world of Performative Wokeness and expecting earnest attempts to do good is analogous to a hayseed coming to Times Square and saying, "well gorsh, it's so nice all these beautiful women want to be friends with me!"
posted by goingonit at 7:25 AM on October 18, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by goingonit at 7:25 AM on October 18, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yea, I’m not sure what a “hick” is exactly but here it clearly stands for “someone naive to the performative liberal arts activism game.” I remember attending my first on campus feminist group meeting in college and all the attendant self-doubt and disappointment. I doubt Dorland was really so naive to it, though, it sounds like she’d been in those circles for a long time.
But I find performative class identity as annoying as any other type of performative identity (ask me how I know) and I’m not much of a fan of his and it’s probably not worth getting in the middle of an elite slapfest over.
posted by stoneandstar at 8:11 AM on October 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
But I find performative class identity as annoying as any other type of performative identity (ask me how I know) and I’m not much of a fan of his and it’s probably not worth getting in the middle of an elite slapfest over.
posted by stoneandstar at 8:11 AM on October 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
No hard feelings, but I was the “hick” in both senses and I don’t need the experience explained to me by Traldi or adjucated by you. It’s not your identity.
posted by stoneandstar at 12:19 PM on October 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by stoneandstar at 12:19 PM on October 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
Has anyone done a really comprehensive write-up of all the things the NYT got wrong, and the stuff that's been unearthed in the last week? Michael Hobbes' piece upthread is pretty good but misses some key pieces (no shade to him, there's a LOT). I shared this story somewhat glibly in a group when it came out and I'd love to be able to come back and be like "oops, I got it all wrong" without having to send people to a bunch of twitter threads.
Maybe not as comprehensive as you'd like (it stops when the lawsuits are filed, and thus doesn't get to the part where Larson is still lying about copying Dorland's letter in her affidavits), but I think this article by Desiree Miranda on Medium covers a lot of what Kolker missed, in chronological order. (Archive link for those who can't access the article on Medium).
posted by creepygirl at 3:38 PM on October 18, 2021 [5 favorites]
Maybe not as comprehensive as you'd like (it stops when the lawsuits are filed, and thus doesn't get to the part where Larson is still lying about copying Dorland's letter in her affidavits), but I think this article by Desiree Miranda on Medium covers a lot of what Kolker missed, in chronological order. (Archive link for those who can't access the article on Medium).
posted by creepygirl at 3:38 PM on October 18, 2021 [5 favorites]
I really hope that Dawn is being surrounded by safety and love and affirmation right now. Practically, too. When those-seen-as-less-than-people speak up about poor treatment some *literally try to kill us.*
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:30 AM on October 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by The Last Sockpuppet at 4:30 AM on October 19, 2021 [8 favorites]
So Kolker’s written a short article about his article. One thing it really cleared up for me is that he feels like the whole thing was small potatoes, and that the “mystery” is how it ended up in federal court. From the start, he’s just seen it as a both sides situation where Larson and Dorland are equally to blame.
I think this blinded him in some really crucial ways. This tweet thread lays out how Kolker completely misrepresented Dorland’s other lawsuit. I think he got so caught up in his frame, that he couldn’t focus on what lay outside of it.
For what it’s worth, I think he was I’ll served by his editor, who should’ve been able to think things through from a different point of view, but didn’t.
posted by Kattullus at 11:36 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think this blinded him in some really crucial ways. This tweet thread lays out how Kolker completely misrepresented Dorland’s other lawsuit. I think he got so caught up in his frame, that he couldn’t focus on what lay outside of it.
For what it’s worth, I think he was I’ll served by his editor, who should’ve been able to think things through from a different point of view, but didn’t.
posted by Kattullus at 11:36 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
If he thought the whole thing was small potatoes then...
posted by kevinbelt at 11:38 AM on October 20, 2021
posted by kevinbelt at 11:38 AM on October 20, 2021
From the latest NYT: "I saw two separate, completely conflicting stories take shape: Ms. Dorland’s version, in which her selfless act was warped and co-opted by someone she thought was a friend; and Ms. Larson’s, in which she found herself publicly harassed by someone intent on claiming ownership of a thing she alone created.
In revisions, my editor and I decided to emphasize the two points of view by alternating perspectives: Readers would spend a little time in Ms. Dorland’s shoes, then Ms. Larson’s, and back and forth again. The point wasn’t to frustrate readers as much as to invite them to identify with both sides. I set out to show in great detail how Ms. Dorland and Ms. Larson each felt justified in her actions — which set them on a collision course."
I don't think I identify with either...more like "oh good god, you acted badly" and "oh good god, you acted badly."
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:12 PM on October 20, 2021
In revisions, my editor and I decided to emphasize the two points of view by alternating perspectives: Readers would spend a little time in Ms. Dorland’s shoes, then Ms. Larson’s, and back and forth again. The point wasn’t to frustrate readers as much as to invite them to identify with both sides. I set out to show in great detail how Ms. Dorland and Ms. Larson each felt justified in her actions — which set them on a collision course."
I don't think I identify with either...more like "oh good god, you acted badly" and "oh good god, you acted badly."
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:12 PM on October 20, 2021
Why did Kolker write that? It doesn’t say anything! Semantic content = null
posted by bq at 1:01 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by bq at 1:01 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
Seems like a bunch of folks in the NYT comments feel that Kolker really did Ms. Dorland dirty by not putting things into context.
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:30 PM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:30 PM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
Lol is this guy serious
At any moment, we all can retreat into our own echo chambers and decide on our own versions of the truth — which can turn any of us into bad art friends.posted by wkndworrier at 2:33 PM on October 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
creepygirl, thanks! That timeline is great.
And after reading through it I think I understand why Kolker's editor wanted him to do something different stylistically - it's really not that interesting a story when told chronologically. It's basically, Dawn gave a kidney, other writers including Sonya didn't like how she talked about it, Sonya wrote a short story about it in which she plagiarized, lawyers got involved, and we don't know yet how this will resolve legally. I can see why the earlier Boston Globe pieces didn't make a splash.
So you have Kolker wanting to show how Sonya was at least as sympathetic as Dawn, and the editor wanting to make it more viral-friendly, and you get ... what we got. Someone, somewhere pointed out that the confusing nature of the chronology and the things left out actually helped it go viral and stay active on Twitter for a longer time than it would have otherwise. This way you get several cycles: the first one where everyone reacts to a skim and says either "god they were both awful" or "Dawn is so cringey," then multiple cycles as people dig into the court documents and reframe things over and over again.
posted by lunasol at 3:05 PM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
And after reading through it I think I understand why Kolker's editor wanted him to do something different stylistically - it's really not that interesting a story when told chronologically. It's basically, Dawn gave a kidney, other writers including Sonya didn't like how she talked about it, Sonya wrote a short story about it in which she plagiarized, lawyers got involved, and we don't know yet how this will resolve legally. I can see why the earlier Boston Globe pieces didn't make a splash.
So you have Kolker wanting to show how Sonya was at least as sympathetic as Dawn, and the editor wanting to make it more viral-friendly, and you get ... what we got. Someone, somewhere pointed out that the confusing nature of the chronology and the things left out actually helped it go viral and stay active on Twitter for a longer time than it would have otherwise. This way you get several cycles: the first one where everyone reacts to a skim and says either "god they were both awful" or "Dawn is so cringey," then multiple cycles as people dig into the court documents and reframe things over and over again.
posted by lunasol at 3:05 PM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
At any moment, we all can retreat into our own echo chambers and decide on our own versions of the truth — which can turn any of us into bad art friends.
