The story behind the kidney joke going around on social media

[RK Wallis]

This article is long, but the nuts and bolts are - how much should you be inspired by someone else? and pull them into your fiction?

In this case, lawyers sought and were granted access to a private Facebook group; it's just as if our private messages or back room were made public. What these gals said behind the privacy of their private group, to paraphrase one of them, shows she's a pretty shitty human being. But there are two sides to the story, and a lot of history, in this masterfully penned article.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/magazine/dorland-v-larson.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

 

[E G Logan]

Very interesting story. Thank you for drawing attention to it. Well written in trying to put across both POVs fully.

Wrongdoing on both sides.

Bottom line, though, is: Plagiarism is wrong. No matter how you may feel about the person who wrote the words, or their 'real' motives.

It's also unnecessary, easily found out and proved – and a total career killer.

 

[RK Wallis]

Yes, you're right @E G Logan, plagiarism is a career killer, for sure. Putting the plagiarism aside, Larson fights for something important, and that's an artist's right to be inspired, but obviously, you need to make something your own. I imagine the court will decide if Larson did that enough ... and those private messages on FB are pretty damning. I pity the judges or jury that have to decide this one.

 

[E G Logan]

I've been thinking about this situation: so many things don't add up. So much, on both sides, is just psychologically weird.

First, for the absence of doubt, I absolutely agree that a writer has the right to take inspiration where they find it. Borrow, steal, even the 'greats' do/did it. But not without significant changes.

Now, having thought about this specific instance, Larson's “For me, honoring another’s artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship, and of trust” rings a bit hollow, a bit post-hoc. I can't say it's just a convenient excuse, because for a writer the principle goes much deeper than that... but still.

You see, I can't see how Larson can have used Dorland's letter WORD FOR WORD in a published audiobook by accident. I've come round to thinking that at least a small part of Larson must have wanted the letter to be recognisable to her (Larson's) immediate friends/writing circle, who had of course seen it and knew who wrote it – while being unrecognisable to the wider world. I think she had decided that was acceptable.

Her subsequent reluctance to change the text of the letter in her published story, her lies about it, and the small changes she made when obliged to, all tend to support this reading.

On the other hand, I see that Dorland can be accused of over-sharing/too much information, virtue signalling, and probably having a personality that grates on some people. But even so, dropping her recognisable text unchanged into a public story that accuses its protagonist of being a "white savior", so she is identifiable to anyone who has seen the letter, is no kind of "gesture of friendship, and of trust”. In fact, it's little short of evil. IMHO.

And if her subsequent reactions were over-wrought and over-heated, it's not greatly to be wondered at.

Very interesting case.

 

[AnnieSummerlee]

Here's a little more info: Identifying The ‘Bad Art Friend’ Is Easy

 

[RK Wallis]

I've been thinking about this situation: so many things don't add up. So much, on both sides, is just psychologically weird.

First, for the absence of doubt, I absolutely agree that a writer has the right to take inspiration where they find it. Borrow, steal, even the 'greats' do/did it. But not without significant changes.

Now, having thought about this specific instance, Larson's “For me, honoring another’s artistic freedom is a gesture of friendship, and of trust” rings a bit hollow, a bit post-hoc. I can't say it's just a convenient excuse, because for a writer the principle goes much deeper than that... but still.

You see, I can't see how Larson can have used Dorland's letter WORD FOR WORD in a published audiobook by accident. I've come round to thinking that at least a small part of Larson must have wanted the letter to be recognisable to her (Larson's) immediate friends/writing circle, who had of course seen it and knew who wrote it – while being unrecognisable to the wider world. I think she had decided that was acceptable.

Her subsequent reluctance to change the text of the letter in her published story, her lies about it, and the small changes she made when obliged to, all tend to support this reading.

On the other hand, I see that Dorland can be accused of over-sharing/too much information, virtue signalling, and probably having a personality that grates on some people. But even so, dropping her recognisable text unchanged into a public story that accuses its protagonist of being a "white savior", so she is identifiable to anyone who has seen the letter, is no kind of "gesture of friendship, and of trust”. In fact, it's little short of evil. IMHO.

And if her subsequent reactions were over-wrought and over-heated, it's not greatly to be wondered at.

Very interesting case.

You've articulated really well what I've thought myself. Even in earlier drafts, Larson called her story donor "Dawn" which is Dorland's Christian name. As you say, Larson wanted people to know Dorland was her inspiration, and then she tried to cover her tracks. To me, that's callous, low and mean-spirited. No doubt Dorland has a grating personality, but that's no reason to act this way. Walk away; Dorland isn't bullying anyone. This retaliation is almost childish; very High School. After all, that behaviour is just biting your nose off to spite your face.

Thanks @AnnieSummerlee I'm off to read that now

 

[Julie]

I've saved article and will read later. Thanks for putting it up, Rachel.

 

[RK Wallis]

That's another good blog post @AnnieSummerlee, and I think right, they've both behaved badly. But I'd just add: none of this would've happened if Larson had behaved like a human being in the first place. The article reiterates @E G Logan's position:

Considering that they knew a lot of the same people and worked with the same literary organizations, did she (Larson) really think Dawn was just never going to find out? I keep marveling at how little Sonya seemed to consider Dawn’s feelings or the possibility of a copyright claim during the two-plus years she spent writing and revising this story.

One of the main things I used to tell clients before they started legal action is: only the lawyers win. And while I'd start legal proceedings for someone, I wanted to warn them what they were in for i.e. big legal bills (rather than just taking money like so many sharks). And who's the winner in this matter? The lawyers.

 

[RK Wallis]

I've saved article and will read later. Thanks for putting it up, Rachel.

Good idea, it's long. I had to give up a writing session to read it.

 

[E G Logan]

Good idea, it's long. I had to give up a writing session to read it.

But it's worth it. Read the other info, too.