Who Is the Bad Art Friend? WRITER DRAMA EXPLAINED (Kidneys, Plagiarism & Group Chats) 

The irony of Sonya being known for writing characters with blind spots, and herself having her own glaring blind spot, is just **chef's kiss** Also, this just confirmed to me that we don't need another spinoff of Real Housewives. We need a reality series with writers and authors

So let me see if I got this right. 1) Dawn did something selfless that could save someone’s life. 2) Dawn decided to brag about this selfless act, but in a group with people she thought were her friends. 3) Seeing no reaction, Dawn decided to email directly for approval, to which Larson congratulated her for doing something ‘tremendous’ 4) Larson went behind her back to laugh at her with people Dawn thought were her friends. 5) Larson decided that instead of talking to Dawn about the problem of her seeking validation, she was going to write a story about her for profit. 6) Dawn found this out and recognized that her life (kidney donation, writing a letter to the recipient, looking for attention) was turned into a story by a ‘friend’. In this story she was basically mocked. 7) Larson denies this and gaslights Dawn by claiming it’s not about her and that Dawn is trying to use white privilege to take a story away from a POC 8) Dawn reacts further by calling everyone’s attention to the matter, sending Larson a bunch of emails, and basically doing everything she thinks she should in order to get Larson not to write a story about her/profit off a story about her/avoid mentioning her as the inspiration 9) a supporter backs off from helping Larson, seeing the potential legal problems her actions could cause. Larson decides to sue Dawn for defamation, to which Dawn countersues because well Larson did in fact take this part of her life and turn it into a story. 10) seeing as things weren’t really changing, Dawn requested the article to cover the whole thing so she can get the truth out there. Well, my take away is that Dawn might be a hard person to be around, but what she did was something that could save someone’s life. Her bragging wasn’t malicious and perhaps if one good friend had talked to her directly, she wouldn’t have continued looking for validation (in this instance). Where as Larson was intentionally malicious, from acting like she supported Dawn’s deed then going behind her back to laugh, to turning what she shared into a story for profit instead of talking to her, to gaslighting her and playing the white privilege vs POC card (when that wasn’t the issue). Perhaps I have this view because of the implied friendship between the 2, but even if they weren’t, it’s still unkind to mock someone this way especially when they haven’t done anything to you. Dawn might have reacted extremely and in some senses badly, but it was in defense of herself. Her negative traits in this case were not harming anybody, not until Larson did what she did.

Had Larson been a good artist, she would have subtexted the -kidney story- inspiration so that only a few hawk-eyed readers would have put the pieces together. The biggest problem here is not the inspiration but the plagiarism.

As a middle school educator, the whole article reeked of adolescent nonsense. The idea that a woman, desperate for positive attention and engagement during a tumultuous time in her life, is the subject of that kind of treatment is very juvenile. Yes, Dawn's behavior was embarrassing (going out of her way to keep track of who interacted and who had not was unnecessary and a bad look), but Sonya's behavior, as well as that of her friends, was cold and cruel in a way that could never be attributed as a proportional reaction to Dawn's perceived sins. Taking letters Dawn shared of her personal life, with the explicit intent to reproduce them in a negative light is just mean. It's not a kind thing to do. And to double down? To continually accuse Dawn of having some sort of ulterior motive, consciously or otherwise, that was an attack on Sonya as a woman of color, is ridiculous.

There's a couple of things that hit me about the article. Number one, Dawn is very much a struggling writer. She's been trying to get a book published for years. That Sonya launched her career on the back of Dawn's own freaking story in this way has got to be beyond terrible. Also, Sonya's gaslighting when Dawn called her out. She just deflected. The whole, "Of course it isn't you, the donor in the story is terrible and you wouldn't want to be that inspiration" when becomes clear that is EXACTLY how Sonya sees Dawn and she basically wrote what she saw. And apparently did it gleefully at first, to entertain Dawn's other detractors in the writing group; I'm sure that's why she didn't change the name until later. Otherwise, that's a no brainer. You change it before anyone sees the draft. And I find her "writer of color" defense pretty disgusting in these circumstances. Also there's the nasty element of continuing to pretend to be Dawn's friend for, given the chat comments and her own behavior, more material. That's kind of the worst.

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Sonya Larson is fascinated by people who come across poorly without knowing it.

Dawn sounds annoying, but Sonya sounds malicious and dishonest.

This whole thing is such a wild ride and I think the portion about the group chat subpoena could serve as a powerful wake up call to people who regularly talk shit about people in their lives. There’s a difference between meaningfully venting about someone who is stressing you out and hate-watching everything someone posts online. Writers are no exception. To quote someone on Twitter: “The article describes [Dawn’s] upbringing as poor. Dawn describes her childhood as “marred by trauma and abuse,” her blurb talks about how she’s “always an outsider” but “sunnily earnest” and how she tries almost too-hard to make connections with everyone she meets. Sonya, in contrast, is described as “popular” in their spaces, with a middle-class upbringing, obviously talented, garnering success in ways Dawn never could. Her writing sounds complex and powerful, she’s well spoken, and she seems wildly smart even just in glimpses. I’m not saying that what Dawn did was correct or justified but I *am* saying that there’s a certain degree to which the response seems to be punishing her for being embarrassing…I think I’d rather have an annoying, obnoxious, embarrassing friend who emails me about why I haven’t mentioned their exalted kidney altruism than a friend who’s this casually cruel to people and then gaslights them about it.”

In short, I find Larson to morally, be a shit “friend”, and legally, to be dumb. Yes writers take inspiration from everywhere, but to use information so personally given, information that is incredibly personal to Dawn ( I mean she mentioned her childhood trauma and abuse in the letter!) for her own personal gain, all while trying to appear as the sweet friend, is disgusting. If you’re going to be so obvious about it, then you might as well be upfront with it. How are you going to give your MC the same first name (couldn’t even change it to Skylar?), publish it with the same verbatim text, and then still attempt to deny, gaslight, and victimize yourself. The “Woe am I, the besieged WOC author” schtick is just as bad as Dorland’s martyr routine, but I guess the irony is lost on her (Not important, but I say this as a WOC) Again, I too think Dawn was too much with the kidney, but I also feel that it’s a wicked thing to take the exact letter she wrote, a likely emotional piece based on her trauma, pain, and life, and twist it the way Sonya did, making light of what, regardless of how outwardly silly it may seem, was someone’s personal feelings. Imagine printing someone’s diary and sharing pages of it to the whole school, or making fun of a bully because they don’t have a dad, even if they deserve it, it’s just in bad taste.

