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

[Anonymous]

On the issue of borrowing — as the Slate writer makes clear, when the short story came out, she started getting texts from friends assuming that she had written it under a pen name

It wasn’t just her who said “who this sounds familiar”

It was her friends who did.

“I had dozens of text messages—some from close friends, but many from old co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years. Most of them contained a link to a New Yorker short story. … “Is this about you?” the text messages read. “Did you write this under a pen name? Did Charles?” My stomach dropped. Charles and I had broken up two years prior…”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Yes, crappy writers like Hemingway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Arms: The novel was based on Hemingway's own experiences serving in the Italian campaigns during the First World War. The inspiration for Catherine Barkley was Agnes von Kurowsky, a nurse who cared for Hemingway in a hospital in Milan after he had been wounded. He had planned to marry her but she spurned his love when he returned to America.[5] Kitty Cannell, a Paris-based fashion correspondent, became Helen Ferguson. The unnamed priest was based on Don Giuseppe Bianchi, the priest of the 69th and 70th regiments of the Brigata Ancona. Although the sources for Rinaldi are unknown, the character had already appeared in In Our Time.

Or Fitzgerald, fictionalizing his friends the Murphys in Tender is the Night (spoiler: they did not enjoy being fictionalized):

https://www.hellomonaco.com/sightseeing/history-pages/stranger-than-fiction-the-real-lives-that-inspired-tender-is-the-night/#:~:text=On%20July%2028%2C%201962%2C%20Gerald,%2C%20by%20twenty%2Dfour%20years.

I'm not saying the author of Cat Person is Hemingway or Fitzgerald, but your comment, though it sounds good, is naive about how (a lot of) writers work.

That was a different time and ethics were different then. Also, it was before the advent of social media, which changes the ball game. How many people at that time even realized who those character were based on? If CP writer had just changed a few more details, no one would have put two and two together.

TL;DR: you don't know any writers

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Nope. Just ask anyone who ever knew Philip Roth. It's just how it is. Except maybe, like, pure sci-fi fantasy that is all plot and no real character development.

This doesn't mean people have to like it when they're the one who gets their lives minced into fiction. Just, it's normal.

If it’s normal, then the industry has a serious problem. Again, we aren’t talking about simply using a real-life person for inspiration. That’s fine as long as they aren’t easily identified. What happened here is very different.

The "industry" (art?) has a million problems, but this isn't one of them. This is how the sausage gets made. Philip Roth was a good example upthread. You think the people he ripped off straight from life were always thrilled about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Nope. Just ask anyone who ever knew Philip Roth. It's just how it is. Except maybe, like, pure sci-fi fantasy that is all plot and no real character development.

This doesn't mean people have to like it when they're the one who gets their lives minced into fiction. Just, it's normal.

If it’s normal, then the industry has a serious problem. Again, we aren’t talking about simply using a real-life person for inspiration. That’s fine as long as they aren’t easily identified. What happened here is very different.

The "industry" (art?) has a million problems, but this isn't one of them. This is how the sausage gets made. Philip Roth was a good example upthread. You think the people he ripped off straight from life were always thrilled about it?

I am the one who brought up Roth. And I think it can be both a problem, and normal. I have had a few novels published and I always cringe at the thought of the people whose lives I've "borrowed" from in them reading what I've written. But then I go and do it anyway. And I hope that overall, it will have been worth it - for me, for people, but almost certainly not for the people who are turned into characters. I've never had the level of success anywhere near Cat Person - I think my novels have sold a combined 6,000 copies, not exactly bestseller stuff - but I do recognize both that this is very normal (nothing to be shocked by) and also very hurtful for the people whose lives are cut up and used. I don't know how you thread this needle, if you both want novels to exist in the world and also want to protect people from writers doing that to them. I guess like this - someone writes the story, the person whose life was used for the story then gets their turn to say what happened.

