24,204 comments posted · 317 followers · following 141

4 days ago @ Crasstalk - Kicking the Can Down t... · 1 reply · +2 points

I don't care who said it (nor does anyone else here - I'm guessing only you, Embiggening, myself, and Bots read the Korkle piece or knows what the hell I'm talking about), but I also wanted to talk about the additional stuff I saw since the NYT was published. Now I feel gaslit by Korkle.

"a point that in fact two people made previously, yet curiously one isn't implicated in the destruction of online community lol." I don't think anyone is implicated in the destruction of this community. I've said I disagreed with Bot's original take (I'm assuming that's who you're referring to). You're acting as if I made this to call you out, named you, and left someone else out. I did not. I'm arguing with an idea, albeit one that genuinely irked me after reading that story and coming back to points made here about internet gossiping...that stays on the internet. "Lol - Crasstalk" had me scratching my head. Obviously it's even worse in light what Larsen's being said to have done in Gawker's latest piece is real, and Dawn wasn't preaching to a general community, but being stalked in a group she set up to engage friends herself.

I think this touches a lot about contemporary writing culture and also what people can get away with doing in "insular", quasi-professional circles using specific weapons. I wasn't even thinking about communities like this one until “lol this is what I mean by the internet – Crasstalk!” It's not irrelevant, this is actually more like a quasi-RL group than an ordinary anonymous messageboard.

I had to go back to that thread:

"I don't find it strange that Larson and friends from the writing workshop place they all knew her from were making fun of her narcissism and neediness in personal messages. Maybe a little mean, sure. But that's what both "the internet" and groups of friends who mutually know someone being outrageous or weird do all the time. [....] I also don't get the idea that people in the writing didn't like Dorland until she started seeking recognition and praise for her donation. You've repeatedly tried to characterize their opinion about her without reference to this behavior and allegations against Larson. You've painted them as a cabal of mean girls who had disliked Dorland from the start without any reason but the cruelty. But this piece doesn't describe any disdain toward her until she began seeking, going so far as to solicit, recognition."

I don't think you're endorsing publishing a book, but even reading this over...yeah, this is pretty much the impression people have. Dawn's an asshole raising a stink for grating people. But it didn't jibe with Korkle's piece, and obviously, that clashes with what's come out now. I think you're diminishing what this was - which included publishing a story, the crux of that piece. It makes zero sense to me to keep framing this as an "internet" problem only...and you did.

A lot of people clearly believe what Larsen did is legitimate even now, and they're more influential than you or I. This goes to ideas about communties in virtual space, but frankly, the most disturbing thing I was reminded of is how journalists/writers use real, identifiable people's lives from those spaces - without their permission.

That's among strangers; Larsen did it to someone that thought she, uh, wouldn’t. Thought she was a friend, not someone who actively loathed her (hard not to come away with any other impression, in those screenshots), and had reasonable assumption of mutual trust, if not perfect friendship. And yeah, she used an internet group of colleagues. Imagine being a member of a community of people you think of as friends having that attitude.

How can I not be at least slightly confused by any link drawn between that, between this woman, the exhaustive analysis of what she did to Dorland, and even a vague reference to here?

It'd be bad if it were a general group run by a publishing company that Dawn Dorland spilled her guts on - which would make it a little like an organized web community where people talk about real life and work.

If it's true this was a group she started herself...then Larsen's a creep.

I think the notion of Dorland "inspiring" anything ambiguously changes not only when you see what she said to colleagues at Grub Street - other writers, who know Dawn, who know Larsen - but when she stalks a woman she articulates this much distaste for to the publishers themselves. Too bad she couldn't keep mouth shut.

"You're confusing something about the writers' snarky group texts with endorsing the idea that it's fine to publish a personally identifying story about someone drawn from a small and insular (if not actually private) community."

How do comments about "snarky group texts" relate to a story where a writer stalked a woman and then quoted something she wrote in a book? At best, you're minimizing and capping the scope of what that piece was about. It sure wasn't just about "mean texts".

