How Bad Art Friend Became Twitter’s Favorite Parlor Game
November 18, 2021 6:50 PM Subscribe
Maybe I should clarify that Larson hasn't "admitted" to the plagiarism but rather that it is impossible to conclude, from the evidence, that Larson's use of Dorland's writing in her story was unintentional.
posted by gauche at 7:15 PM on November 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by gauche at 7:15 PM on November 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
I really like journalist Michael Hobbes's take on this whole mishegos. He writes, pretty near the beginning of his assessment, "Kolker's version appears to be chronological, but he withholds crucial information until the third act. ... From my perspective, telling the story in linear time makes it far easier to take sides." I concur.
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:26 PM on November 18, 2021 [25 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 7:26 PM on November 18, 2021 [25 favorites]
Previously on Metafilter
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:06 PM on November 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 8:06 PM on November 18, 2021 [3 favorites]
What i hate being pulled into, emotionally, was the appeals to my racial identity to side with Larsen, even and especially when the inciting copyright/plagiarism incident was, imho, indefensible. Admittedly my baggage is living in a non-west political climate where ethnonationalists keeps using that argument to oppress other minorities as some kind of payback against white people (???), so suffice to say, it didn't sit right with me.
posted by cendawanita at 8:28 PM on November 18, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 8:28 PM on November 18, 2021 [13 favorites]
I really like journalist Michael Hobbes's take on this whole mishegos.
Huh. That just reads like more mush-headed both-sidesism to me.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:39 PM on November 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
Huh. That just reads like more mush-headed both-sidesism to me.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:39 PM on November 18, 2021 [2 favorites]
write story about a stories story gone bad then re-tell story in another story.
posted by clavdivs at 10:18 PM on November 18, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 10:18 PM on November 18, 2021 [13 favorites]
the publication's reflexive need to "balance" both sides
I thought in this case it was actually the writer's need to take the side of the more successful writer.
posted by bashing rocks together at 11:17 PM on November 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
I thought in this case it was actually the writer's need to take the side of the more successful writer.
posted by bashing rocks together at 11:17 PM on November 18, 2021 [4 favorites]
Not this again. I thought we agreed it was assholes all the way down ?
posted by Pendragon at 12:52 AM on November 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 12:52 AM on November 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
The consensus is that Kolker fucked up a fairly simple story of a writer plagiarizing a fellow writer, and then mocking a genuinely incredible thing she did, donating a kidney to a complete stranger.
My personal theory is that Kolker read all the court documents which were full of hate directed towards Dorland, and concluded that there must be a reason for the hate, when as far as I can make out, it was an unhealthy group dynamic among Larson and her friends which led them to fixate on Dorland.
He completely missed the story, and still seems confused about basic aspects, like that Dorland sought low-cost mediation, but that it was Larson who has continuously escalated the legal dispute, egged on by her bad art friends.
posted by Kattullus at 1:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [31 favorites]
My personal theory is that Kolker read all the court documents which were full of hate directed towards Dorland, and concluded that there must be a reason for the hate, when as far as I can make out, it was an unhealthy group dynamic among Larson and her friends which led them to fixate on Dorland.
He completely missed the story, and still seems confused about basic aspects, like that Dorland sought low-cost mediation, but that it was Larson who has continuously escalated the legal dispute, egged on by her bad art friends.
posted by Kattullus at 1:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [31 favorites]
I thought we agreed it was assholes all the way down.
That was my initial take too, but it was the lazy one. The consensus eventually shifted to reading this as a case of specious framing provoking cheap both-side-ism, obscurating fairly clear villains.
posted by sohalt at 1:25 AM on November 19, 2021 [20 favorites]
That was my initial take too, but it was the lazy one. The consensus eventually shifted to reading this as a case of specious framing provoking cheap both-side-ism, obscurating fairly clear villains.
posted by sohalt at 1:25 AM on November 19, 2021 [20 favorites]
This seems to me like an absolutely classic case of don't trust the teller, trust the tale. Kolker wrote a brilliant piece of longform non-fiction journalism. This reflection on it is mediocre. That's a little bit disappointing, but ultimately okay. Bob Dylan's favorite Bob Dylan album is Shot of Love.
posted by sy at 1:43 AM on November 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by sy at 1:43 AM on November 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
What I've really loved about all this - the mealy-mouthed pabulum from Grub Street about how they "didn't live up to their values" and the equally repulsive and pathetic statement from the artistic director who egged his subordinates on to trash talk their colleague. Inexplicably, although Larson has left Grub Street, the artistic director lingers on.
