Subject of famous/infamous New Yorker "Cat Person" short story revealed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

OP here - are you for real?

Did you read the Slate article?

I'm a DP. This is exactly what she did. Cat People author also apologized for not having changed out identifying details. It was bad for Slate author, but horrible for "Charles". He did not do what Cat People said he did. But by Cat People NOT changing identifying details, it is assumed "Charles" did those things. Frankly, I wonder what he died of.

Since he died in 2020 I was assuming Covid or an unfortunately related death of despair, from an OD or by suicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

[Anonymous]

Wait, was Roupenian actually dating Charles for a while? I'd assume they did date and he spilled the details during their pillow talk. Otherwise, it's kinda tough to learn all the intimate facts from someone's social media posts.

Also, come to think of it, the real protagonist seem to be the kiind of person who documents her every fart online for posterity in no fewer than 5 paragraphs)) so she, probably, was an easy target. Doesn't excuse Roupenian, though, she should have changed identyfying info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, was Roupenian actually dating Charles for a while? I'd assume they did date and he spilled the details during their pillow talk. Otherwise, it's kinda tough to learn all the intimate facts from someone's social media posts.

Also, come to think of it, the real protagonist seem to be the kiind of person who documents her every fart online for posterity in no fewer than 5 paragraphs)) so she, probably, was an easy target. Doesn't excuse Roupenian, though, she should have changed identyfying info.

Charles did date Roupenian or at least had an “encounter” with her. That’s clear from the Slate story, which mentions that Charle’s friend Dave told Slate author Nowicki that Charles kept his old iPhone so he could reassure himself that he never texted terrible things to Roupenian. Roupenian was lazy AF to lift and not change the details of Nowicki’s or Charles’s life. I don’t share your disdain for Nowicki. I thought it was a fascinating follow-up, and she clearly wanted to do what she could to rehabilitate Charles’s reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:KR said she drew on her own experiences. Couldn’t this just be a coincidence?

FFS read the article. KR CONFIRMED in a text conversation that Cat Person was based on this girl's relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

+1 Roupenian, clearly, lacks a moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

+1 Roupenian, clearly, lacks a moral compass.

I wonder if Roupenian wrote the story at least in part to hurt Charles? Clearly many people at the University of Michigan, where all three were at around the same time, knew about Charles’s relationship with Nowicki. I wonder if she hoped people would assume the story was true and vilify him for it. I can’t get over how negligent she was in keeping all the real-life details in the story. I hope it didn’t contribute to his depression (which Nowicki mentions) or the reason for his sudden death.

[Anonymous]

Roupenian took overly specific details of a nothing relationship and then made a story about it go viral by adding fictional details about ambiguously consensual sex that leaves the protagonist disgusted and aggressive, harassing texts from the older fictional man after the protagonist ends the relationship.

[Anonymous]

It is being made into a film / TV movie / some visual interpretation for the screen.

I won't be watching. The story wasn't that compelling. I felt it was going to appeal mostly to voyeurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

The Slate piece is written by the woman whose life and relationship was fictionalized by the author of the short story. The background of the fictional character, including her relationship with an older man, were so similar to her real life that people were texting her about it as soon as the story came out.

Talk about someone missing the point. Jesus.

Agree 100%. I thought the Slate piece was very good. I believe that the pressure from the story also contributed to Charles' later suicide. He also wasn't the fictional person in the story but many others assumed he was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

The Slate piece is written by the woman whose life and relationship was fictionalized by the author of the short story. The background of the fictional character, including her relationship with an older man, were so similar to her real life that people were texting her about it as soon as the story came out.

Talk about someone missing the point. Jesus.

Agree 100%. I thought the Slate piece was very good. I believe that the pressure from the story also contributed to Charles' later suicide. He also wasn't the fictional person in the story but many others assumed he was.

Any evidence he committed suicide? Cat person author did Charles and Slate writer dirty by making them identifiable and then fictionalizing what happened between them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

+1 Roupenian, clearly, lacks a moral compass.

I don't know about that. She's a writer - and was a young writer when she wrote this piece. I don't know if you know any writers - I am one - and especially at that early time in your life, before you've been published and your main thing is just to get GOOD and hopefully have someone take notice, you're not really thinking about how this will affect anyone who you've pilfered from. You're drawing on real life and then twisting it into fiction - that's how it works. I am not saying that what she did was good - and I think the Slate writer has every right in the world to be upset, and to tell her side of the story. I just also think, this is what writers do. It sucks, it's normal. I guess you could say no writers have a moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

+1 Roupenian, clearly, lacks a moral compass.

I don't know about that. She's a writer - and was a young writer when she wrote this piece. I don't know if you know any writers - I am one - and especially at that early time in your life, before you've been published and your main thing is just to get GOOD and hopefully have someone take notice, you're not really thinking about how this will affect anyone who you've pilfered from. You're drawing on real life and then twisting it into fiction - that's how it works. I am not saying that what she did was good - and I think the Slate writer has every right in the world to be upset, and to tell her side of the story. I just also think, this is what writers do. It sucks, it's normal. I guess you could say no writers have a moral compass.

I agree with this. This is totally normal for writers to do. It seems like, thanks to social media, it’s easier now to make these connections than it used to be, which is uncomfortable. But this is just how writing is. And I thought it was a great piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

+1 Roupenian, clearly, lacks a moral compass.

I don't know about that. She's a writer - and was a young writer when she wrote this piece. I don't know if you know any writers - I am one - and especially at that early time in your life, before you've been published and your main thing is just to get GOOD and hopefully have someone take notice, you're not really thinking about how this will affect anyone who you've pilfered from. You're drawing on real life and then twisting it into fiction - that's how it works. I am not saying that what she did was good - and I think the Slate writer has every right in the world to be upset, and to tell her side of the story. I just also think, this is what writers do. It sucks, it's normal. I guess you could say no writers have a moral compass.

It’s not hard to change a few identifying details. In fact, that’s what most writers do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're sort of (and even the slate piece) is missing the point.

The author of cat people said it was 100% fiction. The slate writer figured out it was about her and confirmed with thee cat people author that those were her details, it had been based on her. Charles admitted to another friend he was upset that the cat people author 'dragged" slate author "into it."

So, it seems like the people in the story were slate and Charles, but the truly bad experiences were Cat people and Charles. Cat people fictionalized her bad experience with Charles by subbing in slate author's bio details.

So much nonsense drama.

But it isn't nonsense. If someone wrote a "fictionalize" version of an incident in your life, and provided identifying details, then added other, derogatory details that were not true, that is not right. Cat People author should not have included identifying details.

+1 Roupenian, clearly, lacks a moral compass.

I don't know about that. She's a writer - and was a young writer when she wrote this piece. I don't know if you know any writers - I am one - and especially at that early time in your life, before you've been published and your main thing is just to get GOOD and hopefully have someone take notice, you're not really thinking about how this will affect anyone who you've pilfered from. You're drawing on real life and then twisting it into fiction - that's how it works. I am not saying that what she did was good - and I think the Slate writer has every right in the world to be upset, and to tell her side of the story. I just also think, this is what writers do. It sucks, it's normal. I guess you could say no writers have a moral compass.

It’s not hard to change a few identifying details. In fact, that’s what most writers do.

+1 FFS, people do that when they post on DCUM.