One of my favourite quotable lines in past movie history is a brief threat uttered by Paul Bettany in Knights Tale (shuddap – I liked it!)
Bettany played the yet-to-be-famous Chaucer, and when he vows vengeance against his abusive debtors they call his bluff. “What are you going to do about it?”
I will eviscerate you in fiction. Every pimple, every last character flaw. I was naked for a day; you will be naked for eternity.”
Which brings me to this article I read today where popular writer Michael Crichton (Westworld, Jurassic Park) is accused of just that. A little back story here. Crichton is quite vocal about his belief that the entire concept of Global Warming is a myth. He has come to verbal blows on this very issue on a number of occasions. This has raised the ire of Michael Crowley who wrote a cover story in The New York Republic calling Crichton out on his “ludicrous opposition to a proven scientific phenomenon”.
Then Michael Crowley discovered in Crichton’s latest novel there is a rag doll character that has no affect on the plot that is named MICK Crowley. The excerpt from the book describes the pedophile rapist Mick as a Washington-based political columnist and Yale Alumni, two very specific characteristics that MICHAEL Crowley shares with his alleged fictional counterpart. The character is identified as being up for criminal charges for child molestation, revealed from “a well-documented hospital examination of the child. (Crowley’s penis was small, but he had still caused significant tears to the toddler’s rectum.)”
Seems a little harsh and overly graphic to go out of your way to invent a useless character in a book just to take a personal shot at a magazine writer. But what about movies that illustrate popular figures in less than shining moments?
Recently Sharon wrote a post about a pending legal case involving Bob Dylan over a character in Factory Girl which originally used Dylan by name and portrays him in a negative view. They have since changed the name in the movie claiming the character was not specifically Dylan.
As funny as it sounded to hear Chaucer say he was going to use his chosen craft to humiliate his oppressors, should this be tolerated?
At the end of every movie there is usually some block of text that says something like “Similarities of any of the characters herein to any real persons alive or dead is completely unintentional or coincidental.” Does this protect lawsuits based solely on unintentional parallels, or does this empower fiction writers to deliberately lash out at those they oppose and protect them while flinging their poop?? How exactly do you PROVE intent?
Should there be laws that cover this sort of artistic integrity? How do you decide when this line has been crossed?
How much is protection and how much is permission?
What do you think?
grandchildren,basically season furiouser adjacency..
woofer Boers loci Maier recapture faction array
interpretively,flamers.infringements Bantu systems?NeWS.beagles:clams
phrasing:paying antisymmetry revolving placements patterning.ferments.preoccupation
Fredo, I wasnt siding with Crichton or Crowley. Phrasing it that way was simply paraphrasing Crowley’s article that spawned this bitter feud. That is how Crowley called him on it and described Crichton’s stance. I in no way sided with either of these opinions.
I do have an opinion on which side I support, but that is not the issue here.
To get back on topic, I have to say that “eviceration in fiction” should not only be tolerated, it should be encouraged. Sure Chrition might have been a jerk to say something about someone in his book, but it just makes him look like the lesser man in the conversation. But if we were to stifle this, we would have to stifle all creative expression that could hurt someone’s feelings.
Just take one look at what that would get rid of:
Candide by Voltare (the gold standard of satire)
Saturday Night Live (every president impression since they have been on)
Inferno by Dante (totally shows Satan as an ass)
South Park (Wouldn’t want to hurt WOWphile’s feelings).
So as you can see it would be a sliper slope if we said fiction can’t reflect real people. We just have to keep telling ourselves, it’s only a movie, or only a book.
BTW, Rodney, you opened the environmental aspect up when you used the following opinionated journalistic wording:
“…calling Crichton out on his ludicrous opposition to a proven scientific phenomenon.”
Have you read “State of Fear?” I’d say there’s quite a bit of scientific proof that debunks this “proven scientific phenomenon” you opine about.
Any in regard, back to your original idea. I think Crichton has some liberty, tasteless or not, to model characters in any way he sees fit. We may not agree, but that is literary license and unless he is doing an exact blueprint of Crowley, there’s nothing Crowley can do. Because in a court of law, Crowley couldn’t prove that character is actually him, regardless of similar jobs and name.
I read “State of Fear” and I watched “An Inconvenient Truth.” I recycle. I don’t drive an SUV. But I think the polar ends of the environmental argument are all full of shit – but then, most polar views on any subject tend to sway that direction. The full of shit direction. There’s obviously a happy medium and Crowley’s dissection of Crichton and Crichton’s literary pimp slap of Crowley shows they are both insecure in their opinions and need to lash out to feel justified.
The issue of Global Warming is not the problem here. Regardless of who is RIGHT about Global Warming, its the REACTION that we are discussing.
I encourage you to stay on that topic please.
Con
What scientific facts are you pointing to here? Please be specific because your statement is false. What think-tanks are you referring to that outnumber the scientists who have already made the case that Global Warming exists? I’d be interested to read the amount of scientist who don’t believe it doesn’t exist.
Scientists will disagree on many things, many times. Just look at the history of cosmology with a lot of differing opinions about the origins of the universe. BUT, they’re all university-based scientists who have a sincere wish to get to the ‘truth’.
All of the Global Warming naysayers are corporately funded think-tanks paid by companies such as Exxon.
This reminds me of the scientists who got paid by the tobacco industry that smoking is not bad for your health.
The reason I ask for some specific mention of respected and university-based research from you is that I know your statement above is false.
Unfortunately for most of the posters here, Crichton’s position on global warming is supported by far more scientific evidence than Al Gore’s. What we have here is a case where the media has done such a thorough job of convincing folks there is a problem where there is none that people have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Rather than flame me, take some time to objectively look at Crichton’s point of view.
