cat person

i read a little bit of this story and aborted mission -- maybe i will go back to it later but I'm not sure I need to read it tbh.
i was into "cat person" on account of the sheer mundanity of it; this one seems to be out to shock from the first sentences. it's not hard to dredge up horrible dating stories, not sure this is very interesting or insightful? but i haven't read the whole thing. i only made it to the entrance of Angela. i guess i will report back if i read the rest.

initially v hard to get past

Like all the women he’d dated over the past several years, Angela was, by any objective measure, way out of his league.

but the whole "man my cold dick hurts worse than my bleeding head" part rivaled it

xp same here, really liked Cat Person, but the first few paragraphs of this made me lose interest. I felt like the characters in Cat Person were very true to life, but this man seems very poorly drawn. Does it get better, anyone?

I really wondered if anyone had edited it the entire way through and then at the end seeing it's from the upcoming? book. If someone doesn't want to waste time, it's not great. If one is curious, it's like a jezebel.com throwaway.

the painful cold dick thing is maybe a metaphor? either that or written from the perspective of someone who doesn't have a dick and wasn't interested enough to ask someone with a dick what that feels like. or maybe the piece is a metaphor for that set of circumstances.

This author is extremely talented imo, she hits on some 'internal monologue' stuff that reminds me of Carver at his best. The very concept that Ted cannot conceive of penetrative sex as being something un-rooted in violence, that his receptive partners are faking it, that he himself is manipulating them into sex, this is stuff that cut deep for me? Ted's outburst toward his present-day lover about how "it's all her fault" was... very much an unspoken truth in many of my own breakups?

The intense judge-y tone of the whole piece scuttles it entirely, like does Ted literally GO TO HELL? or go INTO THE INCINERATOR? idk but this author's capacity for delineating the thought process is really wonderful and I hope she writes some comedies or love stories in the future, bc right now her stories read like Pink Floyd's "The Wall"

Maaaaaaybe? Brad otm about the writing, “god imagine reading a whole book of these” is where I’m at with this writer now

The writing in this one mostly fell flat for me. For instance, this kind of thing:

Well, what if she did, Ted? What. If. She. Did. Couldn’t he have just shrugged his shoulders and said, “Whelp, sucks for your cousin, I changed my mind”? No. He could not do that, because that was something that only an asshole would do, and he, Ted, was not an asshole. He was… a nice guy.

Yes, okay, everyone agreed that nice guys were the worst, but this was different. To feel incapable of interrupting Rachel in the middle of a meal and dumping her without warning — that wasn’t Nice Guy Syndrome, that was just being humane.

I don't think she should have explicitly used the phrase 'nice guy' at any point. It just shows up too clearly how steeped in recent discourse the story is, and turns the character into a punching bag.

I totally was imagining Ted Mosby as the main character.

I’m still reading this but this isn’t good. Like the cousin thing, and then his fixation on Anna...feel like he’s going to flip and murder someone by the end. Should have taken Yerac’s advice but feel obliged to finish it.

Also in the original thread above I see people (one person?) saying Cat Person should be written from the perspective of the guy. Is this a common thing now in modern writing? The only published thing I could think of was when they did that with Twilight/50 Shades. It seems like a random thing to even want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP33_uFlzTM

This was a thing on twitter as well, and on there it was loads of people angry at the story insisting the (fictional!) man should get a chance to air his views for his (fictional!) acts.

somebody actually did that, as a kind of sincere revenge of the fedora dude exercise iirc

tbh tho this new thing feels a bit like she’s trolling everyone who mocked ppl who failed to realise cat person was a short story and not a blog post, by writing something that reads more like a garden variety medium post than something by a serious fiction writer

Yeah, that is why I was saying it twas too obvious/on the nose. Like, we all the know the men in Cat Person and Nice Guy/Ted but Cat Person felt more startling in the recognition.

I read the whole thing, and I agree with fgti that there are flashes of something compelling, she has a talent for identifying some very specific mentalities when it comes to dating/gender. But there's also so much that drags it down, and that ending, ugh. It feels like both the writing and editing were rushed to capitalize on Cat Person hype.