I don’t see any reason to feel conflicted, honestly. Dorland may be needy, annoying, and clueless, but Larson seems to be a bully and a gaslighter . Based on the group chat and the texts, she appears to have been motivated by maliciousness and was fully aware that she was also ripping off Dorland’s words, only revising the story when it gained traction. I think the fact that the author group chat was subpoenaed is delicious. No, make that “tremendous.”

As unpleasant and attention-seeking as Dawn may be, she did not deserve to have her story stolen or her letter plagiarized. Take all emotion out of the story and look at the facts: Sonia's actions are unethical and so is the rest of her writing group for not stopping her when they knew what she was doing.

I’m surprised that people are so shocked about group chats and private emails being subpoenaed. In family court and criminal court it happens all the time. Specifically having text messages subpoenaed is pretty common.

If all a person wants in exchange for giving a dying stranger a kidney is some validation, I think that’s a fair exchange. Whether what Sonya did was legally plagiarism or not is secondary to her pettiness. Also, private correspondence is often subpoenaed in legal battles, that’s hardly shocking.

Let's see: Team Dawn: She donated a kidney, but wasn't selfless about it. She was needy in wanting validation after the act. Team Sonya: (1) She used her literary work to shame a friend who donated a kidney in a way that wasn't entirely selfless. (2) She lied about having Dawn's name in the original version and copying near word for word parts of Dawn's story. (3) She gaslit Dawn into thinking defending herself meant she wanted to be that "white-savior" narcissist version in the story Sonya imagined. (4) She used her status as POC to make Dawn, a white woman, feel like no one would support her if she tried to fight this. Hmm...I don't know about you, but I see one woman saved someone's life and her only crime was not being ENTIRELY selfless about it. The other is ironically calling someone a narcissist while displaying many narcissistic traits herself. You don't have to be an armchair psychologist to know the word, "Projection." In the end, I side with Dawn Dorland.

I've had this quote as the background of my work laptop for years: Dance like no one is watching. Email like it may one day be read aloud at a deposition.

The writing drama eclipses the fact that she gave a KIDNEY, a KIDNEY. Am I the only one that is a bit sad that none of her friends thought that was a nice thing to do in the beginning? Regardless of wanting validation she gave a kidney.

Eh, Dawn's main crime was being a bit cringey. But Sonya comes across as a complete b word. Her two-facedness, her playing the 'taking ownership away from people of colour' card when she knew full well the piece was in fact about Dawn.

While Dawn sounds like she has some serious issues (a desperate need for attention being one of them), Sonya sounds not only cruel but not too bright either. At least change the protagonist's name from the real-life person you are fictionalizing. I do think all writers pull from real life, but there is a line. Sonya crossed that line several times - using Dawn's name, using a kidney donation, and copying her letter verbatim in earlier drafts. Real-life people and situations should be a jumping-off point, not the whole story. Neither of these women comes across well, and certainly, if Sonya was my "friend" I'd be wondering what she really thought of me. I teach middle-school and this whole thing seems like that is where it belongs - back in junior high.

I just want to point out that as flawed as Dawn is, she posted a letter to private FB group of people she considered friends and in the opening line mentions being abused at an early age- and Sonya Larson thought this was appropriate to take verbatim and put in a public work of fiction. Dawn may be considered attention-seeking, but Sonya Larson appears to be at best insensitive, and at worst a bully using an abuse victim's struggles as a step up in her career.

TBH, I'm not sure why you feel conflicted. Larson is a plagiarist. Dawn's character might come off as grating and the consequences of this lawsuit might be annoying to some, but let's be real. Larson plagiarized Dorland's text. It's not art, not fiction--it's word for word the same!

as a writer, so many writers being defensive of sonya is disgusting to me. she used the real name and letter originally. that says it all. how easy would it have been to do a story of a white saviour doing something seemingly altruistic without directly ripping her off? easy. so easy it hurts, that it would take less than a minute to do. but she didn't want to do a white saviour story. she wanted to be shitty towards dawn. plain and simple. dawn is cringey and annoying and that makes her an easy target to rip into. but she still donated a kidney that someone out there needed, so i really don't care if she was irritating and insufferable about it. versus some writers deciding to get high off tearing it apart for no other reason than it annoyed them. she has become catty in response and that makes me roll my eyes but honestly, i don't really blame her, either, when someone did this to her. maybe more writers should be honest about why they're 'conflicted' on this: they've been cruel to people in their lives through their writing and perhaps used more personal details than they should have and now they have to realise they were in fact shitty for doing so. you can be inspired. you can write about living people in your life. but you have a responsibility to realise it's just like gossiping in a group chat: there's a chance it will get back to the person you were talking about if you aren't careful and YOU have to deal with that. this is why my inspiration is in fact only that. inspiration i work into something else.

POV: your friend does something pretty kind and selfless, but brags about it. its starting to annoy you and their other friends, even though they only talked about it privately. do you a) act like a normal adult human being and say to them “hey you’re kind of acting like an idiot”, or b) keep telling them to their face that they’re “tremendous” before writing a character assassination story about how selfish and entitled they are which you then publish for potentially millions of people to see (and for profit!)? take your time! it’s a tricky one!

Bottom line, Larson should not have taken the original letter word for word or even close to the original wording at any point in the drafting process. Don’t plagiarize, kids!

I might surely be questioning Dorland's altruism when she created a FB group dedicated to her kidney donation, BUT I hate that Larson used the "but I'm a writer of colour, woe is me, feel bad for me" card and her friends jumped in, mislabeling this dumbass drama as "white savior" moves on the part of the book fair. (Good for them clapping back by the way.) Like this woman ACTUALLY used someone's letter in her poorly concealed version of art imitating life, and she couldn't foresee this going down badly???? 🤦‍♀️ I can't even...

Also, I haven't yet met a single adult who doesn't seek some degree of validation, especially if they are feeling vulnerable and have what they believe to be a support network. Even posting here shows our need to be heard and understood and cared about.

