The issue has nothing to do with creative fiction. Nobody is bothered by stories that might use real life as a basis of inspiration.

The issue is that these stories are latched onto as 'narrative basis' for some kind of populist ideal, which may frankly just be bigotry.

The story was not picked up upon because it was just 'great writing' - it created buzz because it engendered a kind of bigoted fantasy among those that wanted to buy into the potential truthiness of it all.

Like the 'Man Next Door Who Raped The White Girl' (i.e. Black man) from the 'Reader's Digest', 1952 etc.

It's an issue because people can do whatever they want under the guise of creative fiction, and then try to use it as some kind of scare mongering re: 'This could happen! This is happening!'

I'm Canadian, we had to read the Handmaid's Tale in school. Margaret Atwood is famous for saying 'all these things happened somewhere in history' - essentially she cherry picked the absolute worst bits of history and rolled them into a hyper-fascist theocracy. Which is 100% legitimate and interesting from a creative perspective ... but the TV series became a ridiculous point of reference for the fantastical ignorance of some populists who loved think of this as the interpretation of their political enemies. As a TV series it's great fun. But when it's used beyond that (or more poignantly, used by the studios to play into people's bigotry) then it's not good.

Edit: please see my above comment for reference as to how most of the media picked up on this piece as the basis for a narrative. It's not some corner case conspiracy - it was used by NPR, RollingStone, Wapo, Medium, The Guardian etc. etc..

How do I find more people that think like you to associate with? My circles either A. were totally ignorant of stuff like Cat Person because they don't read a whole lot of anything or B. latch on to stuff like Cat Person and engage with populist ideal narratives. I've basically isolated myself from most people I used to talk to and engage with because I couldn't take lying for politeness sake about how I perceive reality anymore.

Roupenian kind of gave a sorry-not-sorry apology. There's a subtext of "I'm sorry I used your friend's personal details, but you're missing the point which is that the story is fake but accurate -- male anger escalates into threats and violence and by calling me out you're adding fuel to the incel fire I'm facing right now because I'm a woman who writes about the bad things men do."

And a deeper subtext of "Remember, sister, I am not the villain here; the patriarchy is."

Maybe Roupenian actually, literally faces threats from men who didn't like her story. It... wouldn't be the first time people harassed a writer for a creative work they took to be offensive.

Nothing justifies threats. But in this case, the reasons that this would offend people -- that it makes untrue and unfair accusations about a real-world case-- are true. Or even worse than one would assume, even, in that it's not autobiographical and does the same about identifiable third parties.

Sorry, but Roupenian didn't get threats over this story because people thought it was making "untrue and unfair accusations about a real-world case"; she got threats because she wrote a story that painted a fictional man in a bad light and the GamerGate types came out in full force. It also painted a fictional woman in a bad light It's worth reading reporting about this story from the time it was published, e.g.,

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/12/16762062/cat-person-e...

Quoting from that article, also:

“Cat Person” does not bear any of the signifiers of a personal essay: It is told in the third person, not the first, and it appears in the New Yorker’s fiction section, with FICTION splashed at the top of the page. Nonetheless, the default response from many seemed to be to treat it as an essay rather than as a short story.

A lot of the criticism I'm seeing in the comments here seem to tacitly be assuming that this essay in Slate is relaying facts about "Cat Person" that were known at, or shortly after, the time of publication. They were not. If anything, the assumption was that the story was somewhat autobiographical -- and from what I can see, it really was somewhat autobiographical. The character of Margot is, again, fictional, but she clearly owes more to her author's experiences than to the essayist's.

Roupenian shouldn't have taken autobiographical bits and bobs from a stranger's life, no. But do keep in mind that she had absolutely no idea that the story was going to go viral this way; it's not like Twitter is regularly aflame with buzzy conversation about the latest short fiction piece in the New Yorker. This was an extraordinary event, and like all too much on Twitter in the last few years, chiefly driven by people who decided the story was something people needed to get outraged by. And, again, their outrage was not over Roupenian's mild appropriation.

Taking bits and bobs from the lives of strangers is one of the most time-honored traditions in fiction.

