In one of my novels, I took two "contemporary" real life people, and sent them back to the 18th century to fight the American Revolution. (Yours truly is one of them.)
My current understanding of the "libel in fiction," as in the Red Hat Club case was that the true "backstory" of the main character was so accurate, believable, and convincing, as to lead people to believe that the supposedly fictitious (and "defamatory") parts (about the main character's alcoholism and promiscuity), were also true. In other words, there was no "disconnect" between fact and fiction.
Does sending your characters back in time create such a "disconnect" (assuming that your characters are reasonably well disguised)? Put another way, is "18th century" a strong enough signal of fiction so that people would not reasonably believe other things you say about your character, whether or not they are true.
If you're a lawyer that can answer on legal grounds, great. If not, you can still answer as a prospective juror and "finder of fact."
Answer
Note: Not a legal expert
If you based a character in a historical novel on a real person from the present, it would take a fair amount of concerted effort for anyone to even notice, and even if that character had distinctive traits or speech patterns linked to the real person, one could make a good case that it was usage for satire. No reasonable person would read an account of a historical figure as representing accurate information about a living person.
The only exception I could see is if the entire book was a thinly disguised account of a group of contemporary people, where the actions described were generally true to their present-day counterparts --which would be a tough thing to make historically plausible.
No comments:
Post a Comment