Really, it's the same all over this great nation - the richer, more famous and more connected you are, the less likely that there will be any consequences, and the more likely that you can spout some lying upper-middle-classisms about your "values" that you "didn't live up to", the whole thing in a tone and style that shows that you aren't very sorry at all and in fact think that you're really a splendid person whose values simply are not appreciated by the plebs.
posted by Frowner at 5:38 AM on November 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
Really, it's the same all over this great nation - the richer, more famous and more connected you are, the less likely that there will be any consequences, and the more likely that you can spout some lying upper-middle-classisms about your "values" that you "didn't live up to", the whole thing in a tone and style that shows that you aren't very sorry at all and in fact think that you're really a splendid person whose values simply are not appreciated by the plebs.
posted by Frowner at 5:38 AM on November 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
Maybe I should clarify that Larson hasn't "admitted" to the plagiarism
No, she did. She denied it at first, but eventually did admit to lifting language from Dorland's letter after emails and texts came to light showing just that, including one where she directly says she knows using Dorland's words are wrong but she's doing it anyway.
The previous discussion was pretty stunning to me. I guess it was the framing, but I was astonished that there was any dispute at all as to how shitty what Larson did was. But apparently for some people admitted plagiarism and running a bizarre bullying campaign is morally equivalent to being kind of annoying about donating a kidney.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:44 AM on November 19, 2021 [22 favorites]
No, she did. She denied it at first, but eventually did admit to lifting language from Dorland's letter after emails and texts came to light showing just that, including one where she directly says she knows using Dorland's words are wrong but she's doing it anyway.
The previous discussion was pretty stunning to me. I guess it was the framing, but I was astonished that there was any dispute at all as to how shitty what Larson did was. But apparently for some people admitted plagiarism and running a bizarre bullying campaign is morally equivalent to being kind of annoying about donating a kidney.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:44 AM on November 19, 2021 [22 favorites]
I mean, in a perverse way I've started to have a little sympathy for Larson, since she actually is facing some consequences.
The people who created the culture and the work environment that led to this, they are about as gross as it comes - the people who could actually have said, "hey, I know you don't like Dorland and she can be intense, but she is your subordinate and you have to act professional" or "no, really, you can write the story but you can't literally plagiarize" or "are you sure you aren't putting the worst possible interpretation on her actions because you don't like her" or even "if you don't like someone who has no power over you, maybe just distance yourself from her instead of enacting a campaign of revenge" but instead egged Larson on for shits and giggles.
posted by Frowner at 5:52 AM on November 19, 2021 [24 favorites]
The people who created the culture and the work environment that led to this, they are about as gross as it comes - the people who could actually have said, "hey, I know you don't like Dorland and she can be intense, but she is your subordinate and you have to act professional" or "no, really, you can write the story but you can't literally plagiarize" or "are you sure you aren't putting the worst possible interpretation on her actions because you don't like her" or even "if you don't like someone who has no power over you, maybe just distance yourself from her instead of enacting a campaign of revenge" but instead egged Larson on for shits and giggles.
posted by Frowner at 5:52 AM on November 19, 2021 [24 favorites]
No, she did. She denied it at first, but eventually did admit to lifting language from Dorland's letter after emails and texts came to light showing just that, including one where she directly says she knows using Dorland's words are wrong but she's doing it anyway.
Thank you. It is a bit hard to keep track of who said what and when.
posted by gauche at 5:54 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Thank you. It is a bit hard to keep track of who said what and when.
posted by gauche at 5:54 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
The previous discussion was pretty stunning to me. I guess it was the framing, but I was astonished that there was any dispute at all as to how shitty what Larson did was.
The previous discussion changed over time as more information came to light. This article was brought up in the previous discussion - Kolker seemed to double-down on the idea that he had presented both sides equally when, once you understood the full picture, it was pretty clear that he wrote a hit piece that presented Dorland as the crazy lady who was harassing the "real" artist. I admit that I thought at first that they were both awful, but as I learned more, it became very clear that Larson's actions were utterly reprehensible and that Dorland was guilty of having a personality that some people found off-putting. Also, per Celeste Ng, she wears large hats.