I seem to be in the minority here, but I don't think that what Sonya did comes under the vague heading of 'inspired by real life', and I think what she did was deeply unethical. It was far too identifiable as about this specific woman and even lifted her words verbatim, and seems to have been scathing about her, in framing her as privileged and narcissistic. It's okay to portray a fictional donor as flawed, but it seems in rather bad taste when based on a real life person who (apparently) did a genuinely altruistic thing and hadn't really done anything unethical, even if she had been gauche and attention seeking. Add to this that Sonya basically tried to justify this with reference to Dawn's race, using the 'white person vs POC author' to try and frame Dawn's motivation as something it doesn't seem to have been. Dawn comes across as attention seeking, but I don't think she actually was in the wrong for being insulted by this and wanting them to pull the content from her letter to her organ recipient. And now she apparently has people mocking her all over the place for having done something that, at its heart, was not only actually harmless but life saving for another person (assuming it was genuine). I don't know the words for it, but, I can't help but notice there's a certain.. hrm.. common desire to gleefully tear people down for doing apparently self sacrificing or charitable things the moment that they actually appear to be expecting any acclaim for it. And I get why that is- it can come across as bragging, and additionally, unfortunately due to people taking advantage of people's good will, can be reasons for suspicion, as the most vocal people of this type are often the most dishonest. That said, I do think there's a certain strand of this that is basically people jumping at any opportunity to assuage their own discomfort at someone else doing something more charitable than they are willing to do by piling on someone for doing something charitable for 'the wrong reasons'. In a way, that piece is almost potentially a 'revenge' for that act of attempting to get acclaim for that charitable act.

Larson and Ng and the others appear to be angry that somebody from a lower social class dared to speak to them. It's a really gross story.

The whole "this woman is a goldmine" really made me go yikes 😬 Dawn does sounds like a validation seeking person, like the type that everyone just puts up with and announcing your kidney donation just CAUSE does sound so ego driving But...Sonya also sounds kinda underhanded, like those private chats etc. When she said "goldmine" its like...okay yeah Dawn may be narrsastic and maybe even have a savior compelx...but she is human, that comment sounded just as dehumanizing and if you don't like her that much then just stop associating with her??

Is there really a debate? *Sonya Larson is a bully* . She's a plagiarizer who preys on people to profit off of and then humiliates her victim with people her victim thinks are her friends. This is career-ending levels of plagiarism and bad conduct. And those authors that are trying to make this go away because Larson's a friend? *The author community needs to do better.* And we need to hold Sonya Larson accountable for her actions because *we should be better than this* .

Seven kinds of wow. So many incisive comments below have already said what I'm thinking, but I'll add just this: one of these people actually saved a person's life with a kidney donation. No matter how cringe and awful and whatever: she DID give her kidney. Her motivations can be as garbage as they come, but I tell you, I'm not about to give anyone my kidney!

Dawn has issues, most likely unconscious and invisible to her. She donated for attention. But in the end, she did a good thing. Meanwhile, Sonia, stole the story, probably feeling empowered to "shame" Dawn because of this unconscious behavior for attention, and that feels needlessly cruel. In addition, Sonia blatantly copied the story, near word for word, in those early drafts, including using the name "Dawn" which couldn't be more blatant, but now is (1) Lying, (2) Gaslighting Dawn, and (3) Using her "I am POC, you are white, so back off" which is appalling. Yeah, neither women comes off well, but Sonia feels like someone who uses her work to tear people down and then feels completely "superior" to them and acts like she's not doing just that. BOTH women have issues. WE all have issues. These issues just collided with each other, but I feel more for Dawn, because to donate a kidney for attention shows an extreme issue and instead of helping her through it, Sonia exploited it for a story.

Sonya, YTA. Simply, it wasn’t her story to write. She took words straight out of another author and labeled it as her own, I’m surprised other writers would find this appropriate at all.

If I remember right, dawn did talk about how she associated healing from her trauma with the kidney donation. In that light I feel like it's almost even more tragic what Sonya and the others in the group chat did with the gas lighting.

I could not get over how Larson described Dorland as "a goldmine" to her equally mean friends. I understand that sometimes talent comes with a bit of mean-spirit, self-absorption, and even cruelty, yet when I actually face it I find it unbearable. Maybe Larson doesn't care for decency at all, but regardless decent people don't see others' torture, hardship or weakness as "a goldmine". Larson is a nasty person that disgusts me.

Making good art doesn’t excuse asshole behaviour. That kind of nonsense belongs in the past. Dawn clearly has self-awareness issues and probably needs good friends around her to call her out, but Sonja’s actions were unethical and cruel. I’ve been caught in the middle of unethical author behaviour before and it’s really not fun for anyone involved. Crazy story, but despite Dawn’s narcissism, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for her.

Literally nobody came out of that piece looking not terrible. Unfortunately, I've found there's now less and less comradery in artist circles.It's unfortunate and not really that surprising.

Larson pulling the race card by saying Dawn was trying to get credit for a writer of color's work is absolutely insane. 🤦‍♀️ And as far as her note about "she shouldn't want to be identified with this character," isn't that kind of the whole point? Of course she wouldn't want people to think that character is about her... that's exactly why she's upset, I would imagine. Larson essentially took her pretty public life story, barely changed it enough to be unrecognizable, and then demonized the character that was clearly supposed to be Dawn. Obviously some stupid people who can't separate fact from fiction are going to think badly of Dawn because of that character. I'm sorry, but Larson's entire response is just completely ridiculous to me. And as for the group chats, tbh, I don't feel sorry for anyone for the chats being subpoenaed. You shouldn't talk crap about people, and if you're going to do that, you need to own up to the possible consequences of that person you're talking about finding out what you said. I'm not saying I'm perfect and never talk crap about people, but I do know that the times I have done that, I was wrong to do so, and if the person found out, it would be nobody's fault but my own. Gossip and talking badly about people has consequences, and I don't really feel bad for people for having to deal with those consequences. I think private group chats that center around gossip like that are harmful to everyone involved. Just because you are speaking privately or anonymously (or so you think) doesn't mean people aren't going to be hurt by what you've said. In general, I think the internet is dangerous at times for making people feel like their normal moral values of not being cruel to others can just go out the window, as if they are no longer responsible for the words they use when they're online. That's not the case. We are all still responsible, myself included, for the things we say online.

