Author Antics

[Black Knight]

Having read through the links, I frankly don't think either of the women come off well. Dorland is a glutton for attention, while Larson is two-faced. It amuses me to see each side trying to claim the New York Times piece only makes the other side look bad. Keep telling yourselves that. I wouldn't want to be friends with either of these women.

[MargeGunderson]

2 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Having read through the links, I frankly don't think either of the women come off well. Dorland is a glutton for attention, while Larson is two-faced. It amuses me to see each side trying to claim the New York Times piece only makes the other side look bad. Keep telling yourselves that. I wouldn't want to be friends with either of these women.

I mostly agree with your assessment. But, I wonder if Dorland was more of a hanger-on than really a friend to Larson and the others at Grubstreet. Like she kind of hung out with Larson and the cool kids but she wasn’t really part of their group, but she was the only one who didn’t pick up on that. 

[Black Knight]

Oh, absolutely. Dorland's ultimate realization of that drove a lot of the drama. I'd feel sorry for her about it if she weren't so desperate for attention and, as mentioned by someone above, probably a narcissist. But I also find it hard to feel sorry for Larson because she started this mess with her lack of forthrightness and wanting to hold onto the letter even though she knew from the start it put her in a legally dicey position. Dorland pushed it way too far, but Larson was playing with fire.

[SomeTameGazelle]

On 10/6/2021 at 3:52 PM, MargeGunderson said:

I mostly agree with your assessment. But, I wonder if Dorland was more of a hanger-on than really a friend to Larson and the others at Grubstreet. Like she kind of hung out with Larson and the cool kids but she wasn’t really part of their group, but she was the only one who didn’t pick up on that. 

Dawn apparently sent a bunch of corrections to Gawker about their commentary on the story. In that letter she explains that her Facebook group was private and Facebook showed her metrics about engagement so that she could see that Sonya had viewed posts without reacting to them, which is what provoked her to confront Sonya about her lack of reaction. She positions it that she thought she could trust Sonya and somehow Sonya's failure to click or post made her worried.

I have seen a lot of interesting discussion about this issue and I feel like I am still processing the rights of it. You can't sue someone for not being your friend. You can drop them on Facebook, or leave their Facebook group, or remove them from your Facebook group, or confront them about whether there is any point in continuing to be friends before you take any of these actions.

Sonya was entitled to her own experience of her interactions with Dawn. In my opinion there would not have been anything wrong in using that experience to write her story if she had transformed it sufficiently. I feel like calling it "plagiarism" is not really accurate. Sonya didn't present Dawn's letter on its own as her creation -- the letter was included in her story to show the protagonist's reaction to the letter. And in some published and unpublished versions of the story the letter included verbatim quotes from Dawn's letter.

If this had happened in person, if Dawn had been having a one-on-one conversation with Sonya and Sonya was struck by how she phrased something and put that phrase in a story, would there have been any lawsuit or just hurt feelings? If Dawn had posted a photo that Sonya turned into a meme, would that be the same or different? Do the Facebook terms of use consider that the poster retains the copyright of photos they post or do you give up that right by posting on Facebook? Does it make a difference whether the group is public or private?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Irlandesa]

11 hours ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

If this had happened in person, if Dawn had been having a one-on-one conversation with Sonya and Sonya was struck by how she phrased something and put that phrase in a story, would there have been any lawsuit or just hurt feelings?

There probably wouldn't be a lawsuit because copyright kicks into effect once something is put in a tangible format. So once something is written down or photographed or recorded, it falls under the protection of copyright.

Once Dawn wrote it on Facebook, Dawn has legal protection.

11 hours ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

Do the Facebook terms of use consider that the poster retains the copyright of photos they post or do you give up that right by posting on Facebook? Does it make a difference whether the group is public or private?

I don't know what the current terms of service are but, in the past, Facebook wanted users to allow Facebook to use what is posted in marketing.  But the user retains the copyright.  Facebook can make a TV ad and use someone's picture but they can't put that picture on a tee shirt and sell it. 

And it doesn't matter whether the group is public or private.  You own copyright on what you upload as long as you're the creator. 

Memes are iffier. 

But there are copyright loopholes.  You can use part of someone else's work for the purposes of critique or parody.  You just usually can't use all of someone's work.  If Larson used all of the letter, that may be too far. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Irlandesa

[SomeTameGazelle]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But there are copyright loopholes.  You can use part of someone else's work for the purposes of critique or parody.  You just usually can't use all of someone's work.  If Larson used all of the letter, that may be too far. 