I ended up really feeling impatient with people who got all their information from the Kolker article. He left out some key facts, including that Dorland set up a private group for support during a difficult medical procedure, that Facebook showed her very clearly that Larson was reading all the posts but not offering any support, and that Dorland wrote Larson, not to ask for praise, but to say it was OK if she wanted to opt out of the group (several altruistic donors reported being harassed by people they knew over their donations). Another thing that came out is that altruistic kidney donors are encouraged to publicize their donations in order to encourage more people to donate. Dorland's appearance at a Lakers game, which Larson found especially cringe-worthy, directly resulted in one man deciding to donate a kidney.
posted by FencingGal at 6:08 AM on November 19, 2021 [36 favorites]
The previous discussion changed over time as more information came to light. This article was brought up in the previous discussion - Kolker seemed to double-down on the idea that he had presented both sides equally when, once you understood the full picture, it was pretty clear that he wrote a hit piece that presented Dorland as the crazy lady who was harassing the "real" artist. I admit that I thought at first that they were both awful, but as I learned more, it became very clear that Larson's actions were utterly reprehensible and that Dorland was guilty of having a personality that some people found off-putting. Also, per Celeste Ng, she wears large hats.
I ended up really feeling impatient with people who got all their information from the Kolker article. He left out some key facts, including that Dorland set up a private group for support during a difficult medical procedure, that Facebook showed her very clearly that Larson was reading all the posts but not offering any support, and that Dorland wrote Larson, not to ask for praise, but to say it was OK if she wanted to opt out of the group (several altruistic donors reported being harassed by people they knew over their donations). Another thing that came out is that altruistic kidney donors are encouraged to publicize their donations in order to encourage more people to donate. Dorland's appearance at a Lakers game, which Larson found especially cringe-worthy, directly resulted in one man deciding to donate a kidney.
posted by FencingGal at 6:08 AM on November 19, 2021 [36 favorites]
The previous discussion changed over time as more information came to light.
I think it was more the hallowed MeFi tradition of not reading the article, or not all the way through. The Kolker article contained everything you needed to understand how shitty Larson is (e.g., that Dorland was 100% right about Larson's plagiarism and bullying and there was copious documentary proof of it), but Hobbes is right above in saying that it left those details until towards the end to build up a "both sides" narrative.
posted by star gentle uterus at 6:18 AM on November 19, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think it was more the hallowed MeFi tradition of not reading the article, or not all the way through. The Kolker article contained everything you needed to understand how shitty Larson is (e.g., that Dorland was 100% right about Larson's plagiarism and bullying and there was copious documentary proof of it), but Hobbes is right above in saying that it left those details until towards the end to build up a "both sides" narrative.
posted by star gentle uterus at 6:18 AM on November 19, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think it was more the hallowed MeFi tradition of not reading the article, or not all the way through.
Though I agree that this is the tradition, I did read the article all the way through before commenting, and I still didn't get how shitty Larson was until I started reading the additional information that came up on Twitter.
posted by FencingGal at 6:28 AM on November 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
Though I agree that this is the tradition, I did read the article all the way through before commenting, and I still didn't get how shitty Larson was until I started reading the additional information that came up on Twitter.
posted by FencingGal at 6:28 AM on November 19, 2021 [12 favorites]
I really dislike the phrase "both sides." Someone who is justifiably angry can do things that are unjustified. That doesn't mean that their anger is retroactively "wrong," and their justifiable anger doesn't extend a shield of noble purpose over any/all future actions they could take.
Pointing out that someone who was victimized subsequently did a bad thing is not the same as saying "both sides are at fault."
posted by ®@ at 7:30 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Pointing out that someone who was victimized subsequently did a bad thing is not the same as saying "both sides are at fault."
posted by ®@ at 7:30 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Pointing out that someone who was victimized subsequently did a bad thing is not the same as saying "both sides are at fault."
True, but what's the relevance in the current instance?
posted by Ipsifendus at 7:51 AM on November 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
True, but what's the relevance in the current instance?
posted by Ipsifendus at 7:51 AM on November 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
I think that the original Bad Art Friend article is a pretty good example of toxic bothsiderism in media.
One person stole another's writing, published it multiple times, and then sued the person whose writing she stole when that person let the publishers know it had been stolen. The other person ... donated a kidney and then talked about it with people she thought were her friends.
