Putting a full set of facts together in this case was hard, and there are probably things I've missed. I do get the impression that Cooper thought the film especially was an attack on her professionalism. She may have been 'just an au pair'; she was clearly a very good (and popular) one.
There's a thin veneer of fictionalisation and then there's Karl-Öve Knausgard who as I understand it basically wrote a pretty complete autobiography as fiction.
He can write though, his review of Houellebecq's novel Soumission was imh and very non-literary opinion excellent :
My Struggle has alienated Knausgaard’s family and has created such a level of obsession in Norway that some workplaces have reportedly instituted ‘Knausgaard-free days’, when staff are forbidden to talk about the books. Half a million copies have been sold in his native country of only five million inhabitants, meaning that one out of ten Norwegians has bought at least one of the volumes.
...
The intimate descriptions of friends and family were regarded as invasive and Knausgaard received death threats and lawsuits.
Truman Capote was notorious for outraging people by his depictions of them in his writings, whether openly as thinly veiled analogs. The blowback is reputed to be the reason he never finished his last novel, Answered Prayers.
Another interesting case is Lena Dunham. In a supposedly nonfiction memoir, she claimed to have been sexually assaulted at Oberlin University by a Republican student she called "Barry." Apparently there was exactly one Republican at Oberlin while she was a student there. His name was Barry. When he objected, Dunham denied he'd been the perpetrator. It seemed like a clear cut case of defamation, but if I recall correctly nothing ever came of it.
Allegedly, but I haven't read it. Online sources say that's a lie, she didn't, or at least admitted to no such thing. For all I know, they're right. What I'd like to know is if said sources would say the same of a male who admitted doing what she claimed she did to her sister. My guess is no, they wouldn't. But I could be wrong.
This also pertains to an even more serious matter than personal reputation - the use of song lyrics by a rapper as part of an attempt to convict him of murder. Are those a public statement? Are they really self-incriminating, or are they likely to inflame discrimination within a jury?
"... the poor and the powerless are not, as a rule, people who read books."
We also apply different standards to those who are prominent from those who are not. When Bill Bennett confessed his gambling problem it had public relevance because he was a loud, moral scold. When Pat Buchanan bemoans the drop in the birth rate, but omits that he and his wife chose to be childless before it was a popular option - that's different than myself and my ex- only having one (not that we are the poor and powerless, just not of notable influence).
"... where the public/private distinction has been so eroded that many people often have no sense of what is legitimately their business and no-one else’s. Everyone lives their lives in more or less public ways now, all of us potential subjects for both romans à clef and subsequent falls from grace."
Perhaps this is more from films/ movies / TV being so much more "alive" that we can "see the behavior" and sense the feelings more readily (like we would in "real life") than if we have to "image them" from a textual description in a book/ text material. You might "be wrong" about your textual interpretation, but "EVERYONE CAN SEE what is in the movie", even if that also requires interpretation.
Plus you and Lorenzo have spent the last year explicating the certainty of understanding and "feeling" some folks have, their inherent Karen-ness just coming to the fore -- and in ways that they just can't help themselves from engaging in their nonsense.
If an author relies on a real person to provide the core of the depiction of a "fictional" character, I would think that 2nd person is at a minimum a "ghost writer" of sorts with the acknowledged author. Thus some sharing of royalties, etc., should be negotiated from the beginning???
I gather movies typically follow the publication of a book, although the reverse does happen. Presumably each mode is trying to portray a somewhat similar story. But each mode also offers advantages and limitations that the author or director may wish to exploit, possibly resulting in a rather different perception between readers and viewers. If the later depiction deviates enough from the initial one, can or does the clock for bring suit then begin with the public availability of the 2nd version? The defense might argue that "that character's portrayal has been available for 3 years now, so your suit is beyond the allowed response period." The counter is then "that portrayal is too different and shows my client in a worse light ..." etc.
I thought writers tended to put huge great disclaimers in the front of their books saying that none of the characters in them were real people for this reason. Maybe that doesn't work any more.
I am curious that the author could not be bothered to invent a fictional name or even alter the appearance of her character. That seems to be saying that this really is a real, living person she is describing and therefore it is right that the real, living person might take offence at the description. It is still a matter of opinion if the description is a good one or not, so a blessing it did not end in court.
> The actual phrase was coined by French author Madeleine de Scudéry, who used the technique to do just that: she wrote her books with fictitious, but recognisable names (and characteristics) the alert reader could link to real people in the upper reaches of French society. She was immensely popular in her day and so skilful the people she hung out to dry couldn’t do a damned thing about her, legally or otherwise.
I don't think this says anything about her skill. If everyone knew what she was writing about, the fact that she survived doing so is a statement about constraints on the power of the state, not a statement about how good she was at making veiled commentary. It wasn't veiled!
A hundred years after Madeleine de Scudéry skilfully evaded punishment for her seditious literature, Xu Jun was executed by the state of China for writing, among other things, this couplet:
清風不識字 [The cool breeze cannot read.]
何故亂翻書 [Why is it paging through a book?]
Just as in Madeleine de Scudéry's case, there can be no doubt what he was really saying. But this looks skilful enough to me. The most dangerous phrase in here was a fixed idiom at the time with a completely innocent meaning.
The difference is that the Chinese state felt less constrained in how it could respond to sedition.
Discomforting story. I do wonder what would have happened if Ms Cooper’s claim wasn’t time barred.
Putting a full set of facts together in this case was hard, and there are probably things I've missed. I do get the impression that Cooper thought the film especially was an attack on her professionalism. She may have been 'just an au pair'; she was clearly a very good (and popular) one.
Yes.