"Maybe the real treasure was the bad art friends we made along the way"
posted by thatwhichfalls at 3:11 PM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
"Maybe the real treasure was the bad art friends we made along the way"
posted by thatwhichfalls at 3:11 PM on October 20, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'm commenting very late in the thread, but wow, it's been a fascinating ride, with so many great comments! The twitter account @kidneygate has uncovered many aspects of this case, and directed me to a Reddit writeup of this case here, which I highly recommend if anyone hasn't seen it yet.
Now the story, via the Reddit write-up, has hit Chinese social media, and oh boy, the comments are, by and large, NOT favorable to Larson. Some find Dorland "theatrical" and needy, but many commenters on Weibo find Larson "evil," "backstabbing" and using her influence to undo the good done by organ donors. Here's one of my favorite comments:
啊……生瓜啃完了！然而这瓜的核心与其说是抄袭，不如说是霸凌。一个小圈子里所有人对一个人的霸凌。本质上这个瓜讲的是美丽和谐的乌托邦如何将它的繁荣建立在一个无辜孩子的永恒痛苦之上的故事
In Google translate this reads:
Ah... the raw melon is finished! However, the core of this melon is not so much plagiarism as it is bullying. Bullying of one person by all people in a small circle. In essence, this melon tells the story of how a beautiful and harmonious utopia built its prosperity on the eternal suffering of an innocent child.
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 3:30 PM on October 20, 2021 [15 favorites]
Now the story, via the Reddit write-up, has hit Chinese social media, and oh boy, the comments are, by and large, NOT favorable to Larson. Some find Dorland "theatrical" and needy, but many commenters on Weibo find Larson "evil," "backstabbing" and using her influence to undo the good done by organ donors. Here's one of my favorite comments:
啊……生瓜啃完了！然而这瓜的核心与其说是抄袭，不如说是霸凌。一个小圈子里所有人对一个人的霸凌。本质上这个瓜讲的是美丽和谐的乌托邦如何将它的繁荣建立在一个无辜孩子的永恒痛苦之上的故事
In Google translate this reads:
Ah... the raw melon is finished! However, the core of this melon is not so much plagiarism as it is bullying. Bullying of one person by all people in a small circle. In essence, this melon tells the story of how a beautiful and harmonious utopia built its prosperity on the eternal suffering of an innocent child.
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 3:30 PM on October 20, 2021 [15 favorites]
Love the perspective from another culture!
posted by lunasol at 3:33 PM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by lunasol at 3:33 PM on October 20, 2021 [6 favorites]
...is that an allusion to The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas? Is that story a thing in contemporary Chinese culture? This is a total derail but I am VERY intrigued.
posted by goingonit at 6:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by goingonit at 6:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [2 favorites]
Goingonit, it IS a reference to The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas! I was actually talking to the original commenter on Reddit, and they said they even translated the story into Chinese. The translation can be found here, with an introduction:
最近的“肾瓜”事件（bad art friends, aka, kidney gate）让我第一时间就想起了厄休拉·勒古恩的这篇短篇小说，《离开欧梅拉斯的人》，于是索性把它翻译了贴出来。其实最初发微博说的乌托邦的比喻就是从这篇小说来的，然而似乎只有一个人发现了其出处。当然这篇小说也有其灵感来源，说白了这篇小说是在美国哲学家William James在《The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life》一文中的一个假设的基础上填充内容创作出来的。
比起在Dorland和Larson两造之间站队，我更在意的其实是这个作家团体里的其他作家在事发之前说过哪些话，事发之后又是如何表态。然后，毫不意外地，Larson有她的作家盟友，他们享受着这个小小小小的共同体给他们带来的共同利益，并对同在共同体之内，然而是处在边缘位置/地窖里的那一位经历过不幸童年的成员施以冷漠和恶意，然后在事情爆出之后——用他们作家的笔法去为他们个人的、彼此的或共同的言行、态度辩护——并继续攻击那位地窖里的成员。
你说这些作家——作家诶！说好的“文学就是人学”呢？——真的冷漠如此吗？真的这么没有同情心和同理心吗？反正我认为，不会吧不会吧不至于吧。然而，“这就是交换条件。”一旦有人显露、表达了自己的同情心和负疚感，他们共同的欧梅拉斯之城兴许就会崩塌，保不齐所有人都会变成面目可憎的伪君子。那么有没有离开欧梅拉斯的作家呢？也许有吧，如果有人从头到尾一语不发，那他们就是了。然而现在恐怕城门已经关上了，欧梅拉斯的公民们大概只有两个绝对的选择：要么拯救孩子，要么守住他们的“幸福”。
The recent "kidney gourd" incident (bad art friends, aka, kidney gate) reminded me of this short story by Ursula Le Guin, "The Man Who Left Omelas", so I simply translated it and posted it. In fact, the initial tweet about the utopia metaphor came from this novel, but only one person seems to have discovered its source. Of course, this novel also has its inspiration. To be frank, it is based on a hypothesis of the American philosopher William James in his article "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life".
I was more interested in what the other writers in the group had said before the incident and how they took their positions afterwards than in taking sides between Dorland and Larson. And then, not surprisingly, Larson has her writer allies who enjoy the common benefits of this little community and treat the one member of the community, but on the periphery/in the cellar, with indifference and malice for the one member who had an unhappy childhood, and then - after the story broke - use their writers' style to justify their individual, mutual or common words, actions and attitudes - and continue to attack the member of the cellar.
You say these writers - writers! Where is the promised "literature as anthropology"? --Are they really so indifferent? Are they really so devoid of compassion and empathy? Anyway, I don't think so. However, "This is the quid pro quo." Once someone shows and expresses their compassion and guilt, their shared city of Omelas may crumble, and all of them may turn into hateful hypocrites. So are there any writers who have left Omelas? Maybe, if someone didn't say a word from the beginning to the end, then they are. But now I'm afraid the gates are closed and the citizens of Omelas probably have only two absolute choices: save the children or keep their "happiness".
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 6:33 PM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
最近的“肾瓜”事件（bad art friends, aka, kidney gate）让我第一时间就想起了厄休拉·勒古恩的这篇短篇小说，《离开欧梅拉斯的人》，于是索性把它翻译了贴出来。其实最初发微博说的乌托邦的比喻就是从这篇小说来的，然而似乎只有一个人发现了其出处。当然这篇小说也有其灵感来源，说白了这篇小说是在美国哲学家William James在《The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life》一文中的一个假设的基础上填充内容创作出来的。
比起在Dorland和Larson两造之间站队，我更在意的其实是这个作家团体里的其他作家在事发之前说过哪些话，事发之后又是如何表态。然后，毫不意外地，Larson有她的作家盟友，他们享受着这个小小小小的共同体给他们带来的共同利益，并对同在共同体之内，然而是处在边缘位置/地窖里的那一位经历过不幸童年的成员施以冷漠和恶意，然后在事情爆出之后——用他们作家的笔法去为他们个人的、彼此的或共同的言行、态度辩护——并继续攻击那位地窖里的成员。
你说这些作家——作家诶！说好的“文学就是人学”呢？——真的冷漠如此吗？真的这么没有同情心和同理心吗？反正我认为，不会吧不会吧不至于吧。然而，“这就是交换条件。”一旦有人显露、表达了自己的同情心和负疚感，他们共同的欧梅拉斯之城兴许就会崩塌，保不齐所有人都会变成面目可憎的伪君子。那么有没有离开欧梅拉斯的作家呢？也许有吧，如果有人从头到尾一语不发，那他们就是了。然而现在恐怕城门已经关上了，欧梅拉斯的公民们大概只有两个绝对的选择：要么拯救孩子，要么守住他们的“幸福”。
The recent "kidney gourd" incident (bad art friends, aka, kidney gate) reminded me of this short story by Ursula Le Guin, "The Man Who Left Omelas", so I simply translated it and posted it. In fact, the initial tweet about the utopia metaphor came from this novel, but only one person seems to have discovered its source. Of course, this novel also has its inspiration. To be frank, it is based on a hypothesis of the American philosopher William James in his article "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life".