If the letter had been more publicly recognizable, or if the story had credited the source of the letter and framed itself as a fictional reaction to something like it, or if Larson had completely rewritten the letter, I think any of those things would have put her in the clear. I don't think any of the versions of the letter were 100% verbatim, but in the audiobook version it sounds like there was a significant overlap. In the final printed version there were more changes made. It seems to me that the audiobook version is the biggest problem from a copyright perspective.

I can understand and have some sympathy for people talking about other people behind their backs in order to process their own reactions. However I saw some of the chat where one of the group members was in a tizzy because he and his wife had run into Dawn at a small infant play class in California, and he had all kinds of paranoid reactions about whether she might have been there accidentally on purpose, and he worries a lot about how to avoid actually having to be friends with her while still possibly taking advantage of the networking possibilities, and when Dawn completely normally uses the contact information he gave her to provide them with helpful information for getting settled in it appears to send him into a tailspin. It's hard to say how much of it is performative because it was so much the norm for their group to talk about how much they are definitely not friends with Dawn and how much of it is . . . a genuinely paranoid reaction for exactly the same reason? But it doesn't make the group look good.

 

[dubbel zout]

12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But there are copyright loopholes.  You can use part of someone else's work for the purposes of critique or parody.  You just usually can't use all of someone's work.  If Larson used all of the letter, that may be too far. 

There's also fair use, but that can be a gray area. In another life, when I worked in book publishing, I tried to get permission to use two or three lines from Old Possum's Book of Cats, but Eliot's widow, Valerie, and his British publisher, Faber & Faber, had an iron grip on the rights, and I was refused. It wasn't worth the hassle to pursue it, though legally I was on solid ground. (Amusing side note: James Joyce gave the publisher the nickname Feebler & Fumbler for its reluctance to publish Ulysses. Hee.)

This whole story is a clusterfuck. I still can't quite unpack what's going on except that everyone is acting pretty badly and there are a lot of hurt feelings. 

 

[Zella]

I finally read the story, and I agree that they both come off poorly. Dorland actually asking people why they don't talk about her kidney donation was so hilariously tone deaf. I don't think she knew how to read a room, and it does seem like her identity was wrapped up in self-aggrandizement. 

I'm not going to necessarily defend Larson and her friends talking about her behind her back, but as someone who still follows the social media of people I went to college with ten years ago who are super extra and batshit crazy and then compares notes with other people who know them, I'm not going to criticize it either. I know it's a shitty thing to do, but I also feel like when you're making an ass out of yourself on social media, well, people are going to talk.

But I think Larson including the letter in her story and then trying to defend that as some great blow for art, um, no, it wasn't. She didn't owe Dorland a head's up about writing a story about her, but she knew what she was doing when she copied the letter so closely. She could have easily rewritten the letter or conveyed the info a different way, like in a phone call as is even stated in the article. So, then pretending like she was an innocent in that it who is somehow being persecuted for her art was pretty gross. 

They both strike me was really unpleasant people who want to eat their cake and have it too. Dorland wants to be feted for her very public act and can't handle that when you put yourself out there, people are not obligated to like you or praise you. They don't owe you that. But Larson also seems to think that she can be a complete asshole and still get a pass because the person she did it to was annoying. I doubt if someone repurposed her private group chats and inserted them into a story, she would be singing the same tune about authorship. 

Edited October 10, 2021 by Zella

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, Zella said:

But Larson also seems to think that she can be a complete asshole and still get a pass because the person she did it to was annoying.

Yeah.  I read more about this after I posted a bit about the copyright aspect of it all.

Larson and her group were probably right that Dorland was over-the-top and maybe unbalanced.  But they were so certain about it, and that she was doing white savior behavior (although, when I initially read the details of this, I knew nothing about the racial makeup of the participants) that they let themselves get carried away. 

I've seen people say on twitter that Sonya should get sympathy because "everyone knows a Dawn."  The thing is, I know more Sonyas than I know Dawns.  These are people who think someone's behavior is inappropriate and weird (which it might be), lurk on their Facebook pages to have more material to gossip about and make fun of that person behind their backs and when that isn't enough, they poke the bear. They do something they know will cause a reaction in the person they mock so they have fresh material.  And when it backfires or goes further than they intended, they act like an innocent victim. 

