cat person

And yet if you seriously don't want random people to mull over Robert/Charles's life and why he died, and him being inevitably outed in a twitter thread at some point, a then friend of his writing something about him on Medium etc etc etc, probably best not to write the essay in the first place.

Yeah I feel like the essay is more about her being butthurt that her life was mined for a story, than about her defending Charles’ character.

Why “butthurt” rather than hurt and violated? Roupenian tracked down details of her life from social media to include them in the story. Then she depicted her and her relationship in a way that wasn’t accurate.

If Roupenian changed the details so it was about an older man and a younger woman—and not clearly based on these two specific people—there would be no essay and people would have been spared some pain.

And yet if you seriously don't want random people to mull over Robert/Charles's life and why he died

But “mulling over” his life wasn’t the issue, it was that people thought he was a misogynist and a creep

Does she *own* the details of her life? Do any of us?

She posted details of her life on social media. And yeah Roupenian could have been more sensitive about changing things up. But "hurt and violated"?

she used extremely identifying information including the person's tiny hometown, wrote a story with a ton of embellished stuff that cast the people involved in a very unflattering light, and submitted it to the new yorker! bad!

or in roupenian's own words:

When I was living in Ann Arbor, I had an encounter with a man. I later learned, from social media, that this man previously had a much younger girlfriend. I also learned a handful of facts about her: that she worked in a movie theater, that she was from a town adjacent to Ann Arbor, and that she was an undergrad at the same school I attended as a grad student. Using those facts as a jumping-off point, I then wrote a story that was primarily a work of the imagination, but which also drew on my own personal experiences, both past and present. In retrospect, I was wrong not to go back and remove those biographical details, especially the name of the town. Not doing so was careless.

But "hurt and violated"?

this is how I would feel in her shoes I think, yes

She posted details of her life on social media.

This is irrelevant. Most people do this. Roupenian took these external details — a lot of them, to the letter — and invented unflattering private details including an awful sexual experience. It’s so violating.

And it cast this dude Charles as the scum of the Earth. A symbol of toxic masculinity.

Which, at least from the essay writer’s perspective, was unfair. Roupenian knew the guy too and maybe she felt it was a fair depiction based on her experience. There is no way to know. And it’s also irrelevant because it wasn’t just Charles—she dragged a third party into it (the essay writer).

invented unflattering private details

Or, in other words, wrote some fiction.

Why not change the name of the hometown and make her work at a different movie theater. Then it would be a fictional character.

As it is, it’s creepy.

It’s fine to base a character on someone just don’t make it obvious to everyone who knows them

did anyone ever figure out what the cat's name was

society

damn

Absolutely without a doubt “hurt and violated” if it were me. And angry.

If the purpose of the article was to clear charles' name it didn't do a very good job seeing as people are taking "he was an asshole to roupenian and maybe did the cat person stuff to her" from it

Roupenian is the one who leaves that door open as she says the story was inspired by an “encounter” she had with a man whom she learned previously had a younger girlfriend. The essay writer quotes this, in the interest of presenting Roupenian’s account of the genesis of the story. But she does say all that she can say, which is that the man’s behavior in the story does not reflect her experience.

She can’t stand in the way of whatever Roupenian thinks about Charles. She doesn’t know that story. But she can refuse to be enlisted in this narrative against her will. And she did. If it was me, i would hope to be as courageous and careful with my words as she was.

In the end it is about defending charles but it isn’t just about that. She is also standing up for herself.

I thought the primary purpose was to stand up for herself. Not everything is al about Charles. Sad lol

Oops all

Tbh I’d personally never write an essay primarily defending my ex boyfriend if a character resembled him. Never would put the effort into it.
However I would absolutely write an essay saying i believe it is was uncool to poach my life for your story if I wasn’t aware of the borrowing and/or had not been asked for consent. Violated is the word that keeps coming to mind. That’s just me. Everyone is different.

if somoene wrote a story in which my ex-girlfriend was depicted as being abusive to me, and the story was a viral sensation, and everyone who knew us knew that this story was based on us, and then she was tormented by this, i would absolutely want to correct the record.

whatever harsh feelings i have for my exes, or whatever, there is still a principle of fairness.

i agree that the essay is primarily about her standing up for herself and her own story. but charles is definitely a part of it. this is part of what made the story so disturbing -- that it was not a pleasant and fun story. i imagine she would not care as much if the story was lighter in tone and didn't depict her as naive and him as predatory.

Wanting the record corrected and writing an essay primarily to clear an ex’s name when your personal deets were poached & your experience misrepresented — not the same thing. The only thing I don’t buy is that the essay writer PRIMARILY wrote the essay to clear his name. That was secondary because he deserved to have his name cleared. I feel like there are way too many potential spots of misunderstanding (in good or bad faith) that I should probably just bow out.

i don't think it was primarily due to that either. i just think it's part of it.

so i think we agree.

i just often repeat the same points over and over. if someone wants to create a pedantic internet poster character, just change my hometown please.

what is the main idea of this passage?

a) potaotes from ireland started the potato revolution
b) the average american eats 50 pounds of potatoes a year
c) french fries are made from potatoes
d) potatoes are a key vegetable in america
e) the various terms for potatoes have a long history

She could have corrected the record and stood up for herself privately. I don’t think it was cool to do publicly unless the motivation was attention/pay. Which are fine motivations for a lot of people, who could justify the downsides. I could not.

cat people...got no reason

Sounds too close to “women speak up either for attention or money.”

What would the benefit be of standing up privately? Readers who recognized her might still assume she was the naive, somewhat self-absorbed girl of the story. To set the record straight she needs to speak out.

Also I found her essay more compelling than the initial story. So I think it justifies itself as an essay in its own right that raises questions about ethics in authorship.

Was wondering how you correct the record in private.

to be fair, james joyce presented skewered visions of real life people in 'ulysses.' i'm certain that none of his easily identifiable models consented to this.

it is not clear how he could have disguised these people, given the fact that the novel itself was so autobiographical. he *was* stephen, biographically; and he *was* bloom, spiritually. (italo svevo was also bloom).

i don't know if this is ethical, if autofiction is ethical. knausgaard writes extensively, in his books, about how pissed off everyone was by his books, which didn't even include a fig leaf of a name change. i guess the difference with joyce and knausgaard is that they implicate themselves in their work more than anyone else? or maybe the difference is that i love ulysses, and i love the 'my struggle' novels, and i don't love cat person, so the literature doesn't seem to justify the violation.

there are all kinds of sexist implications to this too. in my defense, though, i also will defend virginia woolf's use of people from her real life as obvious models.

I could at least understand better where the objection was coming from if it was something like "the original story said something really important and I don't think it should be discredited".

i guess in this case it seems like whatever one finds valuable in the story could have been preserved if they changed the details? whereas in these other cases, it's not as easy, as the work is about the author and the people they knew

also, like, i am not totally clear on the ethics of those other examples, even though i appreciate those works as literature

haven't followed all the intricacies, but it seems to me the response essay may be a case of......

.....putting out fire with gasoline

It seems to me that if someone researches biographical details about you in order to write a sex scene between you and your actual ex-boyfriend in which both of you can be easily identified, you are justified in writing anything you please about it.

I would simply correct the record privately

xp. otm

sorry y'all, just making a david bowie joke.....

Just heard there’s a Cat Person movie! It stars two ppl I’ve never heard of which is perfect (for me) and I’m weirdly psyched to see what it looks like as a movie. I’d imagine it’s going to be REALLY uncomfortable 😀