I was more interested in what the other writers in the group had said before the incident and how they took their positions afterwards than in taking sides between Dorland and Larson. And then, not surprisingly, Larson has her writer allies who enjoy the common benefits of this little community and treat the one member of the community, but on the periphery/in the cellar, with indifference and malice for the one member who had an unhappy childhood, and then - after the story broke - use their writers' style to justify their individual, mutual or common words, actions and attitudes - and continue to attack the member of the cellar.
You say these writers - writers! Where is the promised "literature as anthropology"? --Are they really so indifferent? Are they really so devoid of compassion and empathy? Anyway, I don't think so. However, "This is the quid pro quo." Once someone shows and expresses their compassion and guilt, their shared city of Omelas may crumble, and all of them may turn into hateful hypocrites. So are there any writers who have left Omelas? Maybe, if someone didn't say a word from the beginning to the end, then they are. But now I'm afraid the gates are closed and the citizens of Omelas probably have only two absolute choices: save the children or keep their "happiness".
posted by suburbanbeatnik at 6:33 PM on October 20, 2021 [16 favorites]
Seems like a bunch of folks in the NYT comments feel that Kolker really did Ms. Dorland dirty by not putting things into context.
And the people who don't think that almost invariably start their comments by saying they didn't read the social media posts, then sometimes go on to trash social media.
I'm very disappointed that Kolker even now doesn't acknowledge the bias in his article that social media revealed. It is absolutely crucial to understanding this story to know that the Facebook page Dorland created was private and existed to provide support, that kidney donors are encouraged to create such pages, that Facebook showed her that Larson was reading posts and not engaging, and that, rather than sending a letter to Larson demanding praise, she sent one saying she was welcome to opt out. Leaving those details out is what allowed Kolker to present her as a crazy woman scorned.
I think one reason it's so hard for me to let this go is that it falls into the category of "someone is wrong on the internet." Even when I know I should walk away, I still want to set people straight.
posted by FencingGal at 8:33 AM on October 21, 2021 [14 favorites]
And the people who don't think that almost invariably start their comments by saying they didn't read the social media posts, then sometimes go on to trash social media.
I'm very disappointed that Kolker even now doesn't acknowledge the bias in his article that social media revealed. It is absolutely crucial to understanding this story to know that the Facebook page Dorland created was private and existed to provide support, that kidney donors are encouraged to create such pages, that Facebook showed her that Larson was reading posts and not engaging, and that, rather than sending a letter to Larson demanding praise, she sent one saying she was welcome to opt out. Leaving those details out is what allowed Kolker to present her as a crazy woman scorned.
I think one reason it's so hard for me to let this go is that it falls into the category of "someone is wrong on the internet." Even when I know I should walk away, I still want to set people straight.
posted by FencingGal at 8:33 AM on October 21, 2021 [14 favorites]
One of my favorite takes that sidesteps legality to focus on morality (This tweet was originally about a different writer situation, but fits really well here):
"I don't have a problem with the concept of making art out of someone else's story, but it's clear it was done with glee at humiliating a person the writer didn't like for petty reasons. If you're going to pour pig's blood on someone, don't be shocked if they burn down the dance."
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:40 AM on October 21, 2021 [17 favorites]
"I don't have a problem with the concept of making art out of someone else's story, but it's clear it was done with glee at humiliating a person the writer didn't like for petty reasons. If you're going to pour pig's blood on someone, don't be shocked if they burn down the dance."
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:40 AM on October 21, 2021 [17 favorites]
YES, Lord Chancellor, I saw the same one. Great quote and I totally agree.
posted by Glinn at 10:03 AM on October 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Glinn at 10:03 AM on October 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
that Facebook showed her that Larson was reading posts and not engaging, and that, rather than sending a letter to Larson demanding praise, she sent one saying she was welcome to opt out. Leaving those details out is what allowed Kolker to present her as a crazy woman scorned.
Frankly, that is what put me off Dawn in the first place: thinking, "You are seriously keeping track of whether or not I engage with your page?!?!"
Maybe that's a typical FB thing--I don't particularly like using FB and only do it when I have to so I can't claim to know everything about how it works--but being told by someone, "I'm tracking you and your lack of response to my content" just gave me the skin-crawling heebie-jeebies. Like "back off, I'll read what I want and say something if I feel like it, but don't tell me what to do and that I'm not paying enough attention to you." That was my reflex reaction.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:57 PM on October 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
Frankly, that is what put me off Dawn in the first place: thinking, "You are seriously keeping track of whether or not I engage with your page?!?!"
Maybe that's a typical FB thing--I don't particularly like using FB and only do it when I have to so I can't claim to know everything about how it works--but being told by someone, "I'm tracking you and your lack of response to my content" just gave me the skin-crawling heebie-jeebies. Like "back off, I'll read what I want and say something if I feel like it, but don't tell me what to do and that I'm not paying enough attention to you." That was my reflex reaction.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:57 PM on October 21, 2021 [2 favorites]
Writer Summer Brennan put together two (free) substack posts corralling all the details.
It's pretty depressing because it really makes it look like the Grub Street coterie had a whole thing about observing and mocking Dawn Dorland, like it was their collective hobby in a way that I find difficult to understand given that they are all over thirty. The whole thing reminds me of the sequence in Margaret Atwood's Cat's Eye where the group of girls bands together to track and bully the narrator - the same kind of social bonding and taking pleasure in the drawn-out process of tracking and injuring.
People don't all have to like each other, people can complain on the internet about each other but it is very surprising to me that this kind of, I dunno, folie à however-many situation built up the way it did - over years, apparently, no one ever said, "hey, I'm sick of talking about Dawn Dorland, let's talk about something else". Like, "I'm sick of talking about X, let's move on" is actually a conversation that I've had in groups where there was some social bonding around being annoyed at someone - and the first of those conversations I can remember was when I was in my twenties. People are very often aware that bonding around how much they hate X is bad and stupid and it astonishes me that these writers, mostly successful and pulling in very large advances, didn't have the self-awareness to just, like, flag it and move on. Okay, Dawn Dorland isn't your cup of tea - you just got literally a one million dollar advance for a debut novel, why not console yourself with your wealth and connections?
~~
I add that apparently this little group is a bigger deal than came out in the NYT - not just Celeste Ng but other members get book advances north of $400,000, have their work adapted for TV, etc. The NYT seemed to frame it as "here's this little group of writers all helping each other as they struggle to make it" when it's a lot more like "here's this group of extremely connected, well-compensated writers, one of whom got a one million dollar advance for his debut novel, and they are all hating on this one very thinly published writing instructor with no particular reputation or power.
Lotta fellows would figure hey, it's beneath me to pick on someone with none of my advantages and connections, even if they annoy me a bit.
Also, the emails and tweets in the Brennan pieces are particularly mean and ugly and really suggest that the whole point of picking on Dorland (even if she was legit annoying) was to impress each other with how clever and mean they were being.
What a depressing story.
posted by Frowner at 5:06 AM on October 22, 2021 [26 favorites]
It's pretty depressing because it really makes it look like the Grub Street coterie had a whole thing about observing and mocking Dawn Dorland, like it was their collective hobby in a way that I find difficult to understand given that they are all over thirty. The whole thing reminds me of the sequence in Margaret Atwood's Cat's Eye where the group of girls bands together to track and bully the narrator - the same kind of social bonding and taking pleasure in the drawn-out process of tracking and injuring.