[Anonymous]

Why would it be “normal” not to change identifying details? It’s so easy to change things like the names of hometowns and places of employment. Seems lazy and selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Nope. Just ask anyone who ever knew Philip Roth. It's just how it is. Except maybe, like, pure sci-fi fantasy that is all plot and no real character development.

This doesn't mean people have to like it when they're the one who gets their lives minced into fiction. Just, it's normal.

If it’s normal, then the industry has a serious problem. Again, we aren’t talking about simply using a real-life person for inspiration. That’s fine as long as they aren’t easily identified. What happened here is very different.

The "industry" (art?) has a million problems, but this isn't one of them. This is how the sausage gets made. Philip Roth was a good example upthread. You think the people he ripped off straight from life were always thrilled about it?

I am the one who brought up Roth. And I think it can be both a problem, and normal. I have had a few novels published and I always cringe at the thought of the people whose lives I've "borrowed" from in them reading what I've written. But then I go and do it anyway. And I hope that overall, it will have been worth it - for me, for people, but almost certainly not for the people who are turned into characters. I've never had the level of success anywhere near Cat Person - I think my novels have sold a combined 6,000 copies, not exactly bestseller stuff - but I do recognize both that this is very normal (nothing to be shocked by) and also very hurtful for the people whose lives are cut up and used. I don't know how you thread this needle, if you both want novels to exist in the world and also want to protect people from writers doing that to them. I guess like this - someone writes the story, the person whose life was used for the story then gets their turn to say what happened.

This is fair. I’m one of the PPs who knows a ton of writers but can’t claim it for myself. The ultra-defensive flinty quality of some self-proclaimed writers here is just lame as all hell. The discussion got off the rails publicly because some writers, some of whom have sold well, lost their shit and acted as if the Slate essayist was out of pocket for replying or reacting or daring to publish, and that, my friends, is some major horseshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the issue of borrowing — as the Slate writer makes clear, when the short story came out, she started getting texts from friends assuming that she had written it under a pen name

It wasn’t just her who said “who this sounds familiar”

It was her friends who did.

“I had dozens of text messages—some from close friends, but many from old co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years. Most of them contained a link to a New Yorker short story. … “Is this about you?” the text messages read. “Did you write this under a pen name? Did Charles?” My stomach dropped. Charles and I had broken up two years prior…”

She was talking about her dating life to "...co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years" in a manner that they recognized the bad sex??

[Anonymous]

Cat person and slate writers - both have written very interesting pieces. The controversy itself is just a storm in a teacup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the issue of borrowing — as the Slate writer makes clear, when the short story came out, she started getting texts from friends assuming that she had written it under a pen name

It wasn’t just her who said “who this sounds familiar”

It was her friends who did.

“I had dozens of text messages—some from close friends, but many from old co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years. Most of them contained a link to a New Yorker short story. … “Is this about you?” the text messages read. “Did you write this under a pen name? Did Charles?” My stomach dropped. Charles and I had broken up two years prior…”

She was talking about her dating life to "...co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years" in a manner that they recognized the bad sex??

No, those people knew her tiny hometown, the name of the movie theater where she worked, and the university where she went. Read the Slate piece before mouthing off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the issue of borrowing — as the Slate writer makes clear, when the short story came out, she started getting texts from friends assuming that she had written it under a pen name

It wasn’t just her who said “who this sounds familiar”

It was her friends who did.

“I had dozens of text messages—some from close friends, but many from old co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years. Most of them contained a link to a New Yorker short story. … “Is this about you?” the text messages read. “Did you write this under a pen name? Did Charles?” My stomach dropped. Charles and I had broken up two years prior…”

She was talking about her dating life to "...co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years" in a manner that they recognized the bad sex??

No, those people knew her tiny hometown, the name of the movie theater where she worked, and the university where she went. Read the Slate piece before mouthing off.

I mean, 40,000 people attend UM every year, many of them likely from Saline. I worked at the Michigan Theater, too. These details aren’t enough to identify someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the issue of borrowing — as the Slate writer makes clear, when the short story came out, she started getting texts from friends assuming that she had written it under a pen name

It wasn’t just her who said “who this sounds familiar”

It was her friends who did.

