Unable to load image

Foid gets sued for plagiarizing another foid's life story while making fun of her for donating her kidney to a stranger

https://medium.com/physician-writer/how-the-nyt-kidney-story-became-the-literary-scandal-of-the-year-c32359835f19

for more juicy drama as the case develops: https://twitter.com/kidneygate

https://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10069329/Writer-takes-legal-action-against-writer-documented-tale-donating-kidney.html

https://buzzfeed.com/daily/new-york-times-bad-art-friend-kidney-donation-dawn-dorland

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/kidney-donation-story-copyright-2017763

https://news18.com/news/explainers/explained-one-donated-a-kidney-the-other-wrote-a-story-how-the-two-became-bad-art-friends-4313825.html

On October 5th, The New York Times published Who is The Bad Art Friend? that went viral. It's not a short read and as it turns out later, there are some omissions and misrepresentations, but the basic gist, as it is told, is this:

Dawn Dorland, a writer, donated a kidney as part of a kidney donation chain and created a private Facebook support group with family and friends, where she later posted a letter intended for the final person in the chain. (Jun 2015)

This Facebook group includes her friends from GrubStreet, a non-profit writing center, and Sonya Larson, another writer friend. Larson is also part of a group called the Chunky Monkeys, some of whose members overlap with GrubStreet. Dorland notices that Larson hasn't been reacting to her posts, so she reaches out to Larson, who then acknowledges the donation. (Jul 2015)

About a year later (Jun 2016), Dorland hears from another friend that Larson wrote a short story about a kidney donation - Dorland asks Larson if she can read it. 10 days later, Larson acknowledges having written a story about a kidney donation, partially inspired by Dorland's act but says it's based on narratives and themes with no relation to Dorland. Dorland asks why Larson didn't mention it earlier, to which Larson essentially replies she didn't think her support (or lackthereof) was important.

Dorland expresses feelings of hurt and questions their friendship. After several days, Larson eventually apologizes for Dorland's hurt feelings while insisting she has a right to write about what she wants.

12
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Certainly, Dorland’s original discomfort upon hearing about Larson’s story was not race-based, but in the article’s evolution, the sub-text is impossible to ignore.

So is this some sort of cultural hack to allow for woke trolling? It's bad if I draw a picture depicting you as an ugly, shit-eating troll... but if I depict you as an ugly, shit-eating troll being mean to BIPOC, then if you object I can just say that your attacks on my anti-racist art is an act of privilege? Nice.

Also seems like an odd omission to not mention whether Dorland actually donated her kidney to a BIPOC, or if that detail was just added to seed the story. In any case critiquing altruistic kidney donors as "white saviors" seems like a pretty sad hill to die on. What's next, woke hit pieces on white "saviors" who donate to homeless shelters in urban areas?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anyone who is doing well enough to pass along their leftovers is a satanic capitalist Jew. Any “help” they give is for their benefit, not yours.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.