People don't all have to like each other, people can complain on the internet about each other but it is very surprising to me that this kind of, I dunno, folie à however-many situation built up the way it did - over years, apparently, no one ever said, "hey, I'm sick of talking about Dawn Dorland, let's talk about something else". Like, "I'm sick of talking about X, let's move on" is actually a conversation that I've had in groups where there was some social bonding around being annoyed at someone - and the first of those conversations I can remember was when I was in my twenties. People are very often aware that bonding around how much they hate X is bad and stupid and it astonishes me that these writers, mostly successful and pulling in very large advances, didn't have the self-awareness to just, like, flag it and move on. Okay, Dawn Dorland isn't your cup of tea - you just got literally a one million dollar advance for a debut novel, why not console yourself with your wealth and connections?
~~
I add that apparently this little group is a bigger deal than came out in the NYT - not just Celeste Ng but other members get book advances north of $400,000, have their work adapted for TV, etc. The NYT seemed to frame it as "here's this little group of writers all helping each other as they struggle to make it" when it's a lot more like "here's this group of extremely connected, well-compensated writers, one of whom got a one million dollar advance for his debut novel, and they are all hating on this one very thinly published writing instructor with no particular reputation or power.
Lotta fellows would figure hey, it's beneath me to pick on someone with none of my advantages and connections, even if they annoy me a bit.
Also, the emails and tweets in the Brennan pieces are particularly mean and ugly and really suggest that the whole point of picking on Dorland (even if she was legit annoying) was to impress each other with how clever and mean they were being.
What a depressing story.
posted by Frowner at 5:06 AM on October 22, 2021 [26 favorites]
Passive-aggressiveness is a big theme here too. At no point was Larson willing to say directly to Dorland that she found her actions annoying or troubling - and no one else was willing to say this either. Obviously, we don't always want to tell colleagues that we are not friends or that we find them annoying; that's relatively sympathetic. But why, then, build up a whole little circle around mocking Dorland? You don't like her, avoid her if you can't bring yourself to have a direct conversation - Dorland is the subordinate employee, too.
But think of this - what if Larson had published the story and had said to Dawn, "yes, this was inspired by your actions, I find you attention-seeking and I find your behavior really white"? What could Dorland have done, besides ask her to change the wording of the letter? Dorland did not have power here - Larson was her superior at work, Larson had influential friends, Grub Street management itself seems to have been united in its dislike of Dorland. I mean, why not tell her? You're not friends, you actively dislike her, you have a history of running her down behind her back, she can't do anything to you because she can't really sue you for being direct, etc.
I mean, why not just tell Dorland that what is obviously true is indeed true - the story was inspired by her behavior, it is a critical story, Larson feels that Dorland is racist and attention-seeking and Larson did indeed lurk in a private facebook group for material?
If anything, it is kinder to say to someone "I don't like you, I think you're a bad person, we're not friends" than to try to pretend you're friends while building a social life and a professional action around disliking them.
posted by Frowner at 6:19 AM on October 22, 2021 [14 favorites]
But think of this - what if Larson had published the story and had said to Dawn, "yes, this was inspired by your actions, I find you attention-seeking and I find your behavior really white"? What could Dorland have done, besides ask her to change the wording of the letter? Dorland did not have power here - Larson was her superior at work, Larson had influential friends, Grub Street management itself seems to have been united in its dislike of Dorland. I mean, why not tell her? You're not friends, you actively dislike her, you have a history of running her down behind her back, she can't do anything to you because she can't really sue you for being direct, etc.
I mean, why not just tell Dorland that what is obviously true is indeed true - the story was inspired by her behavior, it is a critical story, Larson feels that Dorland is racist and attention-seeking and Larson did indeed lurk in a private facebook group for material?
If anything, it is kinder to say to someone "I don't like you, I think you're a bad person, we're not friends" than to try to pretend you're friends while building a social life and a professional action around disliking them.
posted by Frowner at 6:19 AM on October 22, 2021 [14 favorites]
/I mean, why not just tell Dorland that what is obviously true is indeed true - the story was inspired by her behavior, it is a critical story, Larson feels that Dorland is racist and attention-seeking and Larson did indeed lurk in a private facebook group for material?
If she were to have done that, Larson would have had to have given up her image of herself as “the polite, nice, normal one,” and owned her own dark emotions. That is difficult for many people, and I suspect—and hope, frankly—that having all this pointed out to her is particularly excruciating. I hope the rest of the Chunky Monkeys are similarly ashamed.
I do not want to make excuses for her or anyone else, but one of the lessons I see in this whole story concerns the limited ways that women in particular are allowed to express conflict and dislike. I can’t help but think that if we were encouraged to be more open and honest, these “bitch eating crackers” scenarios would not get so out of hand.
posted by rpfields at 7:23 AM on October 22, 2021 [9 favorites]
If she were to have done that, Larson would have had to have given up her image of herself as “the polite, nice, normal one,” and owned her own dark emotions. That is difficult for many people, and I suspect—and hope, frankly—that having all this pointed out to her is particularly excruciating. I hope the rest of the Chunky Monkeys are similarly ashamed.
I do not want to make excuses for her or anyone else, but one of the lessons I see in this whole story concerns the limited ways that women in particular are allowed to express conflict and dislike. I can’t help but think that if we were encouraged to be more open and honest, these “bitch eating crackers” scenarios would not get so out of hand.
posted by rpfields at 7:23 AM on October 22, 2021 [9 favorites]
"I'm tracking you and your lack of response to my content" just gave me the skin-crawling heebie-jeebies. Like "back off, I'll read what I want and say something if I feel like it, but don't tell me what to do and that I'm not paying enough attention to you."
Except that's not how it went - that's just the impression Kolker decided to give his readers.
This was a small private group. Facebook analytics showed Dorland that Larson was reading every single post in a group set up to support her, but never replying. If Dorland thought this behavior seemed stalkerish, subsequent events proved she was right. Larson was using Dorland's posts to mock her among people she knew and to mine material for a story that was initially written as a take-down of Dorland, even using Dorland's first name for the character in the original version.
And the letter Dorland sent Larson was not "pay attention to me" - that's just how Kolker framed it. She addressed Larson as if she were part of the very real problem that altruistic kidney donors have with their family and friends responding negatively to their decisions to donate a kidney to a stranger. Dorland wrote to tell Larson that it was completely fine if Larson didn't want to be in the Facebook group. She gave her an out. Larson didn't take it because she was mining the posts for her own purposes. Her not engaging ever while reading every post was a kind of voyeurism. It is reprehensible behavior. Dorland's letter to Larson was kind and thoughtful. Kolker just wanted her to look like a nut.
posted by FencingGal at 7:55 AM on October 22, 2021 [14 favorites]
Except that's not how it went - that's just the impression Kolker decided to give his readers.
This was a small private group. Facebook analytics showed Dorland that Larson was reading every single post in a group set up to support her, but never replying. If Dorland thought this behavior seemed stalkerish, subsequent events proved she was right. Larson was using Dorland's posts to mock her among people she knew and to mine material for a story that was initially written as a take-down of Dorland, even using Dorland's first name for the character in the original version.
And the letter Dorland sent Larson was not "pay attention to me" - that's just how Kolker framed it. She addressed Larson as if she were part of the very real problem that altruistic kidney donors have with their family and friends responding negatively to their decisions to donate a kidney to a stranger. Dorland wrote to tell Larson that it was completely fine if Larson didn't want to be in the Facebook group. She gave her an out. Larson didn't take it because she was mining the posts for her own purposes. Her not engaging ever while reading every post was a kind of voyeurism. It is reprehensible behavior. Dorland's letter to Larson was kind and thoughtful. Kolker just wanted her to look like a nut.
posted by FencingGal at 7:55 AM on October 22, 2021 [14 favorites]
I mean, it's probably technically better to ignore the metrics that facebook gives you unless you need to track engagement for professional reasons. But leaving all else aside, it is weird to read someone's private medical health facebook group solely as a lurker in order to gather material and/or make fun of them to your friends. Like, I sometimes have access to medical update webpages for people I don't really like or don't know well who are in my extended social circle and I don't hang out on those pages because medical stuff is private.
posted by Frowner at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 9:52 AM on October 22, 2021 [7 favorites]
If you're going to pour pig's blood on someone, don't be shocked if they burn down the dance.
