Comment by refulgentis
5 years ago
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.
"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".
Just to clarify - if someone wrote a fictional autobiography whose subject was obviously you, would that not bother you?
I would certainly be bothered if a close friend or family member did that to me in a manner that could ever lead strangers back to me. Nor would I ever publish such a piece about one of my acquaintances without their permission.
I find the notion that such behavior could be socially acceptable quite strange.
Again: the problem I have with this argument is that it's just coming up now, despite literally centuries of fiction built out of just these kinds of stories. I don't believe this is a real concern; it's a fake concern that we're being asked to have by a Slate article. It's interesting, and I'm happy to bounce the thought around, because that's what we're here for. But, come on.
I am guessing you aren't a fan of Citizen Kane. Or how about stories that even bill themselves as based on real events like Accidental Billionaires/The Social Network? Those must be even worse if they bill themselves as the truth. Could you imagine if most people judged your personality off made up dialogue and stories told by someone who was suing you for billions of dollars?
1 reply →
Fiction isn't the binary you are asserting here.
In fact, libelous material is by definition fictional - imputing someone's character by making stuff up.
Now I think that this is fiction, but it is definitely skirting the line and the author should probably have changed a few more details.
Libelous material is typically presented as fact.
1 reply →
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.
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.
2 replies →