I think people on Twitter might be getting defensive about these stories because they seem like an indictment against "male behaviour" as a whole, casting benign stuff as being toxic and gross. In the case of "Cat Person" the dude was clearly shitty, but in the case of "The Nice Guy" Ted's behaviour doesn't actually even seem to be all that bad? The comment that spurs on the tumbler-throwing sounds more like a man being real about his boundaries and desires and being punished for it with violence.

Perceiving these stories as indictments isn't off-the-mark-- with "The Nice Guy" in particular, Roupenian seems to wish to re-cast even reasonably justifiable male psychology and response as being worthy of hellfire punishment. But I see a lot, a lot of commonality between Roupenian's male characters and Raymond Carver's-- in particular, Earl in "They're Not Your Husband" (that's the story where a husband, noticing that his waitress wife has put on some weight, bullies her into losing some, and she does, and then the author specifically asks for a slice of pie so that she'll show off her ass at work, and the husband subsequently makes leering comments about his own wife to a patron in the restaurant-- god what a fucked up story). Carver's position is observational and leaves the reader to form their own judgements, whereas Roupenian acts as judge for her characters-- she herself is effectively a character in her own stories, as commentator. And that scuttles the story for me. I read "The Nice Guy" and felt like I wanted to defend Ted-- why is he being punished by the author for having his own desires, his own boundaries?

But yeah I haven't had as much of a "wow have you been reading my diary?" response to an author's delineation of internal monologue and motivations since like... idk the first time I read Chris Ware's "Jimmy Corrigan"

It's funny that some recent LA Times article about the new women in congress referenced Cat Person.

Because contrary to Ted’s puzzlement that women all seem to react the same way to him, it is actually possible to tell how someone feels about you without them saying so and the story does at least do that much in pointing out several occurrences like that. That it’s a mystery to him is not the same as it being a mystery to the reader.

Bad as these stories are, I’m not sure the author is to blame for overly fragile twitter people taking a fictional character as a depiction of all of masculinity. That people have reacted to it so strongly is really more about them than the stories themselves and there are literally millions more out there to read.

being punished for it with violence

This struck me as an odd decision. The guy's just been physically assaulted and put in the hospital, and this is the moment when we're being invited to pass judgment on his whole life?

this story reminded me a lot of "you can drive a person crazy" (and bobby in general) tho i think sondheim is a better observer of character and gives a more plausible explanation for this kind of dynamic (tho he also ascribes it to immaturity) than the author of this piece who sounds like someone trying to score points against old boyfriends more than explore whatever psychology is actually relevant here.

The guy's just been physically assaulted and put in the hospital, and this is the moment when we're being invited to pass judgment on his whole life?

that part made sense to me insofar as it's coming at a moment when the indictment of "bad men" may prompt a kneejerk reaction to feel sorry for them rather than hold them accountable for their actions, cf Al Franken. but the execution is hamhanded.

Yeah there's a weird dissonance between this extremely detailed depiction of his history and motivations, vs the heavy-handed interjections that are like 'don't forget though, men who think of themselves as nice guys are actually unredeemable assholes!'

xp

I was posting last year about an idea that Roupenian writes about here-- that some individuals whose sexual preference is purely penetrative (i.e. men) cannot conceive of the fact that their sexual partners would actually desire to be penetrated, as the men (i.e.) themselves do not have that desire, and so they tend to have unhealthy approaches to approaching sexual relationships with their partners, relying upon coercion and/or persuasion and/or cajoling in order to achieve that end. In Ted's case, he actually views his potential sexual partners with suspicion-- 'she must be faking this desire for me'-- and has to imagine that his dick is a knife in order to achieve an erection-- 'the only way I can engage in penetrative sex is by imagining it as an act of violence'.

i'm not sure she's drawing that connection here (or so explicitly at least). it's less about his inability to imagine penetration as pleasurable and more about his anger and resentment towards partners who he believes are "settling" for him, or don't truly love him, etc, so he has to view penetration as violence to achieve erection bc he needs to punish his partners to feel equal in the relationship. this shows up in an array of what he describes as "mean" sexual behaviors, not just the penetrative act.

yeh i think i am going to skip this one
i don't want to get anywhere near the inside of ted's head

opinions!

I thought the author did a good job with the two premises that

1) people want to be desired sexually by people with sexual status greater than their own
2) people want to know that they are loved desired sexually

(I originally wrote "men" rather than "people" for both of those, but the author doesn't seem to suppose the gendered versions so I'll leave them open instead.)