Yet the emails that were released from the lawsuits show that the whole group knew exactly what they were doing. 

[Zella]

45 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Yeah.  I read more about this after I posted a bit about the copyright aspect of it all.

Larson and her group were probably right that Dorland was over-the-top and maybe unbalanced.  But they were so certain about it, and that she was doing white savior behavior (although, when I initially read the details of this, I knew nothing about the racial makeup of the participants) that they let themselves get carried away. 

I've seen people say on twitter that Sonya should get sympathy because "everyone knows a Dawn."  The thing is, I know more Sonyas than I know Dawns.  These are people who think someone's behavior is inappropriate and weird (which it might be), lurk on their Facebook pages to have more material to gossip about and make fun of that person behind their backs and when that isn't enough, they poke the bear. They do something they know will cause a reaction in the person they mock so they have fresh material.  And when it backfires or goes further than they intended, they act like an innocent victim. 

Yet the emails that were released from the lawsuits show that the whole group knew exactly what they were doing. 

Yes I would have a lot more sympathy for Larson if she had just ignored Dorland's deranged emails wanting to know why she didn't like her posts. But she instead made the conscience decision to send her smarmy faux friendly emails that humored her about the very topic. 

Edit: I'd also have more sympathy for Larson if she just admitted "yes I was a jerk to her. I thought she was really inappropriate and weird." Trying to turn this into some crusade to hand-wave away what she did rather than owning it, especially when she is admitting it all so forthrightly in the group chats, is not a good look. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Zella

[Mabinogia]

I just fell down the rabbit hole of this hot mess. Wow. I don't think anyone is in the right here. Sad thing is, the whole mess would have amounted to nothing if Larson hadn't pretty much used Dorland's letter very nearly word for word. I think one sentence was changed and a couple words, but otherwise it is VERY clear she used Dorland's letter and I don't blame Dorland for being upset that the character that is very clearly based off her was not a flattering one. 

The story Larson wrote really sounds like "I hate Dawn for bragging about being a kidney donor so I'm going to write a racially motivated story about it". The sad thing is, white privilege is a real thing (I'm white, and I know I have the freedom to exist without fear that people of color do not share) but that message was totally trashed when she decided to base her white privilege character on a real person she knows who seems to be hyper sensitive, obsessive and a bit needy. 

It's also REALLY telling that Larson changed parts of the story after she realized Dorland was aware of it. She clearly knew she'd plagiarized a bit too much of it and was seriously backpaddling. 

Sadly I don't think either of them will learn anything good from this and will continue to think that only the other person was wrong.

[Ms Blue Jay]

Personally I don't care how awkward or tone deaf or "needy" or whatever Dawn is.  I don't get how any of that justifies what Sonya did.  Sonya took her life and tried to profit of it.  She plagiarized letters word for word.  There's just no world where I would take her side.  

How is plagiarism fiction?  Give me a break.  Write about your own life all you want but why do people bend over backwards to say it's okay for so-called "writers" to take from other people?  It's so weird to do it and not own up to it but instead create all of these ad hominem attacks about how it's okay to do it to certain people because you don't like them.

People act weird and awkward around me all of the time.  I don't use that as license to be a dick to them.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Zella]

12 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Personally I don't care how awkward or tone deaf or "needy" or whatever Dawn is.  I don't get how any of that justifies what Sonya did.  Sonya took her life and tried to profit of it.  She plagiarized letters word for word.  There's just no world where I would take her side.  

How is plagiarism fiction?  Give me a break.  Write about your own life all you want but why do people bend over backwards to say it's okay for so-called "writers" to take from other people?  It's so weird to do it and not own up to it but instead create all of these ad hominem attacks about how it's okay to do it to certain people because you don't like them.

People act weird and awkward around me all of the time.  I don't use that as license to be a dick to them.

It's not that it gives you a license to be a dick to them, but when someone, like Dorland, confronts other people about why they're not liking her posts and talking about her achievements, which is exactly what she did, then she should be prepared for the fact that nobody owes her those likes or those comments or even whatever sense of satisfaction she believes they should have.