I wasn't calling you out, but in comment after comment when we discussed the NYT piece here, you seemed fixated on this idea this was just internet gossip about one disliked and highly unlikable person. That it was "a little mean", but that Dawn made it is easy (in the Korkle piece, I agree, you come away with the idea she's easy to dislike, and was a pushy personality.) I asked you to clarify what your point was, you didn't have one until "lol, this is what I mean by the internet - Crasstalk". If you weren't endorsing it....well, what were you doing? What was the point? Tha wasn't a story about "mean texts" about the class Debbie Downer, and you're still talking about it like it is.

My point here would be - this notion it's just "mean texts" is popular, lots of people thinking Larsen's/their rights to talk shit (and write a story about those feelings) trumps the feelings of the Dorlands out there. And it looks ridiculous, the more that comes out.

Why would anyone harp on this idea about internet gossip, again and again - as you did, to the extent that I wasn't clear if you finished the same story I did - when this isn't just a story even about shittalking colleagues you don't like online?

If you're telling me now that isn't what you meant with "lol that's what I meant by the internet - Crasstalk!" and after multiple comments indicating I was overreacting to an inevitability of the internet and people who know each other - clique behavior and clashing of personalities - that I "made up a bunch of mean girls" and what was done was "a little mean"....I think you're revising a little. It's fine. But I'm telling you what ideas I took away from discussion of the NYT piece piece, and also what I dislike about the writing community circling the wagons to defend what is actually their own shitty behavior in their work.

It would be shitty enough to have a colleague smear you as a "white savior" if it stayed in texts among those you know, but Larsen filed the lawsuit; Dorland's ongoing smearing rests on the idea she started the legal proceedings. I wanted to talk about that, because it's amusing to me someone would shoot themsleves in the foot this way, as Larsen did.

"I mean, the idea that "this is just the sort of thing you do when people are annoying" means writing a book about it is… bizarre."

DMM, in every reply, you fixated on the inevitability of internet gossip among people who know each other, not strangers, when the story is about internet animosity spilling into real life, real work. Again, lot of people believe just that, going by twitter - including the "publishing a book" part.

If you say you were referring to our gossip about people we only know in our separate lives - "celebrities to barely-knowns to unknown people in our Facebook, Insta, and Nextdoor feeds" - people we have no impact on - as opposed to one another..... then I'd say people blowing off steam or gossiping about ciphers in the separate spheres of their lives has nothing to do with this story, at all. And comments to the Korkle piece diminishing this as a story about people in an internet group who disliked one particularly grating personality, expressed that, and left it there make even less sense.

That's really what this is about, personal distaste in virtual life spilling over into professional and fleshspace - and also something journos and writers do, which is farm from the internet, probably at the level Larsen did. Spaces they belong to, spaces they don't.

I thought it was bad enough in that NYT piece, where Dawn is nevertheless drawn as an extremely irritating person - as someone who effectively forced herself on people, again and again. It's even worse reading what's coming out now, and it's an entirely different ballgame if it was her personal facebook group that Larsen could have left, but instead stayed in so she could survey her like a zoo animal and then smear her as a litigious racist quashing Truth.

If you're telling me I was wrong on what you actually believe (I still genuinely can't tell what your point would be or how it relates to this story - because we're not talking about women that limited themselves to griping at each other online, and then got to live their separate lives and cultivate relationships with mutual friends and colleagues in peace), I will take your word for it, but this wasn't about just "mean texts" or I posted because I still wanted to talk about this as it changes.

5 days ago @ Crasstalk - Kicking the Can Down t... · 5 replies · +5 points

edit: I should add Larsen is on the board that signed that letter above.


1) it was Dawn Dorland's private fb group, one she started, not a writer's group where she was constantly bombarding colleagues with kidney updates; understandably, she wanted to talk about what is, in fact, a big life choice with friends as she prepared for the surgery. That would definitely piss me off. Kinda makes the notion she was constantly volunteering information about her donation in conversation less believable, too.

