Blurring Reality and Fiction: Where's the Line?
Fans of THE RED HAT CLUB by Haywood Smith would probably be delighted to know that one of the "sexually promiscuous alcoholic" characters was, in fact, based on a former friend of the author. Too bad a jury decided that portrayal, one of a fictional character doing fictional things, constitutes libel and awarded the former friend damages. I bet they are really former friends now.
A simple definition of libel is "a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person." To me, the key part is "for the purpose of defaming a living person." With this case, anyone taking out thier childhood angst through fiction is subject to a lawsuit. I sincerely doubt Ms. Smith set out to deliberately defame her former friend. And even if she was enacting some sort of revenge, I am sure she didn't expect the world at large to recognize the character as anyone in particular.
Basing characters on people in real life is nothing new. Characters as diverse as Lady Macbeth, Esmeralda from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, and Dirty Harry are all based on true life counterparts. Authors draw from what they know and often the people they know end up in thier work, deliberately or not. The authors of TV show The Wire should really be worried - rumor is lots of the lowlifes in that show are based on real people.
This case sets a bad precedent. Now anyone with a grudge against an author can claim libel if they see even a semblance of themselves in a work of fiction. Authors will have to worry not just about their characters that ARE based on real people, but accidental resemblances, too.
Anyone read THE RED HAT CLUB? What do you think about this case?
And even if you haven't read it, what do you think about a jury saying a fiction character is potentially libelous? What does this mean for the future of fiction? Tell us in the comments!
Nicole
A simple definition of libel is "a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person." To me, the key part is "for the purpose of defaming a living person." With this case, anyone taking out thier childhood angst through fiction is subject to a lawsuit. I sincerely doubt Ms. Smith set out to deliberately defame her former friend. And even if she was enacting some sort of revenge, I am sure she didn't expect the world at large to recognize the character as anyone in particular.
Basing characters on people in real life is nothing new. Characters as diverse as Lady Macbeth, Esmeralda from THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, and Dirty Harry are all based on true life counterparts. Authors draw from what they know and often the people they know end up in thier work, deliberately or not. The authors of TV show The Wire should really be worried - rumor is lots of the lowlifes in that show are based on real people.
This case sets a bad precedent. Now anyone with a grudge against an author can claim libel if they see even a semblance of themselves in a work of fiction. Authors will have to worry not just about their characters that ARE based on real people, but accidental resemblances, too.
Anyone read THE RED HAT CLUB? What do you think about this case?
And even if you haven't read it, what do you think about a jury saying a fiction character is potentially libelous? What does this mean for the future of fiction? Tell us in the comments!
Nicole
posted at 10:15 AM
3 Comments:
This is extremely scary:
"Now anyone with a grudge against an author can claim libel if they see even a semblance of themselves in a work of fiction."
And I have a feeling there will be more cases now that this has happened.
This is absolutely frightening. Of course authors base characters and settings off of real life. But, they often make big changes to the character in the story.
And honestly, if the name is changed, most people would never guess who that character was based on anyways. In this particular case, the 'friend' who sued is the one who brought attention to the fact that the character might have been based on them. If they hadn't done that, no one probably would have guessed. That, to me, shows that the motivation was probably monetary and/or spite.
I agree with @ryan field... now anyone who has a grudge against an author can sue.
It almost makes on scared to write...
I absolutely agree. The only time this sort of thing really matters is in a roman à clef. It's ludicrous, not to mention egotistical, of Stewart to think that people reading this novel would recognize her (or that those who personally know her would automatically assume the fiction is truth). I can understand being upset about it, of course, but this is a little excessive!
-Danielle, Reading Between the Lines
Post a Comment
<< Home