It's not a license to be mean to her, but it is a license to not see it the same way and to be weirded out by what is a pretty inappropriate and ridiculous demand. That's why I said that I'd be much more sympathetic to Larson if she'd just ignored Dorland. Dorland deserved to be ignored because that's a really unhinged, childish thing to demand of someone. But she didn't deserve to have someone lead her on as if this was a perfectly normal and friendly conversation and then have the person who did that pretend she wasn't being a bitch. 

I don't condone being an asshole, but I have a lot more respect for people who will own when they're an asshole than the ones, like Larson, who try to pretend they're not. Really, both of these women are assholes pretending they're not for different reasons. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Zella

[Ms Blue Jay]

I don't care about any of that.  I personally don't see how somebody could take Sonya's side in this conflict after what she did.  I'm not seeing how stealing someone's life and trying to make money off of it is the appropriate response to acting weird or awkward.

I've never seen anyone argue that walking away and ignoring Dawn would not be an appropriate response to Dawn's actions.  But that's not what Sonya did?  She plagiarized materials from Dawn's life and that's what I'm saying I don't agree with, and I've seen a lot of defense of that, the defense usually consisting of "Well Dawn is so weird and awkward LOL".   Not only do I not see this as a defense of what Sonya did, I'm not even seeing how it's remotely relevant.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Zella]

10 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I don't care about any of that.  I personally don't see how somebody could take Sonya's side in this conflict after what she did.  I'm not seeing how stealing someone's life and trying to make money off of it is the appropriate response to acting weird or awkward.

I've never seen anyone argue that walking away and ignoring Dawn would not be an appropriate response to Dawn's actions.  But that's not what Sonya did?  She plagiarized materials from Dawn's life and that's what I'm saying I don't agree with, and I've seen a lot of defense of that, the defense usually consisting of "Well Dawn is so weird and awkward LOL".   Not only do I not see this as a defense of what Sonya did, I'm not even seeing how it's remotely relevant.

I've never actually said I'm taking Sonya's side? As I've previously stated, I think both of them come across really badly, and I have listed the reasons why I think so. That's not taking a side. 

And whether or not it was ethical to tell a story about someone you know is a different question than whether you can actually steal their words, in my opinion. Writers steal other people's life stories all the time. Is it always well-advised? No. Just ask Truman Capote how it worked out for him when all of his friends abandoned him after he wrote nasty stories about them. Would I be comfortable doing that to someone I know? No. But that doesn't mean it is a professional breach of ethics, even if it is a breach of social etiquette. 

But that's quite separate from stealing her letter word-for-word, which absolutely is a breach of professional ethics.

So, no, I don't have a problem with Larson writing a story about someone she thinks is a lunatic and selling it. Does it make her an asshole? Maybe. But I don't think it's wrong. That's hardly unique in the world of writers, even if it is not terribly kind.

What I do have a problem with is her then pretending to that person's face like they're friends and then also actually stealing Dorland's own writing and then acting like she's innocent and some crusader for writer's rights. She knew she was plagiarizing someone else's words, and those organizations wouldn't have been scrambling to dump the project if it wasn't a breach of professional ethics. They would not have given a shit if she'd just borrowed details from Dorland's life for that story. 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Zella

[Ms Blue Jay]

I have seen a lot of people badgering Dawn and taking Sonya's side, and that is who I was referring to - not you.

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

What I do have a problem with is her then pretending to that person's face like they're friends and then also actually stealing Dorland's own writing and then acting like she's innocent and some crusader for writer's rights. She knew she was plagiarizing someone else's words, and those organizations wouldn't have been scrambling to dump the project if it wasn't a breach of professional ethics. They would not have given a shit if she'd just borrowed details from Dorland's life for that story. 

Well, I can agree with this easily, and I think invoking race as a defense for Sonya's actions is also really weird and irrelevant, and I've seen this defense online as well. 

[Zella]

6 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I have seen a lot of people badgering Dawn and taking Sonya's side, and that is who I was referring to - not you.

Well, I can agree with this easily, and I think invoking race as a defense for Sonya's actions is also really weird and irrelevant, and I've seen this defense online as well. 

I understand what you're saying now, and I apologize if I came across as defensive. 