Read the article, had a full rant. Hot take: this isn't about writing, it's about friendship and bullying.

The woman who donated is probably desperate for attention because she has such terrible friends. Sonya pretended to be her friend, stole very personal parts of her life and wrote a super unflattering story about Dawn. When Dawn justifiably asked about it Sonya called her a racist and sued her? I can’t see this as ESH? I mean Dawn needs better friends but Sonya is a terrible person. She’s a bad artist and a trash “friend” But thank you for the excellent summary.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for someone dying as they wait on a donation list having to read about GROWN PROFESSIONAL ADULTS making fun of someone for donating a kidney. Sonya Larson and her author friends trying to make this go away should be ashamed of themselves.

A few things you seem to have missed, based on the comments: organizations that facilitate organ donations ask people to be as public about it as possible, because, since people can't directly be paid for the organs in the US, the way most non-directed donors hear about it is by word of mouth. Kidney recipients are pissed at Sonya Larson. I saw someone say they don't care if Dawn Dorland demanded a parade. The story itself was terrible and misrepresented how organ donation works. People are worried it will discourage non-directed donors, which are already rare. The Facebook group was for medical updates. The letter was to the last person in the donation chain, not the person Dorland directly donated her kidney to (she was reassuring them because people without anyone to donate a kidney so they can receive a kidney tend to be a bit squeamish and uncomfortable with living donors who are strangers). Sonya Larson did pretend to be friends with Dawn Dorland, for years. According to the chats and Dorland (there is no reason not to believe this, Dorland is not accused of lying) they had each other over at their homes several times. Also, Dorland had a new group of friends in LA and eventually completely cut contact with the writing group. She offered to introduce someone from that writing group to her friends when he originally moved to LA and he was planning on using her to make connections and then dropping her.

I think it speaks to larger problems at Grub Street Writing: Christopher Castellani, who is an artistic director at Grub Street, actually said "My mission in life is going to be to exact revenge on this pestilence of a person [re: Dawn Dorland]" Dawn invited a small number of people into a private group chat and said they could decline. Sonya stayed in the group even when questioned by Dawn if she wanted to leave, all so she could mock Dorland behind her back with author Celeste Ng. Alison Murphy - who is white - and Larson who is white/chinese - both Grub Street employees during their time with Dorland - colluded to use race to try and" cancel" Dorland. Roxane Gay gets an award from Grub Street then claims Dorland didn't actually donate her kidney...even though there's a video of a man who outright says Dorland inspired him to give a kidney to save someone's life.

Imagine being the person who got Dawn’s kidney and finding out this backstory lmao I’m dying

This is morally so messy. I'm not gonna go into "friendship" and shade, because some comments have already laid those out beautifully. What I want to say is that this has been an active discussion in art circles for years and the partially accepted response is as follows: "If you are a good enough artist, no one will know the origin except those involved." As artists we have to execute the job that we are paid for. The fact that Larson couldn't fictionalize this story even after the edits means that she's not good at her job 🤷🏾‍♀️ But honestly there is no one real answer and even now the discussion continues in every facet of art.

I haven’t read any of Sonya’s work, but this whole debacle makes her sound like a wholly uncreative person. She took so much “inspiration” from Dawn’s story because she had nothing to add, nothing to say save for her commentary on the white savior complex. Anyone can look at a real life event and say “that would make a great story!” but if you have nothing to add yourself, why do you need to tell it? Her saying she couldn’t come up with something better than Dawn’s own letter is the icing on the cake for me lol

God, it puts you off writing communities! Thank god for Alexa! EDIT: But this isn't just about writing. It's also about humans. Larson, and her friends, are not people I'd want to be friends with. And as someone from several marginalised identities, including colour, I certainly don't appreciate Larson's appropriation of PoC and using that to marginalise Dorland.

Idk, based on your cliffnotes in this video, it sounds like both of these people are terrible. But as much as Dawn might be an annoying/self-centered person, Sonya was the one who plagiarized her letter and circumstance and then tried to act like “why would you want to read yourself into this story? I only named the character Dawn, had her donate a kidney, and took your letter almost verbatim.” It’s hard for me to have any sympathy for Sonya when she just as easily could have distanced herself from this person that she clearly didn’t like, and not have made the transpositions of her story so obvious. As reddit always says: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Both of these people won stupid prizes, and they both come out of this looking terrible.

The NYT piece is so perfectly woven in the style of a "literary" piece to pair with the literary writers that it itself feels like fiction. Honestly such impressive writing and story telling. Larson should have changed it from a kidney donation to some other "altruistic" act. So, Alexa, when can we expect a writer's circle thriller from ya? 😅😆🤣

People saying things to each other in writing is usually discoverable. Saying, "But it's a private group chat!" and thinking that gives a legal protection is childish. It's the LAW - not high school.

For me, the thing about the short story is that it is basically talking negatively behind someone's back, but then to their face, and presenting it to the whole world. It's that mean-spiritedness that doesn't care about the actual person they were gaining inspiration from and what the consequences of sharing the story would be. It's one thing to write a story about someone you love and changing their name--if you communicate with the person and ask for permission to do such a thing, the story may end up being a testament to the friendship. It's another thing to write a story about someone you look down on. You're essentially still talking about that person even if you changed their name in the story. And I don't think that sort of thing should be done, unless the story is changed significantly to the point it does not reflect reality and would not be recognizable to readers, so that it is no longer about that specific person who may have inspired it.

It's one thing to draw traits from somebody you know--and dislike--and put them into a character. But to Sonya, her antagonist is literally Dawn. And for somebody who casually uses the word 'tremendous', she could have been smart enough to do the bare minimum and erase the fine details. But it wasn't about being smart; Sonya is clearly just as self-centered as Dawn. She sees herself as untouchable--why sue first? Why not scrap the work and apologise? She knew what she did. "I've tried to change it but I can't seem to - that letter was just too damn good," said the highschool bully with a superiority complex, who wanted everybody to think of Dawn just as she did, because she was right, of course. If Dawn wasn't so completely unlikable, nobody would have even considered her to be the Bad Art Friend. Dawn is a crap person, but initially she didn't do anything *to* Sonya. Sonya, however, based an immoral character on Dawn, let everybody know she did it, did nothing to hide it (until she felt her newfound success might be compromised), then attempted to deter Dawn by accusing her of identifying with the immoral character who was made (and named!) in her image... Talk about gaslighting! And yes, I know, if Dawn wasn't so persistent or grossly entitled it would be a lot easier to give her the empathy anybody in that position would deserve, but it doesn't mean she doesn't deserve it. Sonya could have left the facebook group, pressed block. Cared a smidgen about Dawn as a human being, even if she isn't a great one.