I started to get into that but thought I was already approaching essay length by HN comment standards. :)

So, yes, true -- although it's arguably also something of a time-honored tradition for the real person(s) involved to be less than pleased if they feel too-personal parts of their lives were used in fiction without permission. At the extreme this has gotten authors sued, sometimes even successfully. But cases like, well, this one are probably more common: Alexis Nowicki isn't suing Kristen Roupenian, but she's upset, feels unfairly used, and likely knows this essay could catapult "Kristen Roupenian is a bad person" (back) into the media narrative.

You're so vain You probably think this song is about you

It does not in fact make untrue and unfair accusations about a real world case. It is a work of fiction. Until this Slate article came out, there were, like, 4 people in the world that know about the story's inspiration.

It's not really about 'real world, individual people'.

It's a #MeToo era-story which is used to narrate supposedly 'real world threats'.

The reason that some might be upset, is because you have a real world story of a 'nice guy' - who was used as the basis to narrative a story about how 'men are bad' aka a warning about 'toxic masculinity' etc..

Here is 'The Atlantic's headline of the original 2017 publication:

"The depiction of uncomfortable romance in "Cat Person" seems to resonate with countless women." [1]

Here is NPR's headline:

"'Cat Person' Author's New Book Evokes #MeToo Themes" [2]

WaPo:

"Opinion: ‘Cat Person’ is a next step in the #MeToo movement" [3]

So that's literally the first three pieces that came up in the Google search - and those three publications are 'major, respected, institutions'. All three are using the 'creative fiction' to promote a narrative about men's supposed actions etc..

It's obviously not just about 'some random bit of fiction that happened to be about real people and those real people are upset'.

If this was Stephen King, who used his 'Real Life Doctor' as the inspiration for some diabolical character - that would be the story. But there wouldn't be any elevation of the story into some kind of narrative in that case ... so it'd just be about a possibly upset Doctor.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/12/a-vir...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/01/13/684894872/cat-person-author-s...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/1...

Edit:

Here's a gem [4] it's literally an academic publication using the original story as basis for describing narcissism in the role of the oppression of women.

"I argue that Beauvoir’s notion of narcissism is an important tool for feminists today—well beyond the interpretation of Cat Person. It presses us to see systematic subordination not just as something done to women, but also as something women do to themselves. This in turn highlights the neglected role of self-transformation as a key aspect of feminist political resistance."

This is pseudo-intellectual hyperbole (published!) over a story that amounts to a giant lie.

It's intellectual bigotry.

[4] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

I agree its obtuse for OP to pretend this was purely fictional, where fictional means its detached from any reality or any message whatsoever, given we're _far_ past those claims, as the article explains at length. Simultaneously, its hyperbolic to paint "seems to resonate" "evokes" and "Opinion:" as Major Respected Institutions Promoting A Narrative.

You both seem the be making the same fundamental error, neglecting the thrust of this article, and the original piece: things are ambiguous, and in that ambiguity, we can contemplate, and people find that contemplation fascinating

"Simultaneously, its hyperbolic to paint "seems to resonate" "evokes" and "Opinion:" as Major Respected Institutions Promoting A Narrative."

This is literally a case study in 'narrative creation'.

That's exactly what that is.

They are even including the same hashtag in their pieces so that you can 'hashtag along' with the narrative!

This is almost every major publication you can think of, latching onto the same 'creative work of fiction' to project a social ideal.

This is how 'movements' move.

It's in a similar vein to how the narrative that 'The 2020 Election Was Stolen' was created - though half truths, misrepresentations, the story about that 'one guy who cheated on his mail in vote' (as though it was evidence of anything) etc..

Stories are used to help demonstrate (i.e. form a visceral connection) the issue that critical masses of people with influence want to project.

Of course they can often serve a good purpose ... just not in this case.

The story by itself is just a story. The fact that professionals at those respected outlets believed a certain narrative and used the story to promote it is more concerning.

It's like realizing the cancer is actually at stage 3.

Good fiction is not usually judged for how true it depicts a real living person.

Heck, even actual Biography (non fiction) isn't even judged that way.

Cat Person succeeds because it captures a deeper truth. And boy does that story touch a nerve - a mirror that is hard to look at because of its truth.

Is it a truth though? Seems more like a grim fantasy that's rather exception than the rule. The reality seems much richer and more interesting than the fiction in this case.