My guess is that Larson has been in a bubble for years with her writer's clique, and they were so used to putting down Dorland that she just assumed everyone else would too. (It's actually a rather ironic mirroring of Dorland just assuming everyone would be as intrigued by her kidney donation as she was.) And when it didn't work out, she evoked a lot of odd defenses that just don't really pass muster.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Zella

[Ms Blue Jay]

I'm also shocked that such a high profile author as Celeste Ng - who has a big television series with huge Hollywood stars - would publicly pile on too.  I mean, stay out of it!  Don't you have a publicist?  Seriously, it's shocking to me.  People have been calling it very "Mean Girls" and I totally get it.  

Edited October 11, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ohiopirate02]

9 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I'm also shocked that such a high profile author as Celeste Ng - who has a big television series with huge Hollywood stars - would publicly pile on too.  I mean, stay out of it!  Don't you have a publicist?  Seriously, it's shocking to me.  People have been calling it very "Mean Girls" and I totally get it.  

Celeste was a part of this whole mess.  I have not seen her "pile on" Dorland, but use her Twitter account to acknowledge her involvement and attempt to set the record straight in regards to what she knew about this whole saga.  I do think that since Dorland's lawyers went the route of subpoenaing the records of a private group chat thus publicly exposing it, any of the members of that chat have a right to talk about their actions.  

I am of the opinion that both parties in this mess acted badly.  Dorland is insufferable and needs some professional help to assist her in setting up boundaries.  Some of her behavior is not healthy.  That being said, Larson royally fucked up.  Any writer worth their salt knows not to copy and paste someone else's words into their work.  If you are creatively stuck with how to write a passage you leave it blank and go back to it later.  She knew what she was doing.  She also knew that she and Dorland were not friends even if Dorland thought so.  She had ample opportunities to come clean with Dorland that she chose to ignore.  This never had to spiral into lawsuits that have costed both parties time and money.  

[Irlandesa]

12 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I'm also shocked that such a high profile author as Celeste Ng - who has a big television series with huge Hollywood stars - would publicly pile on too.  I mean, stay out of it! 

Well she's pretty in it if some of the text messages (screen grabs here) I saw are real.  She was one of the people advising Sonya that she was totally in the clear and had done nothing wrong.  Those were collected as evidence. None of them seemed to know anything about plagiarism.  I've even seen arguments on Twitter that there are different rules for academic plagiarism and artistic plagiarism. Which....I don't think I agree with ethically.

She's friends with Sonya and wants to defend her, especially says it sounds like Dorland has allegedly tried to get Larson fired and is texting her.  The problem is she doesn't seem to think Sonya did anything wrong.  At all.  Not the lurking on the Facebook group only to write a short story and mock her.  Not the initial plagiarism---which Celeste doesn't seem to realize is plagiarism. 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Mabinogia]

12 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

How is plagiarism fiction?  Give me a break.  Write about your own life all you want but why do people bend over backwards to say it's okay for so-called "writers" to take from other people?  It's so weird to do it and not own up to it but instead create all of these ad hominem attacks about how it's okay to do it to certain people because you don't like them.

If Sonya were actually a good writer she could have pulled it off, using someone else as a jumping off point for a story, which I think is what she thinks she did. Instead she basically wrote a biography using a few changes to claim it is fiction. 

It really would have been easy to avoid all of this. Change the type of organ donated, use a white male instead of female (whom she originally named Dawn apparently like, how forking stupid is this woman?) don't use the letter line for line and very nearly word for word. When caught, apologize and offer to add an acknowledgement or let Dawn write a forward or something, so many, many places Sonya could have avoided the mess but instead she played the race card and doubled down on playing innocent. 

I can understand why, as she learned more and more, Dawn pursued this. Every time she reached out to Sonya, Sonya made it worse because she thought either Dawn was too stupid to figure out the truth, or didn't have the backing (like a big name author supporting her side) to go after her. 

The sad thing is, the story about a woman who believes herself to be altruistic really being fairly selfish in donating an organ could have been an interesting story but knowing that it is based on a real woman who never agreed to have her donating an organ tarnished in that way, I don't want it to see the light of day. 

End of the day, if I need a kidney, I don't care what reason the donor did it for, donating an organ saved someone's life and if that person wants to go brag about it and get props for it, whatever. Sonya was trying to make a valid point but in stealing a real person's story to do it, she invalidated her point completely. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

30 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

Well she's pretty in it if some of the text messages (screen grabs here) I saw are real.  She was one of the people advising Sonya that she was totally in the clear and had done nothing wrong.  Those were collected as evidence. None of them seemed to know anything about plagiarism.  I've even seen arguments on Twitter that there are different rules for academic plagiarism and artistic plagiarism. 