Dawn would have had to pass a psych evaluation to donate a kidney. Maybe afterwards she got addicted to the ackalades and it went too her head. Big deal. She didn't hurt anyone, in fact she saved lives. One of her friends should tell her to take it down a few notches. Sonya is malicious, unethical, and dishonest and she's the one who sparked the legal action and exposed the her group's private communications. Like others have said, Dawn may be a little cringe, but Sonya is unethical and cruel.

Only legally protected communications are truly private (doctor/client, attorney/client, etc.). The courts don't care about your opinion as to what constitutes a private communication. Even verbal communications between two people which have not been recorded in any medium are not private. If they were, lawsuits involving "verbal" contracts could not move forward. Except for legally protected communications, ALL communications can be subpoenaed and made public. I can't believe that a person as intelligent and sophisticated as you can't seem to wrap your head around basic legal principles in the United States.

I feel like I remember you mentioning in a "what not to do..." video that you should never name characters after friends, family, classmates, coworkers, and so on. This is a clear example why. Inspiration is one thing, but drafting the character _as_ Dawn is...interesting? Is that safe to say?

A reminder that "private" is never truly "private" online.

Also, Larson sounds like a character inspired by a terrible girl I had to deal with in college. I don't take kindly to people who talk crap behind other people's backs anymore. That is a horrible thing to do to anyone.

When you look closer at Sonya's behavior, she's so hell bent on condemning another woman's shadow that she fails to see that she's exhibiting the very behaviors she's condemning in Dawn. That's how psychological projection and shadows work, the negative aspects of ourselves that we fail to own we will loathe in others. Dawn's behavior is obviously appalling but I don't think she was harming anyone besides herself by seeking validation in a very cringy way. Sonya's behavior however is more insidious. The very behaviors she's displaying are passive aggression, character assassination, exploiting someone's story of childhood trauma for personal gain which are all signs of narcissistic behavior. She's identified Dawn's thirst for attention and validation, yet her own blindspot prevents her from seeing the lengths she's gone to for attention and validation. It feels like she's gotten some twisted sense of pleasure in the humiliation of another human being. I have a feeling this is a pattern for Sonya because she's very skilled at this. She has enlisted an entire group chat to be on her side. What is one woman's private Facebook group is another woman's group chat. This feels like a historical tale of no good deed goes unpunished. Why must giving be altruistic? There are 100,000 people on the kidney transplant list waiting for their turn to receive an organ. They do not care if their receiptient is doing it for the right reason. The way Dawn donated, by initiating a kidney donor chain enables not one, but multiple people to receive kidney transplants. The longest running kidney transplant chain is 100 people long. These are people that would otherwise still most likely be waiting for a kidney or die waiting like many often do. We need to celebrate our living donors. Dawn is both a flawed human being, with a need for validation and a hero who has literally saved lives. You can be both good and bad at the same time. I hope both of these woman seek psychotherapy and explore what drove them to seek validation in the way they did. It's normal to want validation but there are healthier ways of seeking it especially when it's at the expense of yourself or another human being.

So many great comments here. I think Dawn was looking for acceptance, particularly from fellow writers. She desperately needed validation, approval, to feel included. (Don’t we all?) She was willing to try anything. Yes, donating a kidney is a long way to go for this. Sonya was the ultimate mean girl on the playground. She delighted in preying upon Dawn’s vulnerability. Commenting in salty private group chats is one thing, but the publishing of “The Kindest” was beyond cruel and catty. It especially sickens me that she tried to pull the race card on this. Just ugly. Glad she was exposed for who she really is. I hope Dawn gets off social media and finds healing and a group of real friends who will truly value her as a person and a writer.

I'm not surprised that group chats are being used in a court case. I feel like when you say things through written communication on the internet or by text, you do so with the understanding that someone other than the intended recipient could see those things, especially if there's a court case. Digital footprints also apply in the case of the different drafts of the story. Did Sonya think no one would find the old published draft of the story just because there was a new one? Dawn annoyed people, and that isn't a crime. Sonya plagiarized someone, and that is a crime. Sonya's definitely in the wrong.

there are some people in this world who will do good, even for a selfish reason. but there are people who will do nothing and still judge others if they don't do good deeds in the right way. what sonya did was shitty. and the excuse she gave to defend herself was even shittier. she used her theme of her story as a moral point to defend herself, when the discussions wasn't about the moral ground of her story but the legal ground of the situation. whatever you say, she did not do right by looking down on a person's kidney donation. even though dawn was not perfect but i don't know what this kidney donation means to her and maybe the emotions attached to her kidney donation made her feel the need of validation. it is not always about attention, i don't know what is going on behind the scene in her life and mind. the chats going public is horrible, but to me as someone not a part of the drama, the thing that is most horrible is that from the chats we get to know what mentality sonya had that led her to this story. she literally had the vibe that dawn is not the right type of good person, and by laughing at her, she and the others give me the feeling that 'i am a better person, cause i'm not like her, i condemn this attitude'. and that makes me think of another moral question, can a story born from this shitty mentality sever a theme of redemption of a white savior. can it really serve that morality that she is so serious about?

Wow! It's been a week since this was uploaded and who knew there was yet another twist to the story with the case files and Dorland's clarification regarding her interactions on FB! You should really consider doing an epilogue. This story's proven to be deeper than anybody expected!

Admitting that you straight up plagiarized someone's words doesn't make you "a good artist but a shitty person." It makes you a shitty artist, too. How can you feel like a good artist for just taking someone else's words? That makes zero sense to me. I totally disagree that this is an "everyone sucks here" situation. Dawn literally didn't do anything wrong, except being a little extra about her kidney donation, which people thought was weird. She didn't do anything. She was just a person living her life, and it sounds like this other person was being fake and friendly to her face, while secretly talking crap about her behind her back and writing a story about her, intentionally making her the villain character, and implying some pretty horrible things about her as well, in regards to racism, which are completely unfounded. I'm honestly shocked anyone could read this story and think Dawn is, in any way, to blame here. I feel terrible for her. This sounds like a nightmare, and I can't imagine going through this and, on top of everything, having people act like you were somehow equally to blame in all of it.