Once this element of the story emerged I immediately flashed to an older writers' spat where I first encountered a species of it. Back in the mid-1990s when Salman Rushdie was still living under a fatwa, he was involved in a very public back-and forth in the pages of the Guardian with John Le Carre. It centered on a disagreement over free speech and the prerogatives of art (with Christopher Hitchens insufferably weighing in for good measure).
Le Carre clearly understood the horrifying nature of the situation Rushdie faced. But the "pig's blood" remark put me in mind of Le Carre's pithy summation of the matter, which I have never forgotten: "What I do know is, Rushdie took on a known enemy and screamed "foul" when it acted in character." Not a perfect analogy to the Bad Art Friend saga for sure, since Dorland did not terrorize Larson in any way, but among a group of writers who seem committed to the idea Dorland was socially unbalanced shouldn't one of them have had enough imagination to at least consider the possibility she might try to destroy them once she learned what they had done?
Larson's steadfast insistence that she had no obligation to be a decent human being to Dorland (despite the circumstances of her story's origination), and Rushdie's seeming belief that he should be able to write about whatever he likes in a novel without having to consider how others (even one's enemies) might feel about it, may spring from the same well of cultural/class superiority. In any event one obviously doesn't need to support the abhorrent actions of Rushdie's tormentors in order to see merit in Le Carre's argument for the wisdom of considering limits on the prerogatives of art.
Le Carre and Rushdie mended fences some time later, btw. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/12/salman-rushdie-john-le-carre
posted by bks at 11:25 AM on October 22, 2021 [1 favorite]
Once this element of the story emerged I immediately flashed to an older writers' spat where I first encountered a species of it. Back in the mid-1990s when Salman Rushdie was still living under a fatwa, he was involved in a very public back-and forth in the pages of the Guardian with John Le Carre. It centered on a disagreement over free speech and the prerogatives of art (with Christopher Hitchens insufferably weighing in for good measure).
Le Carre clearly understood the horrifying nature of the situation Rushdie faced. But the "pig's blood" remark put me in mind of Le Carre's pithy summation of the matter, which I have never forgotten: "What I do know is, Rushdie took on a known enemy and screamed "foul" when it acted in character." Not a perfect analogy to the Bad Art Friend saga for sure, since Dorland did not terrorize Larson in any way, but among a group of writers who seem committed to the idea Dorland was socially unbalanced shouldn't one of them have had enough imagination to at least consider the possibility she might try to destroy them once she learned what they had done?
Larson's steadfast insistence that she had no obligation to be a decent human being to Dorland (despite the circumstances of her story's origination), and Rushdie's seeming belief that he should be able to write about whatever he likes in a novel without having to consider how others (even one's enemies) might feel about it, may spring from the same well of cultural/class superiority. In any event one obviously doesn't need to support the abhorrent actions of Rushdie's tormentors in order to see merit in Le Carre's argument for the wisdom of considering limits on the prerogatives of art.
Le Carre and Rushdie mended fences some time later, btw. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/nov/12/salman-rushdie-john-le-carre
posted by bks at 11:25 AM on October 22, 2021 [1 favorite]
Frowner, wow! This story had an inevitable "both sides" aspect to it from the original article. Summer Brennan's chronology makes it clear that there is only one bad person here, and that the plagiarism was not just deliberate but cruelly personal. Celeste Ng is one of my favorite writers, but she owes Dorland a huge apology.
posted by wnissen at 12:17 PM on October 22, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by wnissen at 12:17 PM on October 22, 2021 [5 favorites]
From Celeste Ng's tweets, that apology will not be forthcoming unless:
A) the winds massively change inside the writing circle, forcing her to see the active unethical role she played; or
B) that Grub Street investigation reveals enough to bury her too, threatening her future income unless she cops to her role.
But she already has washed her hands of the situation, often using ideas from the initial NYT piece that she herself knows aren't the full truth.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:02 PM on October 22, 2021 [3 favorites]
A) the winds massively change inside the writing circle, forcing her to see the active unethical role she played; or
B) that Grub Street investigation reveals enough to bury her too, threatening her future income unless she cops to her role.
But she already has washed her hands of the situation, often using ideas from the initial NYT piece that she herself knows aren't the full truth.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 1:02 PM on October 22, 2021 [3 favorites]
"Facebook analytics showed Dorland that Larson was reading every single post in a group set up to support her, but never replying. If Dorland thought this behavior seemed stalkerish, subsequent events proved she was right. "
True, but I certainly know a lot of people who read stuff (even my crap) and then don't have anything to say to it particularly. It seems more likely to me that Sonya would have just not been chatty rather than turning out to be mining her for story drama. If I was reading someone's blog/mailing list whatever and then the person contacted me to be all "Why aren't you responding?" I'd be put off. I actually do delete myself off mailing lists and the like where they send me "You clicked on that link and didn't buy it!" emails or "I see that you didn't read my previous email." I know you CAN stalk electronically, but that doesn't make it awesome to nitpick how I engaged or not. Could be for any number of reasons. Most of which probably aren't "I'm mining you for story drama."
"At no point was Larson willing to say directly to Dorland that she found her actions annoying or troubling - and no one else was willing to say this either. Obviously, we don't always want to tell colleagues that we are not friends or that we find them annoying; "
"If she were to have done that, Larson would have had to have given up her image of herself as “the polite, nice, normal one,” and owned her own dark emotions."
Right, all of this. Almost nobody wants to be a direct rude asshole to someone's face even if they totally despise you, and I note that Sonya giving Dawn the cut direct in public after awhile is as far as that went in person. I've had people passively dump me as a friend off and on throughout the years, and almost nobody is going to say to your face what you did to piss them off. Nobody wants to pick a direct fight with someone, which is what being honest and mean to Dawn's face/over email/whatever would have done. I think it would have just escalated the crazy faster here.
I mean, why not just tell Dorland that what is obviously true is indeed true - the story was inspired by her behavior, it is a critical story, Larson feels that Dorland is racist and attention-seeking and Larson did indeed lurk in a private facebook group for material?
If anything, it is kinder to say to someone "I don't like you, I think you're a bad person, we're not friends" than to try to pretend you're friends while building a social life and a professional action around disliking them.
I kind of agree on the "kinder to be blunt and kill it now rather than passively drag it out," but again, if you're honest and blunt about how you don't like a person and why, you're highly likely to kick off a war. Which I bet would have happened here, just faster. Sonya put off the war by several years by being passively polite and lying, but in the end, there was a war.
You know what? Sonya is an freaking idiot for using this letter, putting her story out into the world into multiple locations and having various people publish it, having it put online for free with no paywall, and also SOMEBODY TAGGED THEM ALL ON FB, blah de blah...what the hell did she think was going to happen WHEN, not IF, Dawn found out? The straight up plagiarism makes her lose all plausible "it's fiction inspired by your situation!" denial.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:55 PM on October 22, 2021 [5 favorites]
True, but I certainly know a lot of people who read stuff (even my crap) and then don't have anything to say to it particularly. It seems more likely to me that Sonya would have just not been chatty rather than turning out to be mining her for story drama. If I was reading someone's blog/mailing list whatever and then the person contacted me to be all "Why aren't you responding?" I'd be put off. I actually do delete myself off mailing lists and the like where they send me "You clicked on that link and didn't buy it!" emails or "I see that you didn't read my previous email." I know you CAN stalk electronically, but that doesn't make it awesome to nitpick how I engaged or not. Could be for any number of reasons. Most of which probably aren't "I'm mining you for story drama."