She's friends with Sonya and wants to defend her, especially says it sounds like Dorland has allegedly tried to get Larson fired and is texting her.  The problem is she doesn't seem to think Sonya did anything wrong.  At all.  Not the lurking on the Facebook group only to write a short story and mock her.  Not the initial plagiarism---which Celeste doesn't seem to realize is plagiarism. 

I agree, Celeste was super in it -- I just think she should stop commenting about it now!  The fact that she was so defiant about the whole thing makes me think she probably steals from other people's lives to write her stuff, too.

Celeste was still tweeting about this stuff October 5. Personally, I wouldn't be doing that!

Edited October 11, 2021 by Ms Blue Jay

[Ms Blue Jay]

(DJ Khaled saying "Another one")

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/11/former-masterchef-contestants-book-pulled-amid-plagiarism-accusations

Former MasterChef contestant’s book pulled amid plagiarism accusations

Copies of Makan, a collection of Singaporean recipes by Elizabeth Haigh, have been withdrawn after suggestions that she ‘copied or paraphrased’ another author

 

This article, with all of the examples is so damning!

[Ms Blue Jay]

Interesting context for why Dawn Dorland wrote that letter:

 

[Irlandesa]

58 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

Interesting context for why Dawn Dorland wrote that letter:

Sonya & Co. (like Celeste) keep insinuating that Dawn pitched this story to the NYT but if you read this chain, it doesn't seem like that's the case at all.  He had to woo both of them. (But I haven't read the actual article so I don't know for certain.) 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Irlandesa

[GHScorpiosRule]

On 10/10/2021 at 11:26 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

How is plagiarism fiction?  Give me a break. 

I don't know the details of this particular story, and have been reading everyone's comments, but the above? Nora Roberts can set those that think plagiarism is fiction straight about plagiarism in works of fiction. And it would be glorious. And if I could be the fly on the wall, this would be me, while she did it:

 

[DearEvette]

On 10/11/2021 at 11:45 AM, Irlandesa said:

Those were collected as evidence. None of them seemed to know anything about plagiarism.  I've even seen arguments on Twitter that there are different rules for academic plagiarism and artistic plagiarism. Which....I don't think I agree with ethically.

And even if there are (which I know in an academic setting even self-plagiarism can be an area that gets you in trouble) using the words that another person wrote almost verbatim (which apparently happened in the audiobook) and presenting it as your own without attribution is unambiguous plagiarism in any setting.

It feels like the plagiarism issue is being deflected and downplayed by Larson's defenders by trying to draw attention to Dorland's character.  She may be a needy narcissist or she may be a woman whose gesture of Kidney donation has been grossly misunderstood or both,  but at the end of the day that is irrelevant, imo, to the fact that someone actually used her words and her letter in their own work and passed it off as their own artistic creation. Whatever Dorland's other motives may be, she is absolutely right to shut that shit down.

Edited October 14, 2021 by DearEvette

[Ms Blue Jay]

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Sonya & Co. (like Celeste) keep insinuating that Dawn pitched this story to the NYT but if you read this chain, it doesn't seem like that's the case at all.  He had to woo both of them. (But I haven't read the actual article so I don't know for certain.) 

Very interesting!  Thank you!

[Mabinogia]

7 hours ago, DearEvette said:

It feels like the plagiarism issue is being deflected and downplayed by Larson's defenders by trying to draw attention to Dorland's character.  She may be a needy narcissist or she may be a woman whose gesture of Kidney donation has been grossly misunderstood or both,  but at the end of the day that is irrelevant, imo, to the fact that someone actually used her words and her letter in their own work and passed it off as their own artistic creation. Whatever Dorland's other motives may be, she is absolutely right to shut that shit down.

That's what you do when you're guilty, try to hide the real crime by starting a witch hunt against the person trying to stop you from doing the shady shit you're doing. Larson clearly knows she is wrong or she wouldn't have to be attacking Dorland's character. 

