How the NYT “Kidney Story” Became the Literary Scandal of the Year

On plagiarism and our response to conflicts between writers.

Writers on Twitter have been captivated—some, outraged—by an article published in The New York Times Magazine this past Tuesday on the drama between two fiction writers, Dawn Dorland and Sonya Larson. The online discourse is paving the way for this complicated conflict to become a major literary scandal, in a year already aflame from the “Cat Person” controversy.

Hopefully, I was not the only one feeling left out when I scanned through my feed and found everybody dismayed and reeling about “the kidney story.” If you haven’t read it, I don’t blame you. The article, written by Robert Kolker, is really long. I encourage everyone to give it a shot though, because the intricacies in the narrative are genuinely compelling, almost like a novel in how it unfolds.

The Story

I’ll try to summarize this juicy story. “Who Is the Bad Art Friend?” begins in 2015, when Dorland donated a kidney to a stranger and created a private Facebook group to spread the news about her act of generosity as well as awareness about the virtues of organ donation. Her advocacy was apparently a big deal, and she became a representative for different causes. Larson was a member of this private group, and Dorland noticed that Larson hadn’t liked or commented on any of her posts. Dorland contacted Larson about whether she wanted to remain in the group, Larson apologized and stated that she didn’t know her “interactions” with the posts mattered, and the friends (Dorland had the impression they were close, Larson did not) went on their separate ways for a year.

Through a colleague, Dorland then learned that Larson (a mixed-race Asian-American woman) was drafting a short story later titled “The Kindest,” about a white woman who donates a kidney to a Chinese-American woman. Dorland emailed Larson about it, and Larson admitted that her depiction of the kidney donor was inspired by Dorland’s posts.

This disturbs Dorland, but she’s tipped over the edge when the story is published in American Short Fiction (which, I can’t seem to find anymore) in 2019. There is a letter in the story that the kidney donor writes that resembles the letter that Dorland posted on Facebook. This riles Dorland, and the NYT article also suggests that she’s jealous of the story’s prestigious publishing placement. Worse, Larson was going to be featured in a literary festival where the short story was going to be distributed around Boston.

Here is where the narrative gets heated and oddly infuriating. Dorland hired a lawyer to accuse Larson of plagiarism and asked that Dorland be compensated for the legal fees. Larson, of course, refused to capitulate, holding that her piece was purely fictional, and sued Dorland for defamation and tortious interference (I had to Google that one too.) Dorland then countersues Larson for violating copyright and for causing emotional distress.

There’s plenty more story and nuance to be discussed, including what other writers in Larson’s friend group said in private chats and emails (which were printed out and presented as evidence in the lawsuits, and then published by the NYT!) My purpose here is to lay out the central battleground issues at stake in this issue so that you can safely navigate the discourse.

Intentions

My reading of the article radically shifted when I learned from Celeste Ng, who is quoted as Larson’s friend and defendant, that Dorland originally pitched the article to the NYT herself. It made me question why Dorland, who seemed so altruistic and exemplary with her kidney donation, was doggedly chasing, and occasionally stalking, a fellow writer for stealing material from life, which is what all writers do? Was the purpose, as Larson seemed to suggest, just to punish? Was it, as the article suggests, an outlet of frustration and envy from a grandstanding writer who valued her pride over spending time actually writing?

These questions are harsh and prejudiced, and before you flame me, yes I am biased here, but only because the article is as well. That’s the irony of the situation: Dorland fought for her story to be represented by a prestigious newspaper, only to be portrayed as the villain.

Larson does not get a pass either, but she receives a much more sympathetic treatment. Her private messages to her friends reveal that she intended the story to be a direct attack on Dorland’s social media presence. Although, because these messages are discussed at the end of the article, the reader is more inclined to feel empowered, fueled by a mob mentality. Clearly, Larson did not think that her general audience would make the connection between “The Kindest” and Dorland. Rather, it was to make others aware of the white-savior complex that plagues the experience of people of color. Her intention was the same as all writers, but only when she was threatened did she need to retaliate directly.

Race

It is unlikely that Dorland’s actions would have changed if Larson was white, but the fact that Larson isn’t white does affect the dynamics of this controversy. As mentioned in the article, there is an extensive history of white artists taking credit for work by creators of color. And it’s amazing poetic justice that a white-savior story would offend a white writer so badly that she actively seeks the reputational destruction of the author.

It would be too simple to say that Dorland is merely blind to the anti-white supremacist message of the story. More likely, the strongly liberal and self-aware Dorland fully saw and recognized Larson’s provocation and felt disgusted and terrified that her kidney donation could be seen as deplorable. 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.

Gender

This is less about the content of the article and more about how it's being characterized in online discourse. Beyond the fascination and fury, I’ve noticed another string of reactions: dismissal.

Dorland’s messages are dismissed as petty and absurd. Larson’s refusal to change the story has been called naive and unnecessary. Above all, the word I see applied to the conflict the most is “catty.” Why did the Times publish this story? is a refrain I see over and over again. If the two writers were men, I don’t think people would be asking that question. Gender informs our perception of the stakes, and for two women, their serious and meaningful dispute cannot arise above “gossip.”

This brings up the other side of the Why did the Times publish this story? argument, which is that Dorland’s actions against Larson were disproportionate to the plagiarism. People have argued that the article perpetuates the harassment, and taints Larson’s ability to move on. I’m on the fence about this because on one hand, I sense the absurdity of the NYT accepting a pitch from one of the writers involved, but on the other hand, I see the value of these kinds of conflicts in teaching us about writing.

This article has re-energized a societal discussion about plagiarism, the responsibilities between artists and their subjects, and the role of social media in a writing career. The downside is that much of our actual discussion is not about Larson’s work at all, that we’re focussing on the most sensationalist aspects of the narrative.

Conclusion

Should you read this article? Should you let yourself get swept up in the discourse? I have no right answer, and I can see both sides, but I will say this: if it stirs up a conversation, I don’t want to see that dismissed. The article has been published, and it’s up to us as readers to react responsibly to the information. I will be respectful if you do too.