"At no point was Larson willing to say directly to Dorland that she found her actions annoying or troubling - and no one else was willing to say this either. Obviously, we don't always want to tell colleagues that we are not friends or that we find them annoying; "
"If she were to have done that, Larson would have had to have given up her image of herself as “the polite, nice, normal one,” and owned her own dark emotions."
Right, all of this. Almost nobody wants to be a direct rude asshole to someone's face even if they totally despise you, and I note that Sonya giving Dawn the cut direct in public after awhile is as far as that went in person. I've had people passively dump me as a friend off and on throughout the years, and almost nobody is going to say to your face what you did to piss them off. Nobody wants to pick a direct fight with someone, which is what being honest and mean to Dawn's face/over email/whatever would have done. I think it would have just escalated the crazy faster here.
I mean, why not just tell Dorland that what is obviously true is indeed true - the story was inspired by her behavior, it is a critical story, Larson feels that Dorland is racist and attention-seeking and Larson did indeed lurk in a private facebook group for material?
If anything, it is kinder to say to someone "I don't like you, I think you're a bad person, we're not friends" than to try to pretend you're friends while building a social life and a professional action around disliking them.
I kind of agree on the "kinder to be blunt and kill it now rather than passively drag it out," but again, if you're honest and blunt about how you don't like a person and why, you're highly likely to kick off a war. Which I bet would have happened here, just faster. Sonya put off the war by several years by being passively polite and lying, but in the end, there was a war.
You know what? Sonya is an freaking idiot for using this letter, putting her story out into the world into multiple locations and having various people publish it, having it put online for free with no paywall, and also SOMEBODY TAGGED THEM ALL ON FB, blah de blah...what the hell did she think was going to happen WHEN, not IF, Dawn found out? The straight up plagiarism makes her lose all plausible "it's fiction inspired by your situation!" denial.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:55 PM on October 22, 2021 [5 favorites]
I know you CAN stalk electronically, but that doesn't make it awesome to nitpick how I engaged or not.
With respect, it feels like you are committed to keeping some of the blame for these events on Dawn Dorland. People have been trying to explain to you that this was a specific kind of private, invite-only group where the most minimal of expectations would be of kindness during a difficult time for Dawn. But not required kindness! If Larson did not want to be in this specific, private Facebook group, she was told in a very reasonable way that she did not have to stay in it. She was NOT sent a message that said, "Why aren't you commenting on my posts when I see you are reading them all?" - despite the implication she did from the biased Times reporter.
(described in this comment by hades)
You're free to infer, as I'm sure the author of the piece wants you to, that Dorland emailed Larson to find out why Larson hadn't interacted with her posts about the donation. Maybe that's true. But it's not what the piece says. We don't know what the content or intent of Dorland's initial mail to Larson was. What we're given is that Dorland mailed Larson a month after her surgery, Larson wrote back and asked her "how have you been", and then Dorland brought up the kidney donation.
Anyway. I have to admit I am continually checking for updates on this story. Are the mean girls going to get away with this? What about Grub Street higher ups who participated in various unethical ways? How will the lawsuits play out? Will any additional apologies be forthcoming or, as I am beginning to suspect with a sickening dread, will (Becky Tuch) the lone soul who renounced the bullshit, be the only one with negative career fallout?
posted by Glinn at 2:56 PM on October 22, 2021 [11 favorites]
With respect, it feels like you are committed to keeping some of the blame for these events on Dawn Dorland. People have been trying to explain to you that this was a specific kind of private, invite-only group where the most minimal of expectations would be of kindness during a difficult time for Dawn. But not required kindness! If Larson did not want to be in this specific, private Facebook group, she was told in a very reasonable way that she did not have to stay in it. She was NOT sent a message that said, "Why aren't you commenting on my posts when I see you are reading them all?" - despite the implication she did from the biased Times reporter.
(described in this comment by hades)
You're free to infer, as I'm sure the author of the piece wants you to, that Dorland emailed Larson to find out why Larson hadn't interacted with her posts about the donation. Maybe that's true. But it's not what the piece says. We don't know what the content or intent of Dorland's initial mail to Larson was. What we're given is that Dorland mailed Larson a month after her surgery, Larson wrote back and asked her "how have you been", and then Dorland brought up the kidney donation.
Anyway. I have to admit I am continually checking for updates on this story. Are the mean girls going to get away with this? What about Grub Street higher ups who participated in various unethical ways? How will the lawsuits play out? Will any additional apologies be forthcoming or, as I am beginning to suspect with a sickening dread, will (Becky Tuch) the lone soul who renounced the bullshit, be the only one with negative career fallout?
posted by Glinn at 2:56 PM on October 22, 2021 [11 favorites]
I don't expect Ng is going to have fallout that will affect her career. Larson may appear to, but only because she's on a rung of the career ladder that people fall off a lot anyway. And I think it's likely that Ng will give her a hand up as it's needed. In a year or two, most people will have forgotten about this or simply absorbed the idea that it's Dorland's fault from the beginning.
Writing groups, though. I've been in several, and always found them worth the time on some level, but the potential for these kinds of toxic developments always seems to be there. Maybe it's the degree of vulnerability one can feel? The degree of curiosity and jealousy and speculation about how much biographical reality there is in the work we share?
posted by BibiRose at 8:17 AM on October 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
Writing groups, though. I've been in several, and always found them worth the time on some level, but the potential for these kinds of toxic developments always seems to be there. Maybe it's the degree of vulnerability one can feel? The degree of curiosity and jealousy and speculation about how much biographical reality there is in the work we share?
posted by BibiRose at 8:17 AM on October 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
Writer Summer Brennan put together two (free) substack posts corralling all the details.
That's a great set of posts, but unfortunately, Brennan appears to have taken her images from Kidneygate without providing attribution (ironic, huh?). The Kidneygate writer sent Brennan a PM asking for attribution, but Brennan blocked her and then claimed that Kidneygate had threatened her. See the thread here.
My list of authors I will never read again after this mess is getting really, really long, and Brennan is now on it (and will remain there unless more unreliable info comes to light - but the screenshots are damning).
posted by FencingGal at 9:24 AM on October 23, 2021 [4 favorites]
That's a great set of posts, but unfortunately, Brennan appears to have taken her images from Kidneygate without providing attribution (ironic, huh?). The Kidneygate writer sent Brennan a PM asking for attribution, but Brennan blocked her and then claimed that Kidneygate had threatened her. See the thread here.
My list of authors I will never read again after this mess is getting really, really long, and Brennan is now on it (and will remain there unless more unreliable info comes to light - but the screenshots are damning).
posted by FencingGal at 9:24 AM on October 23, 2021 [4 favorites]
jenfullmoon:
Based on the engagement seen in screenshots from the facebook group, it also seems like it would be very easy to notice if someone was weirdly active in checking updates to the group despite never commenting (DD alleges in one of the documents that SL literally viewed every single post by her or others in the group).
posted by wkndworrier at 11:27 AM on October 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
"Facebook analytics showed Dorland that Larson was reading every single post in a group set up to support her, but never replying. If Dorland thought this behavior seemed stalkerish, subsequent events proved she was right. "Characterizing the initial message as nitpicking about engagement or motivated by suspicion that SL was mining her posts for content isn't really consistent with my understanding of the nature of her initial message. It sounded like it was more of a temperature check based on what DD said to Gawker in combination with something I saw described in one of the court docs. I can't remember enough specifics to locate the latter rn, but here's the context she provided Gawker:
True, but I certainly know a lot of people who read stuff (even my crap) and then don't have anything to say to it particularly. It seems more likely to me that Sonya would have just not been chatty rather than turning out to be mining her for story drama. If I was reading someone's blog/mailing list whatever and then the person contacted me to be all "Why aren't you responding?" I'd be put off . . . I know you CAN stalk electronically, but that doesn't make it awesome to nitpick how I engaged or not. Could be for any number of reasons. Most of which probably aren't "I'm mining you for story drama."