As for whether Crichton should be eviserating anyone in fiction, it would be amusing if it were done in a Shakespearian sort of way: horesback breaker, bull’s pizzle, etc. The comparison to a child molester is a little too raw for my taste.
Jarred –
If Crichton was making the talk show rounds and bringing up the “fact” that Crowley was a child rapist with a small penis, or if Crichton was writing op-ed pieces and pursuing a public campaign to ruin Crowley’s career with bad publicity by pushing this falsehood as truth, I would absolutely agree. But the trouble is – as I wrote in my earlier comment – this is not the case. Crichton is not pushing this idea of MICK Crowley being a pedophile as Truth – he’s angry at a critic, crafted a shallow, incomplete, ill-named, and incompetent strawman, and tried to beat the literary stuffing out of him.
In other words, there’s no mistaking that the author is being _fictionally_ vindictive. We might have a conversation if the attack was actual. But until he crosses that line (talks it up in public, makes the public connection between his brief character Mick and his real-life critic Michael, and asserts that the accusations he lays in his novel are representative of the truth), then libel/slander is off the table – both literally and legally.
And thank god for that. Not because Crichton’s endeavors are oh-so-great – they’re despicable – but because the minute we start to tell an average author, “You can’t craft a semi-realistic portayal of an opponent and debase it” is the minute we say to writers far better that their palette is limited and their ideas are restricted.
I tend to be a free expression absolutist, favoring the restriction of “speech” in general only when absolutely necessary (malicious, immediate, harmful intent, for example, as shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre). So I’m going to come down on the side of most anyone, saying most anything, and for this reason: we have laws punishing (not preventing) libel and slander, just as we have laws punishing (not preventing) the uttering of harmful incitements (like “Fire”). The operation of a society is better served with fewer, not more, restrictions (specifically on expression, but generally as well).
There’s a reason no one is suggesting a pursuit of legal action – not even the critic himself: Crichton’s ill-aimed “retribution” is not a legal issue. Nor should it be.
The problem Austin is that there is a difference between a freedom of creative expression and pure all out slandar and defamation. Chrichton’s purpose in naming the character and making him such an asshole wasn’t for creative purposes, it was expressly to attack a man, to make him look the fool, to humiliate him, all with things that Chrichton made up. That’s not expression, that’s slander.
If you think a man is a jerk and you call him a jerk, that’s experession. If a man steals, and you call him a theif, that’s expression. But if you call a man a rapist, and he’s not, then that’s not expression, that’s something else entirley.
Very good points Austin.
This was something that I struggled with when reading this article. Yes I am outraged that Crichton can make these public attacks and get away with it, but at the same time, if we say he cant do it, then who is committing the greater crime here.
This is why the line is vague. If he said these things in an interview for a newspaper, he would be sued. But to make a fictional character off him right down to the last pimple, then add some distasteful qualities and insults is ok?
Its a double edged sword. Despite the freedom of expression, there is a defamation of character, and its very difficult to tell the two apart sometimes. Or prove it.
Can you feel all the openminded-ness flowing in this thread? Can you feel it? All that nice openness to ideas that you find repugnant and/or ridiculous? No? Maybe it’s just me.
/sarcasm
Back to Rodney’s point: absolutely this should be “tolerated.” It’s a novel. It’s a work of fiction. It makes no pretenses to being a “true story,” or “history,” or “a retelling of actual events.” It’s Fiction. Hell, we let National Enquirer get away with whatever they want to print, and they advertise it as “Truth!”
It’s the writer’s prerogative to do whatever s/he likes to the characters s/he fashioned. Period. That’s why it is called “freedom of expression.” Should Jonathan Swift, satirist extraordinaire, have been banned? (He was). Should Geoffrey Chaucer have been verboten? (He has been). Absolutely not. This is the price of freedom: we have to spar with those who want to do ideological warfare (and what is strawman-crafting if not the battle of faux-ideas?). The answer to evil speech is not regulation. If you regulate someone else, you must live with the certainty that you yourself will eventually be regulated. The answer to free speech one findes objectionable is not less, but MORE free speech.
And if it’s true in the extreme, it is true in the mediocre (so it’s true when applying it to such sloppy execution as Crichtion’s utterly unsubtle blunder). If M. Crichton really wanted to ‘get’ Crowley (and if he had not been in decline since Jurassic Park), there are myriad and far more subtle ways to lambast a fictionalized opponent. Start by reading Swift. Assuming you’re allowed.
Crichton is a moron! I used to love his books but after his irresponsible comments about global warming, I decided to boycott his books. He needs to be slapped around…just a little.
Chrichton does this quite a bit. He definately has something against environmentalists (not just people who have proved Global Warming exists).
And, one more thing;
No one should ever have to qualify/apologize for liking A Knight’s Tale. I love that movie.
Don’t worry about it Rodney. I liked that movie too!
As for the little blurb at the end of the credits, which tends to legally exempt the writers and producers from any lawsuits for defamation, I think it’s bogus. The little blurb, if it wasn’t there, would bring Hollywood to its knees from all the backstabbing BS that happens in script. I think it’s just the state of the world, really. We’ve become so inundated with mediocrity and lack of self worth, that we care more about what drunk celeb said or did, than the fact that global warming is happening, people needlessly die in the streets of the most powerful and progressed countries in the world.
Meh. One day, some dumbass celeb will shoot someone over something that was written. Might be a good thing…
I’m kidding of course.
I’m still stuck on the fact that “Knight’s Tale” and “liked it” appeared in the same thought.