I think it’s one thing to take inspiration from real people (we all do as writers), but it’s an entirely different thing to take someone else’s important life event/choice and to 1) write about it without making substantive changes and/or permission and 2) to make that person your story’s villain. Dawn might have been over the top, but Sonya crossed an ethical line.

I am fascinated by this story. It feels a bit like Gone Girl to me, but without the gore. Human nature can be so deliciously unsightly, and our particular unsightliness can react with someone else's like bleach with ammonia. And I mean both Dorland (whose obsessive nature and a gaping wound in place of identity turned her into a bona fide stalker) and Larson, who seems to think that she's "the cool one" in this but comes off as cowardly and cruel. Also, the article itself is a work of literary art. "Characters with large blind spots" indeed.

Too much fence-sitting. I find Sonya's behavior to be morally and creatively bankrupt, not to mention legally stupid.

I'm an artist, but I'm also a Christian, so: Dorland: save a life (or many lives). Larson: said many bad words about her friend and wrote a story using a friend's name and her letter. Ethically, Larson sucks. Artistically - if you're CREATIVE, be f'ing creative and don't take a story word for word - change a name (even thinking about a story for a first time), a good gesture (not a kidney donation, there are many selfless acts), words in the letter, character's backstory, ethnicity ect. If you steal, steal from many sources - take name from a friend, backstory from 3 other people, selfless act do yourself (if you're so f'ing smart to psychoanalyze that character later, give your kidney and see it for yourself what it's like). For me it's obvious that Larson is a bad writer friend. Everything Dorland did before was just being a human. My beloved grandma needs a huge praise after she cooks something for me and guess what - she deserves it, even when she asks for it. She doesn't need an amateur psychoanalyzing. Everything Larson did was cold, intentional and calculated. Dorland's reaction to seeing Larson story was also human. TL;DR If you're creative, be creative and invent a story, not take someone's else's word for word.

This doesn’t seem that messy. Dawn was the super annoying, attention needing friend and instead of just maybe not saying anything Sonya writes an entire short story to slander the woman. I get she may have been inspired or whatever, but just by her personality and her actions here, to me if she really just felt inspired and wanted to write a short story with those themes she could have worked harder to change aspects of the story that were glaringly obviously about Dawn. She did all of this intentionally, and her malicious behavior was just proven through the way she talked about Dawn behind her back. Though I think having private chats and emails subpoenaed is a little excessive when it comes to literary issues like this, (because this isn’t a capital murder trial and nobody’s life is in danger here) it’s kind of a breach of privacy but honestly Sonya deserved to be hung out to dry like that. If she just couldn’t help but write this exact story, then she should have waited and published it later when it wasn’t so fresh and easily seen. Dawn following Sonya around is just the results of her own anger and embarrassment. Her annoying traits and probably the part of herself she’s most insecure about was publicly displayed for the world to see and ripped apart by someone she thought of as a friend. She’s hurt and angry and humiliated I’m sure and acting out. Dawn was annoying but Sonya was the malicious bad art friend here.

My take: disguise enough details so that the person who inspires you is not humiliated. That was Larson's error. Truman Capote became a pariah in high society when the subjects of his "inspiration" recognised themselves. And he never recovered from it.

Dawn believed they were art friends, so did Sonya until she decided to exploit her friend. Then to feel better, she distanced herself and told herself they were never friends. She reveals it when she admits she feels like a horrible person but a great artist. She wouldn't feel so bad about what she's doing if she never felt like or acted like a friend to Dawn. She's "tremendously" two-faced. Dawn is an easy person to mock because she's unselfaware and cringy, but Sonya is way worse because she is fully aware of what she's doing. There's a very cliquey "mean girl" vibe in the group chats and among the people who presented themselves as friends to Dawn. Dawn is self absorbed to an irritating degree, but when you know she comes from an abusive background, Sonya Larceny's appropriation and mockery of her personal story is pretty damning. I feel that everyone deriding Dawn now on social media is not so much on the side of artistic license, but, rather, belongs wholeheartedly to the mean girl clique.

"I hope it doesn't feel too weird for your gift to have inspired works of art." What always feels weird to me is people referring to their own efforts as "works of art". Especially in this case since it seems that Larson was not yet published at the time. Dorland does seem needy, though donating a kidney really is huge, so I understand her wanting to talk about it. But Larson is beyond the pale -- nasty and mean -- and a plagiarizing thief. Dorland now has material to write a story about someone stealing her life for their own gain.

A great example of a "bad art friend" would be Truman Capote. He led Perry Smith to believe that he was trying to help him build a case for his defense at his murderer trial. It was a ploy to build trust so he could learn and exploit the details of the crime for his book In Cold Blood.

Like you can get inspired by real-life but the short story brings to mind (to me) fanfiction and you can't sell fanfiction in its purest form without changing all the ties to its origins I feel that the story wasn't changed enough to the point where everyone and their grandma could connect the dots even before all this really blew up & I see the author of it could be covered by this quote "Steal a jewel, not the entire crown" and well, she stole the entire crown

Just when I thought I should start looking for writing friends again, I watch this. 🤣

I have to say, I absolutely HATE that Dorland's _completely normal_ excitement about and pride about her probably scary, certainly beneficial act is being given shade by people. *Get real* and tell me you wouldn't talk about such a thing with your friends and acquaintances. Is it a little needy to ask a friend why they had nothing to say about a huge event in your life? Maybe, a little bit. Is it also understandable to seek out why a massive group snub seems to be happening to you? Uh, yeah. Being proud about something big you've done isn't white privilege, for God's sake. Nothing about any of this is relevant to race, and Larson shouldn't have tried to make it so. Larson was an ass, and if I were in Dorland's place I'd probably take Larson's actions as a thrown gauntlet, too.

I admittedly have no read the article, and I am certainly not an expert in plagiarism or the legal processes involved here.... But on a moral level it seems like plagiarism to me? Or at least crosses the line and goes well beyond heavy inspiration. She basically admitted in the group chat, "I want to come up with something better but the original letter was so good I can't, so I'm putting verbatim quotes in my story." I feel like it should be the responsibility of the writer to change enough aspects of the story so that a different letter would make sense and be impactful to the reader.