Context for my 2015 email to Sonya Larson in “Who is the Bad Art Friend?” (germane to both articles): In 2015 I disclosed my kidney donation to Sonya Larson because I trusted her, adding her to a private/secret Facebook group that I convened for about two dozen far-flung friends and family ahead of my kidney retrieval surgery in June. My purpose was to have support as I prepared for my donor nephrectomy, and to provide information, FAQ-like, for this small group to whom I’d disclosed medical information. Ahead of my surgery, metrics within the Facebook group interface were automatically telling me (under each post) that Sonya was consuming all of the material, but she was otherwise not engaging with me or the group. I was focused at this time on preparing for my surgery, which was scheduled more quickly than my team at UCLA had anticipated. I thought I’d allow Sonya room to have whatever reaction she was having—I got some weird reactions!—and I wasn’t sure what that Facebook metric actually meant, so I didn’t jump to any conclusions. But Sonya’s behavior was unique in the group, and it started to worry me a little in July after I had recovered from surgery. Ahead of my posting publicly about my donation as an advocate, six weeks later in August, I reached out to Sonya to gauge what was going on. My private/secret Facebook group was, ultimately, a place where I shared private medical information with a group of people whom I thought I could trust. It was also the only place I shared my letter to the recipient at the end of my donation chain, the copyright of which is at the center of this dispute.I read something about how non-directed kidney donors actually can experience strain in their relationships as a result of their decision to donate a kidney to a stranger which got me curious about that so I looked into it a bit a couple weeks back and came away with the impression that it didn't seem unreasonable for DD to worry that something was amiss if SL's behavior was unique in the group as she suggests. (I put some screenshots from some journal articles I read on the topic in an imgur album here if interested).
Based on the engagement seen in screenshots from the facebook group, it also seems like it would be very easy to notice if someone was weirdly active in checking updates to the group despite never commenting (DD alleges in one of the documents that SL literally viewed every single post by her or others in the group).
posted by wkndworrier at 11:27 AM on October 23, 2021 [2 favorites]
It sounded like it was more of a temperature check based on what DD said to Gawker in combination with something I saw described in one of the court docs. I can't remember enough specifics to locate the latter rn, but here's the context she provided Gawker:
I've seen the original letter, and I just spent twenty minutes looking for it. I can't find it, but no, it was not asking for praise. That was Kolker's mischaracterization. If that's all you've seen, then you really don't know what that letter was about. Dorland wrote Larson telling her that she should feel free to drop out of the group if she didn't want to be part of it. She said that several people were uncomfortable with her kidney donation, and if Larson felt that way, she understood. If you look at Dorland's other letters to Larson, she bends over backwards to convey understanding of Larson's possible point of view, using the most charitable read possible even when she knew that Larson had written a kidney donation story - but before she found out that Larson had actually plagiarized her words.
She probably didn't realize that Larson was mining her page for story ideas - or she was too polite to say so - but Larson was very much lurking. As a person with a serious illness, I know all too well that there are voyeuristic people who want the information about what might be the worst thing in your life, but don't want to actually offer support. I have pretty much quit talking about my situation to anyone who isn't a close friend or family member (though I do mention it on MetaFilter, where I hope it's pretty much anonymous). It is deeply uncomfortable to feel like you are serving as a spectacle for someone else. It would be very human if Dorland felt that way when she could see that Larson was reading every post, but not ever offering any support (and people who understand Facebook analytics say Dorland did not have to actively seek out this information). It's hard for me to think that Kolker is anything but a terrible person for the way he lied about the content of Dorland's letter - right at the beginning of the article so that readers would read the rest of the piece already thinking of Dorland as the crazy lady.
posted by FencingGal at 1:03 PM on October 23, 2021 [12 favorites]
I've seen the original letter, and I just spent twenty minutes looking for it. I can't find it, but no, it was not asking for praise. That was Kolker's mischaracterization. If that's all you've seen, then you really don't know what that letter was about. Dorland wrote Larson telling her that she should feel free to drop out of the group if she didn't want to be part of it. She said that several people were uncomfortable with her kidney donation, and if Larson felt that way, she understood. If you look at Dorland's other letters to Larson, she bends over backwards to convey understanding of Larson's possible point of view, using the most charitable read possible even when she knew that Larson had written a kidney donation story - but before she found out that Larson had actually plagiarized her words.
She probably didn't realize that Larson was mining her page for story ideas - or she was too polite to say so - but Larson was very much lurking. As a person with a serious illness, I know all too well that there are voyeuristic people who want the information about what might be the worst thing in your life, but don't want to actually offer support. I have pretty much quit talking about my situation to anyone who isn't a close friend or family member (though I do mention it on MetaFilter, where I hope it's pretty much anonymous). It is deeply uncomfortable to feel like you are serving as a spectacle for someone else. It would be very human if Dorland felt that way when she could see that Larson was reading every post, but not ever offering any support (and people who understand Facebook analytics say Dorland did not have to actively seek out this information). It's hard for me to think that Kolker is anything but a terrible person for the way he lied about the content of Dorland's letter - right at the beginning of the article so that readers would read the rest of the piece already thinking of Dorland as the crazy lady.
posted by FencingGal at 1:03 PM on October 23, 2021 [12 favorites]
I'm very late to this, and it seems like the thread is pretty much played out, but it occurred to me that this question: why, then, build up a whole little circle around mocking Dorland? can be answered by a speculation that Dorland wasn't the only writer that they were fixated on, and it's likely that full access to the groups conversations might reveal a number of other writers who were their targets, if not all to the extent that Dorland was.
posted by jokeefe at 10:10 AM on October 27, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by jokeefe at 10:10 AM on October 27, 2021 [13 favorites]
I was a little bummed that in the new episode of Maintenance Phase (about Angela Lansbury's diet book!), Aubrey makes a bit of a throwaway comment toward the end about the "Bad Art Friend thing", but with the original wrong takeaway from it (that Dorland was approval seeking - comparing it to people who have lost weight and talk about it in a way that seems approval-seeking). Maybe Michael Hobbes did not think it was worth re-hashing this topic in that space, but still. It was unfortunate.
posted by Glinn at 9:19 AM on October 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Glinn at 9:19 AM on October 28, 2021 [3 favorites]
So apparently the outside inquiry has done its thing, and the upshot is that Sonya Larson and Alison Murphy have resigned from Grub Street. Artistic director Christopher Castellani, he of “my mission in life is going to be to exact revenge on this pestilence of a person" fame, is apparently not stepping down. I'm actually kind of surprised there were any consequences for Larson and Murphy: I assumed the point of the "outside inquiry" was to absolve all the insiders at Grub Street and claim that the real aggressor was Dorland.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:32 PM on October 29, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:32 PM on October 29, 2021 [10 favorites]
Artistic director Christopher Castellani, he of “my mission in life is going to be to exact revenge on this pestilence of a person" fame, is apparently not stepping down.
Castellani has released a statement which sounds like "I'm sorry you guys are mad at me." with no digging into why his words (which also included a classist dig at postal workers) were problematic.