The gymnastics you have to do to make this into a controversy are pretty impressive.
posted by gauche at 8:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [31 favorites]
One person stole another's writing, published it multiple times, and then sued the person whose writing she stole when that person let the publishers know it had been stolen. The other person ... donated a kidney and then talked about it with people she thought were her friends.
The gymnastics you have to do to make this into a controversy are pretty impressive.
posted by gauche at 8:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [31 favorites]
My first reaction to Larson taking Dorland's Facebook group message and putting it in a short story was that, morality aside, I assumed that was not uncommon. I've been surprised at how definitely it's labeled as legal plagiarism because Dorland didn't publish it as her work. I would expect if you put exact dialogue someone had said to you into a story, there's no way to call that plagiarism. Likewise, if I sent an ex a letter and they put it into a novel anonymously, I would probably call that "taking from life" and not plagiarism. I might be mortified, but I assumed that was the risk of sending a letter to an artist.
Maybe I've been overexposed to the "artists steal" adage, but my initial take on Bad Art Friend was that what Larson did was very mean to Dorland personally, but from a legal/artistic standpoint, presumably fair game. It seems like I'm in the minority, so this is probably wrong and gymnastic. I don't know the case history of publishing other people's letters or social media messages, so I'm interested to hear what makes people think of this as artistic plagiarism rather than taking from life.
posted by little onion at 9:17 AM on November 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Maybe I've been overexposed to the "artists steal" adage, but my initial take on Bad Art Friend was that what Larson did was very mean to Dorland personally, but from a legal/artistic standpoint, presumably fair game. It seems like I'm in the minority, so this is probably wrong and gymnastic. I don't know the case history of publishing other people's letters or social media messages, so I'm interested to hear what makes people think of this as artistic plagiarism rather than taking from life.
posted by little onion at 9:17 AM on November 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
... because she used Dorland's words? semi-private words? And didn't even bother to do that thing that writers do, which is use their craft to... write things?
She didn't, like, make a cut-up out of Dorland's letter, or transform them, or use them to create some point that could only be made with those exact words. She just hated Dorland so much that she wanted to write a story about how much she sucked.
posted by sagc at 9:35 AM on November 19, 2021 [9 favorites]
She didn't, like, make a cut-up out of Dorland's letter, or transform them, or use them to create some point that could only be made with those exact words. She just hated Dorland so much that she wanted to write a story about how much she sucked.
posted by sagc at 9:35 AM on November 19, 2021 [9 favorites]
if I sent an ex a letter and they put it into a novel anonymously, I would probably call that "taking from life" and not plagiarism. I might be mortified, but I assumed that was the risk of sending a letter to an artist.
Nope, this is plagiarism. Your ex owns the physical letter, but you still own the words you wrote. This is why J.D. Salinger was able to block publication of his letters in a biography.
In general, you own your written words whether they are in a letter or a blog post, though there is some allowance for "fair use."
What's shocking to me is that Larson's friend group of professional writers did not point this out to her, but instead encouraged her to plagiarize Dorland. If you make your living with words, you should know the basics of plagiarism. There was a big brouhaha a few years ago when Cooks Source, an online publication, reprinted an online article without the author's permission. The founder of Cooks Source wrote the author a letter stating that everything on the internet is public domain - she was 100% wrong about that, and the controversy resulted in Cooks Source shutting down altogether. Writing and publishing professionals need to know how this stuff works or deal with the consequences.
posted by FencingGal at 9:43 AM on November 19, 2021 [15 favorites]
Nope, this is plagiarism. Your ex owns the physical letter, but you still own the words you wrote. This is why J.D. Salinger was able to block publication of his letters in a biography.
In general, you own your written words whether they are in a letter or a blog post, though there is some allowance for "fair use."
What's shocking to me is that Larson's friend group of professional writers did not point this out to her, but instead encouraged her to plagiarize Dorland. If you make your living with words, you should know the basics of plagiarism. There was a big brouhaha a few years ago when Cooks Source, an online publication, reprinted an online article without the author's permission. The founder of Cooks Source wrote the author a letter stating that everything on the internet is public domain - she was 100% wrong about that, and the controversy resulted in Cooks Source shutting down altogether. Writing and publishing professionals need to know how this stuff works or deal with the consequences.
posted by FencingGal at 9:43 AM on November 19, 2021 [15 favorites]
I'm interested to hear what makes people think of this as artistic plagiarism rather than taking from life.
