Inventing Anna

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re invited somewhere as someone’s guest you go with the expectation of not paying. Rachel did nothing wrong. She’s a mooch, sure, but she did not deserve to have her credit card charged, and Anna is not “more honest” than her. WTF? Who forced Anna to plan this $$$ trip anyway?

+100

What I don't understand is, was everyone expecting Anna to pay for everyone's hotel room?
I could understand an occasional meal, but the next round is on you. Never would I think someone would pay for my hotel room

This is how it went:

Anna floated the idea of a vacation. Rachel was like, cool, let’s go to [insert locations with modest accommodations that I can afford on my photo editor salary] and Anna was like, no I am not ~PAHR~, let’s go to Morocco and while we’re at it stay in this extremely expensive apartment. And Rachel told Anna that was way out of her budget and Anna said, don’t worry, airfare and the hotel are on me, would you mind booking the airfare and I’ll pay you back when my bank wires me the money?

I don't know I looked at Rachel's Instagram from that year. She had other overseas trips including a long stint in France. I earn almost 3X as much as she claims to have earned and I haven't been running off to any European vacations. Then again, I don't have rich friends to supplement my lifestyle.

Single people in their 20s can travel cheaply. No matter what other trips she took, there was no way she could afford to pay for even a quarter share of a $7000 per night riad. Anna knew that.

[Anonymous]

I looked for the original article but couldn’t find it online anymore. Anyone have any luck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t understand is why so many people were fooled by the long delays in a bank wiring money or foreign credit cards not working. It’s not the 1950s! Do they not realize how global commerce works?

Exactly! I couldn't figure that out either.

[Anonymous]

The Netflix series portrayed the reporter really badly. As an annoying pregnant lady, annoying spouse, who basically fell in platonic love with her near-psychopathic subject. I wonder how the real reporter felt when she saw it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I looked for the original article but couldn’t find it online anymore. Anyone have any luck?

https://www.thecut.com/article/how-anna-delvey-tricked-new-york.html

[Anonymous]

Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I couldn't stand whiny Rachel, but yes - she was definitely taken advantage of by Anna, who promised to pay her back but then never did. True, no one *forced* Rachel to hand over her credit card, but in order to leave, she had to. I just couldn't believe she then allowed THREE MONTHS to pass, while pathetically begging Anna to repay her. So stupid - she should have gone to the police. What a doormat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Netflix series portrayed the reporter really badly. As an annoying pregnant lady, annoying spouse, who basically fell in platonic love with her near-psychopathic subject. I wonder how the real reporter felt when she saw it.

Agree, they wrote her as unlikeable and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I couldn't stand whiny Rachel, but yes - she was definitely taken advantage of by Anna, who promised to pay her back but then never did. True, no one *forced* Rachel to hand over her credit card, but in order to leave, she had to. I just couldn't believe she then allowed THREE MONTHS to pass, while pathetically begging Anna to repay her. So stupid - she should have gone to the police. What a doormat.

For what? She voluntarily provided her card. That’s why the jury didn’t convict Anna for using Rachel’s card on file. If anything her employer should have gone to the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I couldn't stand whiny Rachel, but yes - she was definitely taken advantage of by Anna, who promised to pay her back but then never did. True, no one *forced* Rachel to hand over her credit card, but in order to leave, she had to. I just couldn't believe she then allowed THREE MONTHS to pass, while pathetically begging Anna to repay her. So stupid - she should have gone to the police. What a doormat.

For what? She voluntarily provided her card. That’s why the jury didn’t convict Anna for using Rachel’s card on file. If anything her employer should have gone to the police.

Serious question: what would happen if she didn’t hand her card over? If no one did?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I couldn't stand whiny Rachel, but yes - she was definitely taken advantage of by Anna, who promised to pay her back but then never did. True, no one *forced* Rachel to hand over her credit card, but in order to leave, she had to. I just couldn't believe she then allowed THREE MONTHS to pass, while pathetically begging Anna to repay her. So stupid - she should have gone to the police. What a doormat.

For what? She voluntarily provided her card. That’s why the jury didn’t convict Anna for using Rachel’s card on file. If anything her employer should have gone to the police.

Serious question: what would happen if she didn’t hand her card over? If no one did?

They were in Morocco. They could have gone to jail for theft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I couldn't stand whiny Rachel, but yes - she was definitely taken advantage of by Anna, who promised to pay her back but then never did. True, no one *forced* Rachel to hand over her credit card, but in order to leave, she had to. I just couldn't believe she then allowed THREE MONTHS to pass, while pathetically begging Anna to repay her. So stupid - she should have gone to the police. What a doormat.

For what? She voluntarily provided her card. That’s why the jury didn’t convict Anna for using Rachel’s card on file. If anything her employer should have gone to the police.

Serious question: what would happen if she didn’t hand her card over? If no one did?

They were in Morocco. They could have gone to jail for theft.

Yeah I wasn’t trying to be flippant, genuinely have no idea how it would go down for citizens abroad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I don't know how it went down in real life, but the way it is portrayed on the show does not paint Rachel as a victim IMO. As Neff points out, Rachel had been taking advantage of Anna for a long time before this all happened (for clothes, shoes, admission to cool parties, dinners that Anna either paid for or got others to pay for, etc.). And the trip to Morocco was the same -- Rachel is pushing for it, talking about upgrades, etc. She wants to ride her rich friends coattails. Anna was also paying for all their training sessions with Kacy I think? Essentially Anna was bankrolling a certain lifestyle for Rachel that she could never have afforded or had the connections (or confidence) to pull off on her own.

None of that justifies what Anna did, of course. Anna is still a con artist and she conned people, including Rachel. But Rachel was running her own scheme too.

I knew women like this in my 20s, who wanted to go out and have a good time and just quietly scheme for others to pay. Sometimes I was one of those "others" who got stuck with checks or never got paid back by people who promised they were good for it. Rachel is one of those women. It was a game to her -- let's go big in NYC on someone else's dime! I'm sorry but I don't feel bad for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Literally cannot understand the take that Rachel is anything but a victim in this situation.

I don't know how it went down in real life, but the way it is portrayed on the show does not paint Rachel as a victim IMO. As Neff points out, Rachel had been taking advantage of Anna for a long time before this all happened (for clothes, shoes, admission to cool parties, dinners that Anna either paid for or got others to pay for, etc.). And the trip to Morocco was the same -- Rachel is pushing for it, talking about upgrades, etc. She wants to ride her rich friends coattails. Anna was also paying for all their training sessions with Kacy I think? Essentially Anna was bankrolling a certain lifestyle for Rachel that she could never have afforded or had the connections (or confidence) to pull off on her own.

None of that justifies what Anna did, of course. Anna is still a con artist and she conned people, including Rachel. But Rachel was running her own scheme too.

I knew women like this in my 20s, who wanted to go out and have a good time and just quietly scheme for others to pay. Sometimes I was one of those "others" who got stuck with checks or never got paid back by people who promised they were good for it. Rachel is one of those women. It was a game to her -- let's go big in NYC on someone else's dime! I'm sorry but I don't feel bad for her.

This is what other friends in the group also said about Rachel. She was just a different type of grifter.

[Anonymous]

I don't get why Nef still seems under Anna's spell.