Love the blouse and honestly so glad you're covering because I kept seeing people talk about kidneys on twitter and thought I was going mad lol

As a writer, the people you take reference from should never notice that they are the original for your fiction characters(neither should the other readers). It's the same thing when it comes to taking inspirations from real life culture to build up your own fantasy world. The best way to do that is to make it your own and mostly unrecognizable unless you bring it up yourself. The only difference is, you COULD write a fantasy world with blatant references in non-offensive way, but you could NEVER do that with your reference persons. Never. Just think about it and be smart. We still need to live in the society at the end of the day. Being nice to other people in many situations=saving your own ass.

Thank you so much for covering this! I did go read the article, too. Totally fascinating story! And, honestly, while I question the motives of anyone who feels entitled to a ticker tape parade for doing an act of charity, the "mean girl" mob mentality of the group chat was really unfair. As for the story, it was ludicrously transparent and very clear Larson knew exactly what she was doing, lied about it, and made herself the victim when things didn't play out according to plan. Yes, writers borrow from real life and real people, but taking inspiration from a neighbor gardening isn't the same as taking a very specific event from an acquaintance's life (without any sort of discussion beforehand) and using it in such a demeaning, obvious way. :(

You can be artfully, insightfully, even relevantly cruel, even doing in service of a worthy cause. Doesn't change the fact that it is an exercise in cruelty, abd if you target it all on one real, actual person who is going to know, and see, and have to process and cope with it one way or another...

So after learning about how kidney donations work, (and things like the transplant chain) and how important and life-saving, and greatly needed they are, I now consider bragging about it a fucking moral obligation to at least get other people to try donating their kidneys. In fact when you donate a kidney you are encouraged to share the story. It's also worth considering that the person who Dawn wrote the letter to was at the end of the transplant chain. NOBODY RESERVED THEIR KIDNEYS FOR THEM. The white saviour complex argument feels like a very hollow excuse. Larson is CLEARLY in the wrong here. Kolker is ALSO in the wrong for the abhorrently immoral framing and downplaying of the act. Also keep in mind that the NYT article fudged with the timeline a bit. It's actually quite clear that the private chat was talking shit about her donation transplant posts from the outset. That fact pretty much settles it with me that her use of Dawn's kidney transplant has a malicious undertone to it. At first I thought Dawn was being obnoxious for posting publicly about her transplant and letter (and in some respects she still was, reaching out to others due to their lack of response to her post), but ultimately I am now considering becoming a living donor. The lawsuit side is a different matter entirely. Sadly it seems like there are grave repercussions, and even though what Larson did was wrong she does not deserve any financial hardship for it, and I would not be surprised if she got a lot of harassment for it too. In that respect Dawn has taken this way too far.

One lady donated a kidney. The other commited plagiarism...

I understand your feelings about private conversations being subpoenaed and made public, but when you called them ‘sacred’ I had to roll my eyes a bit. When you put something into writing (texts, chats, emails, letters, whatever) you lose control over it. That could mean someone sharing it without your consent or a court using it as evidence against you. It’s scary and it’s not fair but it is what it is.

I've only got one word for this story: YIKES. Okay, maybe I've got a few more words. Here in the EU, or at least my country, you're not allowed to donate your kidney to a stranger. You need to prove that you have strong ties to the person you want to donate to. I think the main intent is to prevent illegal organ trade since it's hard to monitor whether money is being exchanged for those kidneys but this case goes to show that there are ethical problems when it comes to donating a part of your body to a stranger too. If one thing's clear in this story, it's that it wasn't healthy altruism that made Dawn donate her kidney. On Sonya's part, I found it in especially bad taste to accuse Dawn of racism when she claimed the letter (and story) as her own. We have so much genuine racism in this world but this was clearly not a case of that. She played the POC card against rightful claims and thereby undermined the TRUE discrimitations POC face.

Given all the new info that has rolled out on this, maybe consider a response since this is getting a lot of views. My feelings have evolved seeing more the court docs, background etc. NYT was definitely trying to invoke a particular response.

I get a summary of the NYT every morning. I saw the title of this article, was intrigued, but didn't click on it. Now it looks like I'll have to go back and read it. Thank you for this video.

The problem is that we more or less own our life story. If an author wants to write “based on true events/real life” it needs to be a public event (9/11, any of the wars, COVID). If an author wants to use someone else’s life, or a moment of their life, to inform their story that person must either be dead (thus nobody owns the right to their life story anymore) or you must have explicit permission. To me, there’s a difference in taking an aspect of someone’s personality that you find intriguing and playing around with it as part of a larger more complex character and narrative (ie transformative work), and using your interpretation of an actual person and event in their life to form the plot and major character work in your story (essentially, stealing someone’s life story). Any way you look at it, Dawn should be compensated. Did Dawn do something socially embarrassing? Yes. The thing is, we don’t know her motivation or reasoning for making the Facebook group or thinking her friends would be more interested in her donation - Kidney donation is a major surgery after all. Also, when one is excited about something their friends also tend to be excited about it as well (because that’s how good friendship works). There are so many ways you can look at this where Dawn does the exact same things, but none of them are for attention. It was Larson’s assumption that Dawn was seeking attention. I think this may be more of a case of seeing in others your own flaws. At the end of the day, Dawns worst crime was being embarrassing (and possibly attention seeking). The Law suit, reaching out to people in the publishing industry etc, all of that was justified. Larson, on the other hand, is an incredibly manipulative and two-faced person.

Wow! I live in a very rural area and desperately wanted to find a writing group. Now, not so sure. I think there’s bad in both these characters but am more concerned about all the other writers in the group and how their private discussions were made public. Love how you covered this. It had me in shock in some places but laughing in others. Love your story telling. Thanks for covering it.

It never fails to amaze me how women can condemn other women for wanting attention. What the hell is wrong with wanting attention and asking for it.