[Luckylyn]

So Amazon regularly has authors make a list of book recommendations.   Normally authors recommend other peoples work but Alice Hoffman only suggests her own books.  It bothers me. I enjoyed looking at authors like Stephen King and Alyssa Cole highlight authors I may not have heard of before.  Maybe I am overthinking it.  Authors who already have a fanbase promoting others seems like a great thing.  Listing only your own books seems like a waste because the people looking at the list are probably already fans.  https://www.amazon.com/amazonbookreview/read/B09J77RKMX?ref=tsm_1_fb_s_kin_5746715233&fbclid=IwAR08WHUBA_nE2FNUFzG9dB7vBi5oBipo8TmVa_WVVAcgIh9f8uQ1uKvf1xs

[Ohiopirate02]

25 minutes ago, Luckylyn said:

So Amazon regularly has authors make a list of book recommendations.   Normally authors recommend other peoples work but Alice Hoffman only suggests her own books.  It bothers me. I enjoyed looking at authors like Stephen King and Alyssa Cole highlight authors I may not have heard of before.  Maybe I am overthinking it.  Authors who already have a fanbase promoting others seems like a great thing.  Listing only your own books seems like a waste because the people looking at the list are probably already fans.  https://www.amazon.com/amazonbookreview/read/B09J77RKMX?ref=tsm_1_fb_s_kin_5746715233&fbclid=IwAR08WHUBA_nE2FNUFzG9dB7vBi5oBipo8TmVa_WVVAcgIh9f8uQ1uKvf1xs

I clicked on your link, and it looks like Amazon is doing a different type of celebrity pick here.  This feature is a book by book one where the author is intentionally picking from their backlist.  Which for prolific authors who have been around for decades is not a bad idea.  Alice is also not the only author featured.  I see both Val McDermid and Kate DiCamillo listed.  

[EtheltoTillie]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I now see that Margaret Atwood has joined the Terf club with JK Rowling and is garnering a lot of attention. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, JustHereForFood said:

That's upsetting. I thought I saw somewhere some time ago that she was opposed to those ideas, but I didn't dig deeper, as I only know basic facts about her, I didn't read anything because I thought it would be too hard for me to read.

 

Margaret Atwood has been hinting at having TERFy opinions for a few years now.  I know I have seen Tweets from trans individuals pointing out the TERFiness in her work especially The Handmaid's Tale. I know when she was called out for signing the Harper's Letter, her response was along the free speech and intellectual freedom lines.  Which tends to be her default--silencing women's voices is worse than than the fact those women are dehumanizing a marginalized group.  Intersectionality is not her strong suit.  I don't think she has gone as far as J.K. or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.  She may be able to learn from this. 

[sugarbaker design]

7 hours ago, GussieK said:

Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I now see that Margaret Atwood has joined the Terf club with JK Rowling and is garnering a lot of attention. 

 

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Margaret Atwood has been hinting at having TERFy opinions for a few years now.

I rarely enter this thread, I really don't care about author's antics, but today I accidentally jumped in and I'm so glad I did.  Just learned the acronym TERF.  Thanks for the enlightening!

 

[Athena]

Please stick to the topic of the author's antics so this thread does not derail into a political debate. Posts have been removed.

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 10/14/2021 at 5:01 PM, Mabinogia said:

That's what you do when you're guilty, try to hide the real crime by starting a witch hunt against the person trying to stop you from doing the shady shit you're doing. Larson clearly knows she is wrong or she wouldn't have to be attacking Dorland's character. 

Exactly, ad hominem attacks.

On 10/26/2021 at 1:32 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I don't think she has gone as far as J.K. or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.  She may be able to learn from this. 

Oh nooooooooo I had no idea about the latter.

[Ohiopirate02]

30 minutes ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

 

Oh nooooooooo I had no idea about the latter.

Yeah,  according to Chimamanda, trans women cannot be "real women" because they grew up as men with all the privileges afforded to men. 

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/15/14910900/chimamanda-ngozi-adichie-transgender-women-comments-apology

[Luckylyn]

I wanted to share from another thread regarding Alice Sebold writer of The Lovely Bones

[isalicat]

And the publisher has pulled Lucky due to the erroneous accusation, for whatever that is worth.

[GHScorpiosRule]

This isn’t an antic, but some truly nimrodic maroons have passed themselves off as having written the In Deaths on Twitter (can’t find their link -just the tweet about them and can’t embed from my phone) and now I’m sitting here waiting for Nora to rip them a new one, 🍿 at the ready.  I think their handle is podcast in death.

When it comes to her work, you don’t FUCK with Nora.