“I had dozens of text messages—some from close friends, but many from old co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years. Most of them contained a link to a New Yorker short story. … “Is this about you?” the text messages read. “Did you write this under a pen name? Did Charles?” My stomach dropped. Charles and I had broken up two years prior…”

She was talking about her dating life to "...co-workers, classmates, and people I hadn’t spoken to in years" in a manner that they recognized the bad sex??

No, those people knew her tiny hometown, the name of the movie theater where she worked, and the university where she went. Read the Slate piece before mouthing off.

I mean, 40,000 people attend UM every year, many of them likely from Saline. I worked at the Michigan Theater, too. These details aren’t enough to identify someone.

Well, they also knew that she went out with an older guy, which was the subject of the piece. And the bad sex stuff in the piece wasn’t true, so it’s not that her friends recognized that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Nope. Just ask anyone who ever knew Philip Roth. It's just how it is. Except maybe, like, pure sci-fi fantasy that is all plot and no real character development.

This doesn't mean people have to like it when they're the one who gets their lives minced into fiction. Just, it's normal.

If it’s normal, then the industry has a serious problem. Again, we aren’t talking about simply using a real-life person for inspiration. That’s fine as long as they aren’t easily identified. What happened here is very different.

The "industry" (art?) has a million problems, but this isn't one of them. This is how the sausage gets made. Philip Roth was a good example upthread. You think the people he ripped off straight from life were always thrilled about it?

I am the one who brought up Roth. And I think it can be both a problem, and normal. I have had a few novels published and I always cringe at the thought of the people whose lives I've "borrowed" from in them reading what I've written. But then I go and do it anyway. And I hope that overall, it will have been worth it - for me, for people, but almost certainly not for the people who are turned into characters. I've never had the level of success anywhere near Cat Person - I think my novels have sold a combined 6,000 copies, not exactly bestseller stuff - but I do recognize both that this is very normal (nothing to be shocked by) and also very hurtful for the people whose lives are cut up and used. I don't know how you thread this needle, if you both want novels to exist in the world and also want to protect people from writers doing that to them. I guess like this - someone writes the story, the person whose life was used for the story then gets their turn to say what happened.

This is fair. I’m one of the PPs who knows a ton of writers but can’t claim it for myself. The ultra-defensive flinty quality of some self-proclaimed writers here is just lame as all hell. The discussion got off the rails publicly because some writers, some of whom have sold well, lost their shit and acted as if the Slate essayist was out of pocket for replying or reacting or daring to publish, and that, my friends, is some major horseshit.

I am the PP and I completely agree. I used to be a journalist and whenever anyone wrote something mean about me or something I'd written, I'd try to say: this is the price of a byline. Well, the price of having your name on a book or a short story is sometimes people are going to be p*ssed off at what you've written - because they disagree with your vision of the world, because they don't like your characters, because they think you borrowed too heavily from real life, whatever. If you can't deal with that, then don't write, is sort of how I see it.

I think the corollary to that is, if you can't stand seeing yourself in print, don't love a writer. (My husband has taken that stance. At the same time he never ever ever reads what I write.) But the woman whose life was borrowed for Cat Person didn't voluntarily join up with a writer. She didn't sign up for it. I still think it's not shocking. I do understand why she's upset. I don't know - I get why people want an easy answer (the writer shouldn't have done that! no what she did is fine!) and I think that perhaps just like good fiction is supposed to live in the ambiguity of life, writing itself rests in that ambiguity, too. It's both beautiful and immoral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Nope. Just ask anyone who ever knew Philip Roth. It's just how it is. Except maybe, like, pure sci-fi fantasy that is all plot and no real character development.

This doesn't mean people have to like it when they're the one who gets their lives minced into fiction. Just, it's normal.

If it’s normal, then the industry has a serious problem. Again, we aren’t talking about simply using a real-life person for inspiration. That’s fine as long as they aren’t easily identified. What happened here is very different.