Would you accept the verdict of Plagiarism Today?
posted by gauche at 9:49 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Would you accept the verdict of Plagiarism Today?
posted by gauche at 9:49 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
While I don’t seem much debate that copying the letter was ethically bad, it likely doesn’t rise to the level of copyright infringement and, even if it does, the damages will likely be so small to make the lawsuit completely not worthwhile.Their verdict seems to be that it wasn't legally
posted by little onion at 10:55 AM on November 19, 2021
I was unfamiliar with this story and caught up on everything last night, including the other MeFi thread. It seemingly starts as classic internet trainwreck drama that just makes you feel gross. But by the end it had transformed into something rather different, and I learned a tremendous amount about neurodivergent experiences, and especially about kidney donation. It also made me do some hard thinking about ways in which I've participated in the kind of hate-following that Larson did. Not to that extent, but still... a call to do better.
I'm glad something positive came out of what was a bad take from the NYT. I found especially moving this thread about what it meant for Dawn to write her letter to the person at the end of her donation chain. Thank you to everyone who shared their experiences.
posted by Emily's Fist at 11:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'm glad something positive came out of what was a bad take from the NYT. I found especially moving this thread about what it meant for Dawn to write her letter to the person at the end of her donation chain. Thank you to everyone who shared their experiences.
posted by Emily's Fist at 11:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [5 favorites]
That's as to copyright, which I believe still survives as a claim in court. So we will see.
As to whether it is plagiarism, they had this to say:
The letter issue, ultimately, is the much easier issue to parse. What Larson did there was clearly plagiarism. She took the words that someone else had written, copied them and used them in her story while presenting them as her work.
That is, in a word, unacceptable.
posted by gauche at 11:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
As to whether it is plagiarism, they had this to say:
The letter issue, ultimately, is the much easier issue to parse. What Larson did there was clearly plagiarism. She took the words that someone else had written, copied them and used them in her story while presenting them as her work.
That is, in a word, unacceptable.
posted by gauche at 11:02 AM on November 19, 2021 [4 favorites]
I still think the most valuable lesson I've learned from this is "Make sure your friends are deleting group texts when you talk shit about people, lest your worst-ever take end up in the New York Times"
posted by thivaia at 11:10 AM on November 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by thivaia at 11:10 AM on November 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
Plagiarism, like many things, can manage to be legally permissible while also being ethically unacceptable.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 11:12 AM on November 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 11:12 AM on November 19, 2021 [7 favorites]
That makes sense, I think I've absorbed the idea—from Richard Prince, the visual art world, the Imagist poets—that artists can basically quote whatever they want. Clearly there are a lot more rules than that! And the key difference is probably that those folks weren't passing it off as their own.
posted by little onion at 11:23 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by little onion at 11:23 AM on November 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
She took the words that someone else had written, copied them and used them in her story while presenting them as her work.
And in doing so, badly misrepresented the process of kidney donation from both the donor and recipient sides, including retaining language from Dorland’s letter that does not make sense in the context of the characters in her story (but does in Dorland’s lived experience, whose private Facebook group seems to be the only source she used to research kidney donation at all).
I'm glad something positive came out of what was a bad take from the NYT.
I fear that seeing someone treated so badly, mocked so mercilessly, apparently just for the act of donating a kidney to a stranger and doing a small amount of public advocacy when asked to, cannot make up for the increased awareness of the donation process and need for donors in terms of changing the already small number of such donations made every year for the better. And apparently looking askance at people who do this sort of extraordinary altruistic giving is really common. People in need of kidney donations may be the biggest victims of this story in the end.
posted by obloquy at 11:31 AM on November 19, 2021 [14 favorites]
And in doing so, badly misrepresented the process of kidney donation from both the donor and recipient sides, including retaining language from Dorland’s letter that does not make sense in the context of the characters in her story (but does in Dorland’s lived experience, whose private Facebook group seems to be the only source she used to research kidney donation at all).
I'm glad something positive came out of what was a bad take from the NYT.