There's a thin veneer of fictionalisation and then there's Karl-Öve Knausgard who as I understand it basically wrote a pretty complete autobiography as fiction.
He can write though, his review of Houellebecq's novel Soumission was imh and very non-literary opinion excellent :
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/books/review/michel-houellebecqs-submission.html
What a definition of success:
My Struggle has alienated Knausgaard’s family and has created such a level of obsession in Norway that some workplaces have reportedly instituted ‘Knausgaard-free days’, when staff are forbidden to talk about the books. Half a million copies have been sold in his native country of only five million inhabitants, meaning that one out of ten Norwegians has bought at least one of the volumes.
...
The intimate descriptions of friends and family were regarded as invasive and Knausgaard received death threats and lawsuits.
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/norway/articles/karl-ove-knausgaard-the-intimate-scandal-of-norway-s-new-literature
Truman Capote was notorious for outraging people by his depictions of them in his writings, whether openly as thinly veiled analogs. The blowback is reputed to be the reason he never finished his last novel, Answered Prayers.
Another interesting case is Lena Dunham. In a supposedly nonfiction memoir, she claimed to have been sexually assaulted at Oberlin University by a Republican student she called "Barry." Apparently there was exactly one Republican at Oberlin while she was a student there. His name was Barry. When he objected, Dunham denied he'd been the perpetrator. It seemed like a clear cut case of defamation, but if I recall correctly nothing ever came of it.
Isn’t that the same memoir where she gleefully recounts her own sexual assault against her younger sister?
Allegedly, but I haven't read it. Online sources say that's a lie, she didn't, or at least admitted to no such thing. For all I know, they're right. What I'd like to know is if said sources would say the same of a male who admitted doing what she claimed she did to her sister. My guess is no, they wouldn't. But I could be wrong.
I do not understand why attorney's bring cases PAST the statute of limitations. I mean "Come on, Man"!!!
Iawyers would starve if they would take only cases they are sure to win.
Yeah I get that but don't we have LAWS and STATUTES for a good reason. Makes no sense!
This also pertains to an even more serious matter than personal reputation - the use of song lyrics by a rapper as part of an attempt to convict him of murder. Are those a public statement? Are they really self-incriminating, or are they likely to inflame discrimination within a jury?
"... the poor and the powerless are not, as a rule, people who read books."
We also apply different standards to those who are prominent from those who are not. When Bill Bennett confessed his gambling problem it had public relevance because he was a loud, moral scold. When Pat Buchanan bemoans the drop in the birth rate, but omits that he and his wife chose to be childless before it was a popular option - that's different than myself and my ex- only having one (not that we are the poor and powerless, just not of notable influence).
"... where the public/private distinction has been so eroded that many people often have no sense of what is legitimately their business and no-one else’s. Everyone lives their lives in more or less public ways now, all of us potential subjects for both romans à clef and subsequent falls from grace."
Perhaps this is more from films/ movies / TV being so much more "alive" that we can "see the behavior" and sense the feelings more readily (like we would in "real life") than if we have to "image them" from a textual description in a book/ text material. You might "be wrong" about your textual interpretation, but "EVERYONE CAN SEE what is in the movie", even if that also requires interpretation.
Plus you and Lorenzo have spent the last year explicating the certainty of understanding and "feeling" some folks have, their inherent Karen-ness just coming to the fore -- and in ways that they just can't help themselves from engaging in their nonsense.
If an author relies on a real person to provide the core of the depiction of a "fictional" character, I would think that 2nd person is at a minimum a "ghost writer" of sorts with the acknowledged author. Thus some sharing of royalties, etc., should be negotiated from the beginning???
I gather movies typically follow the publication of a book, although the reverse does happen. Presumably each mode is trying to portray a somewhat similar story. But each mode also offers advantages and limitations that the author or director may wish to exploit, possibly resulting in a rather different perception between readers and viewers. If the later depiction deviates enough from the initial one, can or does the clock for bring suit then begin with the public availability of the 2nd version? The defense might argue that "that character's portrayal has been available for 3 years now, so your suit is beyond the allowed response period." The counter is then "that portrayal is too different and shows my client in a worse light ..." etc.
And some authors, publishers, directors, and actors are probably hoping for a Streisand effect to help bolster sales and income.
All's fair in love and war! What about the books, plays, and movies about love and war?
I thought writers tended to put huge great disclaimers in the front of their books saying that none of the characters in them were real people for this reason. Maybe that doesn't work any more.
I am curious that the author could not be bothered to invent a fictional name or even alter the appearance of her character. That seems to be saying that this really is a real, living person she is describing and therefore it is right that the real, living person might take offence at the description. It is still a matter of opinion if the description is a good one or not, so a blessing it did not end in court.
> The actual phrase was coined by French author Madeleine de Scudéry, who used the technique to do just that: she wrote her books with fictitious, but recognisable names (and characteristics) the alert reader could link to real people in the upper reaches of French society. She was immensely popular in her day and so skilful the people she hung out to dry couldn’t do a damned thing about her, legally or otherwise.
I don't think this says anything about her skill. If everyone knew what she was writing about, the fact that she survived doing so is a statement about constraints on the power of the state, not a statement about how good she was at making veiled commentary. It wasn't veiled!
A hundred years after Madeleine de Scudéry skilfully evaded punishment for her seditious literature, Xu Jun was executed by the state of China for writing, among other things, this couplet:
清風不識字 [The cool breeze cannot read.]
何故亂翻書 [Why is it paging through a book?]
Just as in Madeleine de Scudéry's case, there can be no doubt what he was really saying. But this looks skilful enough to me. The most dangerous phrase in here was a fixed idiom at the time with a completely innocent meaning.
The difference is that the Chinese state felt less constrained in how it could respond to sedition.