[Lio]

I believe it's which half of the story she fictionalised which bothers people.

She didn't take two fictionalised people and give them someone's perfectly normal, boring sex life.

Instead she took two real people including detailed descriptions of them accurate enough that they could later be correctly identified.

She then twisted their relationship to make one a victim and the other, her former romantic parter, a cartoon misogynist.

Those that recognise the people involved may well still think "well there's no smoke without fire" regardless of her claim that it's all "fictional".

[vidarh]

This is exactly it. I've seen nobody upset that Roupenian borrowed details, but at keeping enough details unchanged to give room for those who recognise the people to question which part is fiction and which is true in a way that casts shadows over the people it was at least party based on.