I don't think these premises are grounded on the protagonist's self-loathing, since the self-loathing emerges after 1) is confounded by real life in childhood. So I see this story as digging a little deeper than just "self-loathing men are shitty to women".

I think people should date people they like. Ted’s approach is a nightmare.

It was surprising that she leaned so hard into the archetype of “the nice guy” — as people noted that made it seem less like a short story and more like a morality play, a kind of woke Pilgrim’s Progress.

However, in the end I do feel the writer is talented. And it’s not like she’s drawing on nothing—so many people have pointed out the dynamics she dramatizes in these stories.

Reviewing the book, will return when I get thru it. Haven't read the new story yet.

ok i have read a little more
there is a lot of truth in the discussion of ted's unsolicited attention to his crushes
it doesn't seem to occur to him that the disgust he (legitimately) senses from the objects of his affection might rest in the unsolicited/unwanted attention he pays them and/or the way he is objectifying them rather than a reflection of himself
then he starts pretending friendship when it's not friendship he wants -- this is so common and so harmful :( and mostly unrecognized

um, I wouldn't say it's mostly unrecognised. It's one of the most dominant cultural tropes of our time

unrecognized as being harmful i mean! people seem to think it's cute?
it's not

see: posterboard guy in Love Actually, who maybe is Ted?

Maybe. I think the "friend zone" concept is increasingly recognised as a toxic one these days

these days like in the last few years, maybe
but there are many unaccounted-for years in there where it was not recognized as such
and damage was done during those years -- this seems in part to be about some of that damage?

Yeah he’s a sneaky dude who, as a college student, basically emotionally tortured Rachel and Anna. The woman he threw the glass at him seemed a different casw though—as fgti pointed out, all he did with her was decide to break up with her, unless there is something else Imm forgetting.

*woman who threw

but there are many unaccounted-for years in there where it was not recognized as such

Probably a good move to set this story (the teenage years at least) in the '90s

Originally I thought the idea of a “friend zone” is when two people actually are friends, and have a real foundation of friendship, but one is just secretly in love with the other ne. Now it seems that it’s someone with a secret agenda misrepresenting themselves—which maybe is how it *actually* was playing out most of the time all along

The bigger issue with ted is he never once seems to consider these women’s feelings independent of how they reflect on him. He cares whether he is a “good guy” but he doesn’t really care about the fact that they are feeling hurt.

holy shit though i can't keep track of all of ted's developing feelings because this story is too detailed and boring about anna and rachel and the parties and the moms
it just didn't seem to go anywhere. we are left with idiot jerk ted and that's it

not as good as cat person for sure -- although i do appreciate the girls not being left off the hook. it's not like he's the only bad guy in the story

xp -- which maybe is how it *actually* was playing out most of the time all along no maybe, this is otm -- you can't be secretly in love with someone and pretend to be their friend. you can pretend to yourself that this is what you are doing, but that doesn't make it true. the person who pretends friendship while secretly pining is a person who doesn't care much about the other person's feelings because theirs come first.

“it doesn't seem to occur to him that the disgust he (legitimately) senses from the objects of his affection might rest in the unsolicited/unwanted attention he pays them and/or the way he is objectifying them rather than a reflection of himself”

it might, in part, and it might rest in part on his not being otherwise appealing. Both can be true.

He wants to be Marco who without having to do anything attracts Anna. Without doing anything he “only” attracts Rachel. Desire, our desirability, is partly a function of what we control, and partly not. Ted is learning how to (ab)use the part he can control.

Probably a good move to set this story (the teenage years at least) in the '90s
otm

I just read something where the author said this piece was in response to all the (weirdo) requests to write Cat Person from the man's point of view.

it would have to be the same story then right? i mean, ted is different from [guy in cat person whose name i forget]; they are not the same person? or are they supposed to be the same person?

Oh, i think maybe more a companion piece.

i guess that leads me to my other question after finishing this story -- who is ted then? what is his context? we don't really get much of a clear idea aside from his perspective (from the very beginning) about his sexual performance. i mean, that's a helluva defining characteristic i guess but i don't feel like ted is as real as the people in cat person. idk. maybe some people feel differently if they are/ have been closer to more teds.