I fear that seeing someone treated so badly, mocked so mercilessly, apparently just for the act of donating a kidney to a stranger and doing a small amount of public advocacy when asked to, cannot make up for the increased awareness of the donation process and need for donors in terms of changing the already small number of such donations made every year for the better. And apparently looking askance at people who do this sort of extraordinary altruistic giving is really common. People in need of kidney donations may be the biggest victims of this story in the end.
posted by obloquy at 11:31 AM on November 19, 2021 [14 favorites]
And apparently looking askance at people who do this sort of extraordinary altruistic giving is really common.
Bryn Donovan, an altruistic kidney donor:
Random people told me I was a narcissist (that specific reaction is very common; it always comes up in the comments sections of articles about kidney donors) and several people told me they hoped I died of surgery complications.
This is why Dorland was advised to set up the Facebook support group of family and friends--to shield her from responses like that from the general public. Sadly for her, some people she considered friends were in the "altruistic kidney donors must be evil and selfish somehow" mindset.
posted by creepygirl at 11:50 AM on November 19, 2021 [21 favorites]
Bryn Donovan, an altruistic kidney donor:
Random people told me I was a narcissist (that specific reaction is very common; it always comes up in the comments sections of articles about kidney donors) and several people told me they hoped I died of surgery complications.
This is why Dorland was advised to set up the Facebook support group of family and friends--to shield her from responses like that from the general public. Sadly for her, some people she considered friends were in the "altruistic kidney donors must be evil and selfish somehow" mindset.
posted by creepygirl at 11:50 AM on November 19, 2021 [21 favorites]
If you’re interested in past episodes of “artists steal”, The Dolphin Letters is a super interesting read. Robert Lowell leaves Elizabeth Hardwick in an abrupt and brutally confusing manner, then incorporates selections from her baffled and angry letters into his next book of poems.
posted by yarrow at 12:46 PM on November 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by yarrow at 12:46 PM on November 19, 2021 [2 favorites]
And apparently looking askance at people who do this sort of extraordinary altruistic giving is really common.
it makes people uncomfortable. I had a friend who was annoyed at me and called it a 'stunt'. They came around after a few months into the process. They talked about how it made them feel insecure and judgemental of them. They realized they'd reacted shittily and apologized. They said they took some time and realized that my actions weren't anything to do with them and to get their head out of their ass. It was nice to have them back, we're cool now.
It was interesting and weird watching the discourse ripple to and fro between favouring the donor and the writer. It's clear the framing of the story is responsible for this ambiguity but I think some of it also comes from a mild general discomfort with the idea of living organ donation.
posted by robot-hugs at 7:05 PM on November 19, 2021 [15 favorites]
it makes people uncomfortable. I had a friend who was annoyed at me and called it a 'stunt'. They came around after a few months into the process. They talked about how it made them feel insecure and judgemental of them. They realized they'd reacted shittily and apologized. They said they took some time and realized that my actions weren't anything to do with them and to get their head out of their ass. It was nice to have them back, we're cool now.
It was interesting and weird watching the discourse ripple to and fro between favouring the donor and the writer. It's clear the framing of the story is responsible for this ambiguity but I think some of it also comes from a mild general discomfort with the idea of living organ donation.
posted by robot-hugs at 7:05 PM on November 19, 2021 [15 favorites]
And apparently looking askance at people who do this sort of extraordinary altruistic giving is really common.
it makes people uncomfortable.
I don't want to say that being vegan is anything like donating a kidney in terms of difficulty, but as a four-year vegan, I think deciding to do something viewed as "extreme" for ethical reasons is always going to make people uncomfortable, and some people deal with that discomfort by attacking the person who made that decision and fixating on that person's ethical lapses (which everyone has), whatever they may be. I don't get overt criticism from my friends (but check the NYT comments on any article related to veganism). What I do get is lots of people telling me why they aren't vegan - even though I never try to convince anyone. Just mentioning it if it comes up seems to be provocation enough. And then there's the constant "don't worry - they'll tell you" joke because if we paint all vegans as obnoxious, we don't have to rethink our dietary choices. And again, really want to emphasize that eating lentils and rice is not like donating a kidney. It's just way more common to be vegan and know vegans, so it seems like a maybe easier window into how this dynamic works.
I mean, if my neighbor decided to take Jesus' words literally and sold all she had to give it to the poor, I might look for her flaws rather than just accept that she's living what I think of as my values way better than I do.