2) in all that time, Larsen was screenshotting things she said in confidence to members of that group to other writers, including that letter, and you'll see in Dan Nguyen's thread in the comment above she's very, very aware that she wanted to use things Dawn said in this story/worried about a lawsuit;

3) Dorland suspected she was lurking, and asked about it; Larsen lied. (Dawn was right, obviously)

4) my favorite fucking part of all of this, because the idea Dorland subpoenaed chats (which would have been her right, at this stage, and at the point your suspicions confirmed....kinda weid people were caping for Larsen) - Larsen initiated legal proceedings first because she knew copyright infringement of the letter would come up...and that's how those chats came out.

Didn't even warn her friends in this writing group. I guess there wold have been too many people.

All of this - this whole thing - is based on Dawn being a villain b/c Dawn is white, and Larsen isn't. A "white savior", for an undirected kidney donation.

I have no idea where Korkle got his info in the NYT, but he makes Dorland seem nuts and Larsen seem reality, it looks like Larsen lied to him, too.

Why do I care? Apart from the fact that we used to discuss web culture like this a lot, and this kind of cliquey shit can impact any professional setting, someone here said, "Enh, this is just the internet, this is a grey area in making art, this person is annoying and deserved to be mocked, this is just the sort of thing you do when people are annoying" to "this is just like Crasstalk"...and the comparison got me thinking.

No healthy space, virtual or otherwise, professional or social, could mirror the mentality underwriting Larsen's behavior, and last.

I'll tell you something else people don't get - apart from, you know, that little tidbit about Larsen publishing a story based on someone else's internet communications, the big reason Helen Rosner and all these bluechecked assholes came out swinging about Dorland being a racist bitch who deserves to be dragged publicly is partially because they've probably done this. Not necessarily to friends that are journalists and could push back, but to their lessers among civilians. Online journalists these days will quote people without permission or compensation and drop their social media all the time. It's a very serious thing if that person is identifiable; obviously, the people that do this couldn't give a shit less, when they casually put someone on blast b/c they need a quote; and it's just not even discussed.

You form web communities based on mutual trust. People in places like this or Wordsmoker have met each other, talked about their own surgeries here, and other serious, real parts of life. This is not a reddit forum people will visit and then never come back to.

Of course people gossip, but there's an understanding here (or used to be - I'm living with that sense of understanding) this doesn't...get published in a book, at a minimum. There's calling someone a dick online, and impacting someone's real life.

In Dorland's case, obviously, it had such an impact, she reacted,and Larsen talked about it with colleagues before she did it.

I could go on all day about what a problem it is that "just the internet" has on real life now in contemporary culture. What Larsen did is not "just the internet", nor should it be seen as ordinary. (Especially since - once again - she published a story, based on a specific person and private conversations, verbatim, and then sued to defend being able to that, while planning to drag this person through this publishing group).

Given how nasty media industry culture is in New York and the neuroses of every literary community conceivable, I can only imagine the stories less influential members of this scene could tell about what their colleagues get away with doing.

5 days ago @ Crasstalk - Kicking the Can Down t... · 6 replies · +5 points

It might only be interesting to me but Gawker (which originally called this a "glorifed AITA post") posted updates on Dawn Dorland's story and established the Korkle piece not only got alot wrong, it made Dawn seem nuts.

The unbelievable screenshots of Sonya...planning on a lawsuit, one she started first:

Grub Street, this writing group whatever-the-fuck is and where Larsen was pitching this book and shittalking Dorland, put this out:


6 days ago @ Crasstalk - Back Into It Open Thread · 1 reply · +3 points

I don't believe for a second Nixon got nothing done. Same with Jane Fonda. Same with Jennifer Lopez. But she probably put a limit on it and lucked out on barely aging facially.

I would be curious if there's a single woman expected to be on camera in Hollywood that has never gotten work done....and I doubt it. It's an expectation of the job and easy to go too far when it's normalized that women are supposed to never age beyond hot, gym-bodied 40 if they want work beyond that age.

Even Meryl Streep, who let her crinkles come in and has starred in roles about that, has probably gotten a little done here and there. But she look swell-preserved - not like she's in denial.

Plastic surgery culture in Hollywood (and perhaps everywhere) is pretty gross. It's appears devoid of ethics. Clearly there's info being left out about what this stuff does over time. (And it's worrying, b/c shit, if I were wealthy, I'd be Botoxing my 11 lines until I died.)