[Ohiopirate02]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This isn’t an antic, but some truly nimrodic maroons have passed themselves off as having written the In Deaths on Twitter (can’t find their link -just the tweet about them and can’t embed from my phone) and now I’m sitting here waiting for Nora to rip them a new one, 🍿 at the ready.  I think their handle is podcast in death.

When it comes to her work, you don’t FUCK with Nora.

I follow a few romance authors on Twitter and saw that last night.  From what I can piece together, there is more than one website selling the services of various ghostwriters and they are claiming to have written many titles from authors like Nora.  I saw some screenshots and they are claiming to have written books by Joanna Shupe, Alisha Rai, Ursula Vernon, and Neil Gaiman just to name a few.  

I am also waiting, popcorn and wine at the ready, to read Nora's response to this.

[DearEvette]

Not just Nora they are claiming lots of recognizable names:  Lee Goldberg, Anne Bishop ,Rick Riordan.  There is one author whose husband chatted with them on their site and they straight out said they ghostwrote her book.  When she got on the chat and revealed who she was,  they removed her book from their site and banned her IP from their chat so she could no longer access their chat.  It is 100% a scam

Edited January 19, 2022 by DearEvette

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, DearEvette said:

Not just Nora they are claiming lots of recognizable names:  Lee Goldberg, Anne Bishop ,Rick Riordan.  There is one author whose husband chatted with them on their site and they straight out said they ghostwrote her book.  When she got on the chat and revealed who she was,  they removed her book from heir and banned her IP from their chat so she could no longer access their chat.  It is 100% a scam

Nora DOES NOT suffer these fools. I remember that last ghostwriter who plagiarized her books. I remember her post about having no more fucks to give. It was GLORIOUS.

Can’t wait for Nora’s response to this one.

This will be me:

 

[Snow Apple]

I haven't followed Nora Roberts in years but I still remember the Janet Dailey plagiarizing scandal. So Nora has had 25 years to learn how to fight back.

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, Snow Apple said:

I haven't followed Nora Roberts in years but I still remember the Janet Dailey plagiarizing scandal. So Nora has had 25 years to learn how to fight back.

I remember that as well. And it wasn’t just one book. That year was the first and only time Nora couldn’t write-dealing with this kind of betrayal from someone she considered a friend. But Nora has always been a strong person. And when it comes to her work? Any idiots who think they can get way with stealing her work? Better make sure you don’t get in her crosshairs.

[Vanderboom]

Jumi Bello's meta-plagiarism could almost be considered performance art; even her confessional article contained plagiarism. [Content warning: article includes discussion of suicidal thought patterns and mental health troubles]

Edited May 9, 2022 by Vanderboom
include content warning

[proserpina65]

22 hours ago, Vanderboom said:

Jumi Bello's meta-plagiarism could almost be considered performance art; even her confessional article contained plagiarism. [Content warning: article includes discussion of suicidal thought patterns and mental health troubles]

She plagiarized her excuse for plagiarism.  That takes some balls.

[DearEvette]

Oh, Lordt.

According to James Patterson, It's hard out here for a Pimp

And by "pimp" i mean a white man in publishing or in screenwriting.  Apparently, they are discriminated against and can't get work because all the books being published and jobs are going to women and minorities.  As an example he uses  -- get this -- Hachette's decision to not publish Woody Allen's memoir.  I mean... no wonder the man needs ghostwriters if that is how he reasons.

Meanwhile he is being dunked on by twitter.  And unlike actors who tend to not dunk on other actors too much, a lot of people coming for him are other authors and especially librarians.

And of course, people are pulling out statistics from the WGA and Pew research that absolutely refutes his claims.  I read one stat that said between 1956 and 2008 of all works published only 5% of them were from writers of color.

And finally, this tweet made me LOL:

[Zella]

I have hated James Patterson for a long time (the library director at the library where I work has an ongoing joke with me in which we call him my "archnemesis." He is sadly unaware of our feud.)

So, I am really enjoying that asshole getting raked over the coals. 

[Annber03]

Reading up on the Patterson thing and yeeeeeeeeeeeah, I'm just gonna leave this tweet here:

But I'm sorry, Patterson, you were busy saying something monumentally dumb, do go on...

2 hours ago, DearEvette said:

And finally, this tweet made me LOL:

LOL, that's great. I also got a good laugh from someone who said, "I hope his ghostwriter is already working on his apology." XD.