Grub Street is a nice place. Disappointed to see that they employ Sonya in an upper level position. Plagiarizing a letter into a story should’ve made her done there.

lol the amount of times you mentioned the horror of the exposed group chats makes me wonder just how juicy your own group chat gossip must be 👀😜

Alexa!!!! This recap is GOLD!!! We need more content from you just like this. 😆

I think one of the questions in the plagiarism lawsuit is... "What is published?" If you count that first audio file that was made public as published, then yes that use of Dawn's almost verbatim letter is plagiarized and Larson is culpable. That piece was published. We wouldn't say that an original Audible audiobook without a physical copy isn't published. Just because it's not the most recent published version doesn't mean that the letter wasn't at one point put almost verbatim into a work that was published. And Larson is over there just digging her own grave admitting through the various group texts/chats that it is plagiarized and she doesn't want to change it. But then when the heat gets turned on, Larson knows what she did is wrong and changes it. Further digging that hole. If nothing was plagiarized, why does she change it? You start to get into all sorts of legal questions like... life rights. Who owns the life rights to Dawn's situation? The expectations of privacy in a private group chat (the one Dawn created and invited everyone to). Did Larson break that in publishing Dawn's letter? And then, you get into malicious intent. Did Sonya use Dawn's story and letter with malicious intent? And then, is it believable that someone in those Boston writing circles would know that the character of Dawn/Rose in the story is based on Dawn? Potentially defaming her. Then I wonder about fair use. Was Larson using the letter within a fair use context? IDK a lot of the answers to those questions. It's just food for conversation. Don't get me wrong, I agree ESH. I don't want to have to acknowledge someone's kidney donation every time I see them. It's weird. Keep your organs to yourself. But something I keep thinking about is... to a certain extent a lot of people are calling Dawn crazy because she was so obsessive in trying to get the plagiarism noticed -- in trying to hold Larson accountable. How much is that akin to the people who accused and had proof that Rona Wang plagiarized people's work? If there is a paper trail and you're trying to get people to believe you... at what point is it no longer crazy? Women are so often not believed when they try to point out a crime. And Larson fed into that, gaslighting Dawn for months/years. I want Emily D. Baker to cover this.

Alexa I always see you in Smokey Glow’s comments and this felt like one of her style videos but author drama and I am HERE for it!!

This whole debacle validates my choices to be professional in chat groups, regardless of whether or not they are considered private. Anything can be released, and if you wouldn't say it in front of your grandmother, then you shouldn't say it to someone else. I think everyone in this scenario has done wrong, and your comparison to a thread on AMITA is spot on. Everyone sucks here. I think that any creative person who wants to get on their high horse and proclaim that "I never copy or am influenced by anything, all my work is 100% original me," is being dishonest, both to themselves and everyone else. Nothing in the creative industries is 100% original. I don't write professionally, but I do it for fun. I have ABSOLUTELY taken exact scenarios that I have seen play out in real life, changed the names and setting, and used it in my stories. If I saw someone grandstanding on Facebook about what a paragon of morality they are by donating a kidney (as some form of weird social currency), I'd take that and use it somewhere in my works. I think Dawn is an attention monger who is determined to be both victim and hero in this story, and Sonya didn't think to re-word the letter in a way that anonymizes the person she was use and inspiration. Changing the letter could have been something that she workshopped with friends, and not included in publicly available drats. I do admit my bias however. I am a visual artist for a living, and people copying the work we put out onto the internet is just a reality we have to deal with. If I post an illustration online, I do so with the FULL knowledge that someone out there will eventually see it and copy it. Regardless of whether it's copied for study purposes, or the person tries to pass it off as their own, I know it will be copied. This such a common practice that it's usually required assignments in art school, only they give it a fancy name "Master Studies." The people who fret over making sure that no one ever in anyway uses their work for anything, including inspiration, are fighting a battle that they will inevitably lose. Whether or not someone is labeled an art thief is the framing of how they use someone else's' work. Do they disclose it? Do they direct link to the original? Framing and presentation is key. Going back to the original topic at hand, Sonya did not do her due diligence. She should not have kept the original letter in the publicly available first draft. But Dawn, who put freely her story out into the world for everyone to see and know, can't say that no one can use her actions to influence creative works. I think that if Sonya had framed Dawn in an altruistic light, none of this would have happened.

Sonya is definitely the bad art friend. Dawn may be self-absorbed and obsessive, but Sonia’s behavior was very unethical. She should have known better, but she chose her own ego over ethics in the end.

The real moral of this story is log off and touch grass people

This is incredible, thank you so much for this- I knew someone would deep dive this. You rocked this, such a good deep dive, and totally earned a subscription!

Thank you for explaining all the weird, vague tweets I've been seeing lol. Now I really want to read this article! IMO, I don't see pulling inspiration from real life much differently from pulling inspiration from other novels/TV shows/movies. You have to sand down the edges for both to make it your own. This is especially true if the real events you're inspired by aren't your stories to tell. Sometimes I worry about real life events that inspire certain scenes in my work and other people pointing it out, but again, sand the edges. Make it an easter egg only you can spot.

I literally had to go pop popcorn for this video. Dawn is nuts, yes. But in my opinion, Sonya so obviously sucks far more than Dawn. This isn't "inspiration" this is big chunks of Dawn's life/story plagiarized. As writers, yes, we can take snippets and echoes from our life and transport that into our fiction, but this was done so heavy handed. Frankly, no matter how good the short story may be, it shows a serious lack of skill on Sonya's part that she couldn't dissociate Dawn's story from hers. It honestly just felt like Sonya felt empowered and entitled to borrow so heavy handed from Dawn's story because she assumed that, like she, others found her to be just as ridiculous. Regardless of how annoying someone is, it doesn't mean you can plagiarize them. And the gaslighting that came afterwards sort of just solidifies Sonya Larson as a not so great person.

Taking inspiration for a villain from someone in your life that specifically harmed you, was awful and malicious, clearly bigoted, etc. is one thing (and even then you should still like? not plagiarize or do things that can get you into legal trouble??) But making someone your villain and mocking them to all of you friends behind their back just because they're annoying is another. It was especially disturbing to me that the almost-word-for-word line of the early-draft letter was a line where Dawn is talking about the struggles and abuse in her own like. Like is she self-righteous or embarrassing? Maybe. Is this a "first-world problems" thing? Maybe: I don't know because I don't know this woman and what 'abuse' she's even referring to. But either way its just...cruel and I don't understand how this could be defensible behavior.