The members of our group exchanged many emails about the subject, some of which were professional and others of which were clearly not. I wrote some of those unprofessional emails as an admittedly hyperbolic, deliberatively provocative, and highly performative way of supporting my friend and fellow writer.
It doesn’t matter that I never intended my private messages to my writing group to become public. My original intent does not mitigate the impact of my words. What matters is that my comments have evoked a range of negative feelings in members of the GrubStreet community and caused some to question my commitment to our values of mutual respect. Reading them has likely also caused Dawn Dorland personal hurt, which I sincerely regret. Those of you who’ve gotten to know me over the years know that I have built my life and my career on supporting fellow writers; for those of you who don’t yet know me personally, or even professionally, I hope I can earn your trust, as well as your forgiveness.
posted by creepygirl at 12:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
Castellani has released a statement which sounds like "I'm sorry you guys are mad at me." with no digging into why his words (which also included a classist dig at postal workers) were problematic.
The members of our group exchanged many emails about the subject, some of which were professional and others of which were clearly not. I wrote some of those unprofessional emails as an admittedly hyperbolic, deliberatively provocative, and highly performative way of supporting my friend and fellow writer.
It doesn’t matter that I never intended my private messages to my writing group to become public. My original intent does not mitigate the impact of my words. What matters is that my comments have evoked a range of negative feelings in members of the GrubStreet community and caused some to question my commitment to our values of mutual respect. Reading them has likely also caused Dawn Dorland personal hurt, which I sincerely regret. Those of you who’ve gotten to know me over the years know that I have built my life and my career on supporting fellow writers; for those of you who don’t yet know me personally, or even professionally, I hope I can earn your trust, as well as your forgiveness.
posted by creepygirl at 12:00 PM on October 30, 2021 [5 favorites]
The next time I threaten to destroy a subordinate employee with far less wealth and connections than I have, I'm going to describe it as being "admittedly hyperbolic, deliberatively provocative, and highly performative". It's art, dad. When the powerful and important get together to do down the weak and weird, it's because the powerful and important have a really compelling artistic vision, you know.
posted by Frowner at 2:40 PM on October 30, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 2:40 PM on October 30, 2021 [19 favorites]
Looks like the New York Times never did print letters about this . Odd.
posted by FencingGal at 10:58 AM on October 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 10:58 AM on October 31, 2021 [2 favorites]
FencingGal: "Looks like the New York Times never did print letters about this . Odd."
The letters ran in last week's NYT Magazine, at least in the print format.
posted by crazy with stars at 5:42 PM on October 31, 2021
The letters ran in last week's NYT Magazine, at least in the print format.
posted by crazy with stars at 5:42 PM on October 31, 2021
The letters ran in last week's NYT Magazine, at least in the print format.
Thanks, but for some reason I can't read it. I'm a subscriber, and when I log in, it either says my name/password are incorrect or takes me to the online version. I've searched the online site many times looking for the letters, and they don't come up.
I always assumed that everything in the paper was online, but apparently not. Bummer. Anyway, thanks for trying!
posted by FencingGal at 6:33 AM on November 1, 2021
Thanks, but for some reason I can't read it. I'm a subscriber, and when I log in, it either says my name/password are incorrect or takes me to the online version. I've searched the online site many times looking for the letters, and they don't come up.
I always assumed that everything in the paper was online, but apparently not. Bummer. Anyway, thanks for trying!
posted by FencingGal at 6:33 AM on November 1, 2021
The NYT made another correction. The "Corrections that appeared in print on Thursday, Oct. 22, 2021." include:
One basically said it was a powerful piece that "brought up memories of friendships that were destroyed by hurt feelings, confusing responses and a cycle of recrimination. Later, thoughts of 'What if I had handled it differently, spoken up sooner or in a different way?' provoked much thinking, self-doubt and perhaps acceptance." (-Maxine S.)
The other two letters are more like, everything here is complex or both Dorland and Larson are huge pains but both ending with but kidney donation is a very good thing no matter what the donor's motives are.
posted by brainwane at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
A2-A3Also: I used my public library membership to go to a paywalled news database to access the bits of the New York Times print edition (including the letters page within the Magazine) that digital-only subscribers evidently cannot see. There are three letters about "Bad Art Friend" in the October 24th issue.
An article on Wednesday about the reporting behind the The New York Times Magazine article "Who Is the Bad Art Friend?" referred imprecisely to a letter Dawn Dorland had written about her kidney donation and posted to a Facebook group. She wrote the letter to the person at the end of the surgical chain, not directly to the organ recipient.
One basically said it was a powerful piece that "brought up memories of friendships that were destroyed by hurt feelings, confusing responses and a cycle of recrimination. Later, thoughts of 'What if I had handled it differently, spoken up sooner or in a different way?' provoked much thinking, self-doubt and perhaps acceptance." (-Maxine S.)
The other two letters are more like, everything here is complex or both Dorland and Larson are huge pains but both ending with but kidney donation is a very good thing no matter what the donor's motives are.
posted by brainwane at 7:12 AM on November 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Thank you brainwane.
I was mostly just curious about what kind of letters the NYT would print - whether they'd go with anything that showed how much the article misrepresented Dorland. Looks like they're not going to give anyone space outside of comments to question the narrative they decided to go for - the pretense that the article is somehow "balanced" when it's clearly an unwarranted hit piece on Dorland.
I guess that's what you get when the powers that be don't consider you a real writer.
(The one good thing that's come out personally for me is I've been thinking more about what it means to be a "good art friend" - I'm now looking for ways to be more actively supportive of my writer friends in what is clearly a more cutthroat world than I fully realized.)
posted by FencingGal at 11:51 AM on November 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
I was mostly just curious about what kind of letters the NYT would print - whether they'd go with anything that showed how much the article misrepresented Dorland. Looks like they're not going to give anyone space outside of comments to question the narrative they decided to go for - the pretense that the article is somehow "balanced" when it's clearly an unwarranted hit piece on Dorland.
I guess that's what you get when the powers that be don't consider you a real writer.
(The one good thing that's come out personally for me is I've been thinking more about what it means to be a "good art friend" - I'm now looking for ways to be more actively supportive of my writer friends in what is clearly a more cutthroat world than I fully realized.)
posted by FencingGal at 11:51 AM on November 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Looking back on this, I feel like the employment issue really changed my mind - when I realized that Larson et al were Dorland's superiors at work and that Dorland could not, in fact, avoid any of them without finding other employment. Knowing that your colleagues and your superiors are making fun of you in really nasty ways behind your back and that one of them has written a story specifically to take you down - that's called being bullied in the workplace and when I have observed it, non-neurotypical people, marginalized people and people with unusual life experience are generally the ones targeted.
If anyone had real responsibility here, it would be Castellani, as far as I can tell the one with the most senior title. Castellani, if anyone, should step down, because Castellani should have shut things down. He in particular should have had the authority and experience to tell people that this was completely unacceptable work behavior. In fact, it strikes me that Larson is the one who is taking the career fall for institutional failure when Castellani - the white guy - totally failed to steer junior colleagues back toward acceptable behavior.
posted by Frowner at 5:50 AM on November 2, 2021 [21 favorites]
If anyone had real responsibility here, it would be Castellani, as far as I can tell the one with the most senior title. Castellani, if anyone, should step down, because Castellani should have shut things down. He in particular should have had the authority and experience to tell people that this was completely unacceptable work behavior. In fact, it strikes me that Larson is the one who is taking the career fall for institutional failure when Castellani - the white guy - totally failed to steer junior colleagues back toward acceptable behavior.
posted by Frowner at 5:50 AM on November 2, 2021 [21 favorites]
« Older The critique of everyday life in 15 seconds. | "The Computronic Program-o-Mat was deeply... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [24 favorites]