The "industry" (art?) has a million problems, but this isn't one of them. This is how the sausage gets made. Philip Roth was a good example upthread. You think the people he ripped off straight from life were always thrilled about it?

I am the one who brought up Roth. And I think it can be both a problem, and normal. I have had a few novels published and I always cringe at the thought of the people whose lives I've "borrowed" from in them reading what I've written. But then I go and do it anyway. And I hope that overall, it will have been worth it - for me, for people, but almost certainly not for the people who are turned into characters. I've never had the level of success anywhere near Cat Person - I think my novels have sold a combined 6,000 copies, not exactly bestseller stuff - but I do recognize both that this is very normal (nothing to be shocked by) and also very hurtful for the people whose lives are cut up and used. I don't know how you thread this needle, if you both want novels to exist in the world and also want to protect people from writers doing that to them. I guess like this - someone writes the story, the person whose life was used for the story then gets their turn to say what happened.

My husband was a "character" in one of his college friend's novels. I think the character gets murdered, ha ha!

On this short story, I get the distinct impression that Roupenian (short story) wrote it as a revenge piece against Charles, but she didn't anticipate it being so widely read. Annnnddd I feel like I have just come up with a great idea for a short story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s nonsense drama, but it demonstrates Roupanian lacks ethics, character, perspective, and both creative and sympathetic imagination. The story was a nothing to me when I read it and it’s further degraded knowing now that she did an insane amount of heavy lifting from real life, lied to a subject of the story, and now tried to guilt an unwitting subject of the story with “incels wanted to kill me!” It’s just pathetic and juvenile bullshit, and for what? For an inartful, unimportant little dross viral bit of crap.

This is 100 percent the correct take.

-- signed, former journalist and author

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Writers who claim that it’s normal to borrow so many true-life details that readers can identify the actual people on which characters were based are probably crappy writers. It’s not difficult to develop characters that aren’t obviously based on real people. And it’s the ethical thing to do.

Nope. Just ask anyone who ever knew Philip Roth. It's just how it is. Except maybe, like, pure sci-fi fantasy that is all plot and no real character development.

This doesn't mean people have to like it when they're the one who gets their lives minced into fiction. Just, it's normal.

If it’s normal, then the industry has a serious problem. Again, we aren’t talking about simply using a real-life person for inspiration. That’s fine as long as they aren’t easily identified. What happened here is very different.

The "industry" (art?) has a million problems, but this isn't one of them. This is how the sausage gets made. Philip Roth was a good example upthread. You think the people he ripped off straight from life were always thrilled about it?

I am the one who brought up Roth. And I think it can be both a problem, and normal. I have had a few novels published and I always cringe at the thought of the people whose lives I've "borrowed" from in them reading what I've written. But then I go and do it anyway. And I hope that overall, it will have been worth it - for me, for people, but almost certainly not for the people who are turned into characters. I've never had the level of success anywhere near Cat Person - I think my novels have sold a combined 6,000 copies, not exactly bestseller stuff - but I do recognize both that this is very normal (nothing to be shocked by) and also very hurtful for the people whose lives are cut up and used. I don't know how you thread this needle, if you both want novels to exist in the world and also want to protect people from writers doing that to them. I guess like this - someone writes the story, the person whose life was used for the story then gets their turn to say what happened.

This is fair. I’m one of the PPs who knows a ton of writers but can’t claim it for myself. The ultra-defensive flinty quality of some self-proclaimed writers here is just lame as all hell. The discussion got off the rails publicly because some writers, some of whom have sold well, lost their shit and acted as if the Slate essayist was out of pocket for replying or reacting or daring to publish, and that, my friends, is some major horseshit.

This is the part that I find staggering. I have an ex who wrote and published something that included details about an incident that involved both of us (short story not a novel) and I am glad he changed identifying details about me. Obviously, some very close friends knew it was me but people who were more casual friends or either of us didn't recognize me.