6 days ago @ Crasstalk - Back Into It Open Thread · 4 replies · +6 points

That's not an anxiety dream

It's a prophecy of a future vacation you will be foolish enough to book

HDF watching a show about women talking about the shortcomings of men in their lives and milieu - lack of consderation and total failure to take others' feelings into account being among the worst (all throughout the series) some crazy irony

6 days ago @ Crasstalk - Back Into It Open Thread · 11 replies · +2 points

All that said, at the risk of being a huge bitch, is it wrong I want to know what these women did to themselves? I don't judge anyone for getting work done. Considering I'll probably want some work done on the other side of __, I'd like to know I'm looking at a bad procedure or just the misfortune of have something like a rhinoplasty ages.

Probably the lip filler these women used. Doesn't look good. Meanwhile Cynthia Nixon looks like she's aged 10 years and let her hair grey. She looks incredible.

edit - I also posted b/c not only am I curious about what this show will be like, when the culture around dating and everything else this show touched on has changed so much, to a jarring extent....but because I want her dress.

6 days ago @ Crasstalk - Back Into It Open Thread · 13 replies · +1 points

I guess they didn't want to waste what they didn't use for the movie. Hope it isn't pure dog doodoo.

It's like "Seinfeld" with more estrogen, a litlte less humor, and some cheese - neurotic, romantic, not unfunny, and most of all, comfortingly familiar. I use as white noise often, if it's on. And God damn if I don't love reminiscing about this show/mocking it. I'm so sad the cultural moment passed to do that. (This show ended almost 20 years ago - I was too young to be interested and didn't have HBO and now I see that as a missed opportunity to be addicted to this show when I had a bunch of girls I could have discussed this with, but damn, if that doesn't make me feel old, watching the episodes.)

I hope they don't do what I think they're gonna do, as well, with Mr. Big.

When this show wanted to be, it was not only beautiful to look at - possibly the best, longest advertisement for this city (albeit a very specific and still heavily monied, fantasy version) ever made - it was poignant. They tapped into great film and TV romances where part of the love affair was with a dream version of New York itself, and it worked. (And that's probably why I keep watching.)


6 days ago @ Crasstalk - Back Into It Open Thread · 14 replies · +5 points

(Film shoot)

There might only be 2 others of ye that are excited*, but they're filming.

1 week ago @ Crasstalk - Back Into It Open Thread · 0 replies · +4 points


I laughed but I also feel bad for laughing. He's probably not doing well.

For anyone who cannot click the tiktok: <a href="" target="_blank">

1 week ago @ Crasstalk - Mid-Week Open Thread · 0 replies · +3 points

"And why on Earth did you move to Florida? You’re not an old man, and I thought Florida was where old men moved to retire. Particularly old white men."

"I have to be honest with you. We left because of the situation in Philly. With the riots in June of 2020, there were buildings near me that were burned down. And all the gun violence. I understand why people are frustrated, but when it comes down to it, I have a wife and young children, and I need to look out for them. And you have to remember, I’m a combat veteran who served in Afghanistan. So all these bullets and all this destruction, it’s intense. Seeing a car on fire affects me in a way it might not affect you."

I'm glad he didn't hedge.

I opened this excited because seeing a man calmly steer an alligator into a garbage in socks and bedroom slippers is the kind of internet content I crave, when the internet was fun. I didn't expect that. And the reporter asking that must be 21. "You're not an old white man!" "Moonlight" won an Oscar how many years ago - do people not understand it isn't just white people living in suburbs of America? Just going by Twitter...they don't.

More than the that, the fact that middle and working income families across the spectrum get tired of dealing with shit leadership and living in nasty boxes with their children when the same rental price could get them a couple of bedrooms a few hours away ...dude talks about it more than once, talks about his kids being able to play in the street. Is anybody in power in Philly going to ponder that?

It's come up a lot in city forums. You think the media would be interested.

No wonder he gave no fucks.

edit: the reporter looks like a middle aged man

I guess he was trying to add levity...invoke images of Lloyd Braun