So what we see with Dorland is an extreme version of this because what she did is extreme. She literally put her own life at risk to save the lives of strangers (more than one because of the chain). But gosh darn - she was excited about it and talked about it (though we now know that the kidney organizations want her to). See - she's not perfect? So we can feel OK not donating a kidney because she is just so cringe.
posted by FencingGal at 5:44 AM on November 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
it makes people uncomfortable.
I don't want to say that being vegan is anything like donating a kidney in terms of difficulty, but as a four-year vegan, I think deciding to do something viewed as "extreme" for ethical reasons is always going to make people uncomfortable, and some people deal with that discomfort by attacking the person who made that decision and fixating on that person's ethical lapses (which everyone has), whatever they may be. I don't get overt criticism from my friends (but check the NYT comments on any article related to veganism). What I do get is lots of people telling me why they aren't vegan - even though I never try to convince anyone. Just mentioning it if it comes up seems to be provocation enough. And then there's the constant "don't worry - they'll tell you" joke because if we paint all vegans as obnoxious, we don't have to rethink our dietary choices. And again, really want to emphasize that eating lentils and rice is not like donating a kidney. It's just way more common to be vegan and know vegans, so it seems like a maybe easier window into how this dynamic works.
I mean, if my neighbor decided to take Jesus' words literally and sold all she had to give it to the poor, I might look for her flaws rather than just accept that she's living what I think of as my values way better than I do.
So what we see with Dorland is an extreme version of this because what she did is extreme. She literally put her own life at risk to save the lives of strangers (more than one because of the chain). But gosh darn - she was excited about it and talked about it (though we now know that the kidney organizations want her to). See - she's not perfect? So we can feel OK not donating a kidney because she is just so cringe.
posted by FencingGal at 5:44 AM on November 20, 2021 [10 favorites]
it was so: she's the dork (undiagnosed autism), we're the mean girls; when head mean girl was found out, she cried racism (which is unfair on other PoC because i have literally never seen it before); dork refuses to get over it remains fixated on past. Ffs get a life dork. End. Mainly interesting because of trying to see if 'great artists steal' is true. Mean girl definitely far better writer to be fair
posted by maiamaia at 2:48 PM on November 20, 2021
posted by maiamaia at 2:48 PM on November 20, 2021
i thought it was deliberate, getting you to see it as equal, then revealing that in fact one was legally and morally at fault, to lure you into 'trusting your instincts' to think that the clever, socially successful one must be right and then make you question why you assumed that, why you were biased like everyone else by popularity, success and social skills
posted by maiamaia at 2:52 PM on November 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by maiamaia at 2:52 PM on November 20, 2021 [1 favorite]
Mean girl definitely far better writer to be fair
And this is based on what? People have erroneously said Dorland isn't published; she is. Dorland is working on a novel that we don't really know anything about. The New Yorker absolutely trashed Larson's story about kidney donation (though the writer did praise another work of hers). I can think of few things more mortifying to an up-and-coming fiction writer than having an entire article in the New Yorker devoted to how bad your story is. What we really know about Larson as an artist is that she's great at networking. What is really unappreciated by people still trying to break into the fiction world without the benefits Larson had is just how important networking is.
posted by FencingGal at 3:29 PM on November 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
And this is based on what? People have erroneously said Dorland isn't published; she is. Dorland is working on a novel that we don't really know anything about. The New Yorker absolutely trashed Larson's story about kidney donation (though the writer did praise another work of hers). I can think of few things more mortifying to an up-and-coming fiction writer than having an entire article in the New Yorker devoted to how bad your story is. What we really know about Larson as an artist is that she's great at networking. What is really unappreciated by people still trying to break into the fiction world without the benefits Larson had is just how important networking is.
posted by FencingGal at 3:29 PM on November 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older The Billion-Dollar Torrent | I'm pretty sure there's 3 saxophones in one here Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
So to see this, in the linked article,
"...and, Ms. Dorland maintained, the story used some phrases from a letter Ms. Dorland had written to the person at the end of this surgical chain and posted in a private Facebook group."
is kind of another example of the same thing. Dorland doesn't just maintain that Larson used her letter. Larson talks in emails to her writer friends about using the letter. Her writer friends egg her on because fuck Dawn Dorland, that's why. Like, they basically say that. It's in the public record of the lawsuits. It's not just alleged; it's admitted, in the record, and I feel like the reporter is continuing to feed the controversy by using hedging language about things that are clear.
posted by gauche at 7:06 PM on November 18, 2021 [49 favorites]