Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Cat Person” and Me

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 175 posts

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#31

Post by tptacek »

Firebrand wrote: post #29
tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of fiction writers use real people as the bases for characters; that doesn't make them "creepy internet stalkers". Cat Person was a work of fiction. There wasn't much ambiguity about that.

Imagine a story about Charles the software developer, who lives in Chicago, being a horrible, predatory romantic partner. Not trying to imply that you are one of course, but that’s about as much detail she changed from the real life story—just the names. And now it was so successful that there’s going to be made about it starring Cousin Greg from HBO’s Succession. People love to gossip and will eventually put two and…

She didn't change "just the names". As the Slate article observes, she changes half the story. That's what people are mad about: that her work of fiction is mostly fictional.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#32

Post by refulgentis »

tptacek wrote: post #30
refulgentis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's tons of ambiguity about it, hence this article and fascination with it, no? It raises the very interesting problem that literally everything about it was true, in a creepy, overly detailed way that indicates obsession, other than the horrible way it painted the man involved. Very, very, strange situation.

It ran in the Fiction section of the New Yorker. No reasonable person is confused about this.

I can't tell if you're really mad about the article and think the author is unreasonable, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, so I'll just respond as if you're looking for evidence that this, at least somewhat, ambiguous:

> “Cat Person,” and the cultural reception to it, feels connected to the broader literary debate over “autofiction”—writing that, in its raw and confessional style, seems to blur the boundaries between the real and the invented.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#33

Post by tptacek »

refulgentis wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It ran in the Fiction section of the New Yorker. No reasonable person is confused about this.

I can't tell if you're really mad about the article and think the author is unreasonable, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, so I'll just respond as if you're looking for evidence that this, at least somewhat, ambiguous: > “Cat Person,” and the cultural reception to it, feels connected to the broader literary debate over “autofiction”—writing that, in its raw and confessional style, seems to blur the boundaries…

"Fiction" is literally in the word "autofiction". The term means "fictional autobiography". You may have confused it with "roman à clef", which nobody says Cat Person is. We do have a term for "fiction inspired in part by real stories"; it's "fiction".

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#34

Post by ramphastidae »

tptacek wrote: post #16
caslon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't there a villain, though? A creepy internet stalker writes a story about her stalkee's life, monetizes it and gets critical acclaim (and, again, a seven-figure advance for a collection of short stories that only had value due to that story ) for it, causing her strife? I can't help but feel that there's a clear villain here, and a villain that's trying to paint herself as the victim at that.

Lots of fiction writers use real people as the bases for characters; that doesn't make them "creepy internet stalkers". Cat Person was a work of fiction. There wasn't much ambiguity about that.

Do you think you would still feel this was unambiguously fiction if you were in Charles or Alexis’ shoes?

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#35

Post by shp0ngle »

The original article:

Even "nice" guys are secretly mean and will treat you horrible, if you don't listen to them.

This article:

Women will make up horrible things about guys online, even when it's not true, to get clicks. And not even properly apologize.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#36

Post by refulgentis »

tptacek wrote: post #33
refulgentis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're really mad about the article and think the author is unreasonable, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, so I'll just respond as if you're looking for evidence that this, at least somewhat, ambiguous: > “Cat Person,” and the cultural reception to it, feels connected to the broader literary debate over “autofiction”—writing that, in its raw and confessional style, seems to blur the boundaries…

"Fiction" is literally in the word "autofiction". The term means "fictional autobiography". You may have confused it with "roman à clef", which nobody says Cat Person is. We do have a term for "fiction inspired in part by real stories"; it's "fiction".

You're right, I can see it from that perspective. I find it somewhat zen in that it then becomes befuddling the author of this article injected herself into the Cat Person author's story...I do then give up & weep for the poor girl whose life this was who needs to be told she has no business injecting herself via a story about the story someone wrote about her life, this line of argument is far too meta for me for midnight EST. Cheers.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#37

Post by petre »

Manuel_D wrote: post #24
tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of fiction writers use real people as the bases for characters; that doesn't make them "creepy internet stalkers". Cat Person was a work of fiction. There wasn't much ambiguity about that.

The presentation of the story is actually pretty subtle about it's fictional nature. Nowhere in body of the story does it say it's a work of fiction. Readers the miss the small "fiction" label in the header [1] could easily make the mistake of thinking it's a real story. And as per OP many did make this mistake. 1. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person

I'm quite inclined to think that the movie that Cat Person is made into would display "based on a true story" rather than the South Park fiction disclaimer. Why? Revenue.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#38

Post by tptacek »

refulgentis wrote: post #36
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fiction" is literally in the word "autofiction". The term means "fictional autobiography". You may have confused it with "roman à clef", which nobody says Cat Person is. We do have a term for "fiction inspired in part by real stories"; it's "fiction".

You're right, I can see it from that perspective. I find it somewhat zen in that it then becomes befuddling the author of this article injected herself into the Cat Person author's story...I do then give up & weep for the poor girl whose life this was who needs to be told she has no business injecting herself via a story about the story someone wrote about her life, this line of argument is far too meta for me for mi…

Do you weep for every member of John Updike's family? The same stuff happened to them!

The reality is, you don't; you never once thought about how Updike used his own relationships and those of his family and acquaintances as fodder. You care about this particular story for reasons other than principles. That's fine, but we should start by being honest about it.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#39

Post by prvc »

caslon wrote: post #13
danso wrote: post #5

One of the most incredible essays I’ve read in a long time. The author describes a bizarre situation exacerbated by tragedy. There’s no clear remedy or villain for what she’s going through, and that’s just the way life is. I liked the “Cat Person” story when it came out, but I would much rather see this essay be made into a movie

Isn't there a villain, though? A creepy internet stalker writes a story about her stalkee's life, monetizes it and gets critical acclaim (and, again, a seven-figure advance for a collection of short stories that only had value due to that story ) for it, causing her strife? I can't help but feel that there's a clear villain here, and a villain that's trying to paint herself as the victim at that.

A superficial appraisal of the situation would have Cat Person be a mere amalgam of details plagiarized from social media with an ideologically derived ersatz-archetype-- a lie bolstered by purloined facts. This article, however, brings for the first time depth and truth to the former text.

Flaubert famously quipped, "Madame Bovary, c'est moi!". In the same vein, the ugly side of Cat Person's male character may not have derived merely from defamatory stereotypes, as many readers could have been forgiven for assuming, rather it may, too, have been drawn from life.

Very good article. Moving, and oddly redemptive.

Re: “Cat Person” and Me

#40

Post by d110af5ccf »

tptacek wrote: post #31
Firebrand wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a story about Charles the software developer, who lives in Chicago, being a horrible, predatory romantic partner. Not trying to imply that you are one of course, but that’s about as much detail she changed from the real life story—just the names. And now it was so successful that there’s going to be made about it starring Cousin Greg from HBO’s Succession. People love to gossip and will eventually put two and…

She didn't change "just the names". As the Slate article observes, she changes half the story . That's what people are mad about: that her work of fiction is mostly fictional.

> people are mad about: that her work of fiction is mostly fictional

It's mostly fictional but apparently it comes across as true to many people on first glance. There is also a real world person which apparently many readers see an obvious link to. Regardless of how it all looks to you, surely you can appreciate how such a situation could give rise to a negative viewpoint?

Post reply on HN