Taboo subjects in a novel

cornflake said:

I don't recall the Holy See like, suing over that trashy Demi Moore Seventh Seal movie or any other religions really going to court over anything like that.

The fine folks at the esteemable Church of Scientology, however, are deep of pocket and quick to unleash the litigators, of which they employ/keep/breed/whatever, hundreds if not thousands.

Whether they win or not isn't as much the issue as how much it'll cost you to respond to the endless cascade of paperwork their fine, fine institution will generate.

Click to expand...

It shouldn't cost you a penny. Unless you said something yu have reason to know is not true, and unless you intend to do harm, you really don't have to defend yourself in court at all. The mistake people make is going into panic mode, hiring lawyers, and trying to fight them with money when it isn't necessary.

It would cost some time, but very, very little money. It almost certainly wouldn't even go to court. There are no grounds.

Even if it did go to court, the publisher's attorney could handle it easily.

The Church of Scientology may be sue happy, but they still need grounds, and they aren't going to sue over something like this, which is too bad because such a suit would make the book sell far, far better than it would otherwise.

People seem to forget that some extremely nasty books and articles have been published about the Church of Scientology, but nothing happened to the writers. Having deep pockets does not mean you own the legal system, or that you want to not only throw away that much money over a suit that you can't win, but that would almost certainly cause the writer to sell many more books.

As long as you do nothing wrong, a lawsuit is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. The Church of Scientology knows this, and is very careful about when and why they go to court.

But who cares? Please, sue me. I could use the money.

greendragon said:

I say nothing in the novel that isn't a true fact.

Click to expand...

Then I'm still confused why you're calling it a "novel." My understanding is that by definition, a novel is a work of fiction.

There are certainly books that narrate real events with fictional details added. At first I thought that's what you were writing. But if everything in the book is a true fact, then there doesn't seem to be any fictionalization at all.

When the book is published, will it say "this is fiction" on the copyright page?

Jamesaritchie said:

It shouldn't cost you a penny. Unless you said something yu have reason to know is not true, and unless you intend to do harm, you really don't have to defend yourself in court at all. The mistake people make is going into panic mode, hiring lawyers, and trying to fight them with money when it isn't necessary.

It would cost some time, but very, very little money. It almost certainly wouldn't even go to court. There are no grounds.

Click to expand...

James, I really have to wonder how you know all this. Have you yourself ever been sued? How many lawsuits have you ever followed in detail from beginning to end?

I have followed a fair number of lawsuits in detail, and my impression is quite different from yours. Plaintiffs will always claim to have grounds for their suit, whether they actually do or not. If their lawyers are good enough, those claims will sound plausible. And then a judge will only dismiss the case if the defendant can provide compelling reasons to do so.

Hiring a lawyer is not the same as going into "panic mode." The law is extremely complex, and to mount an effective defense you need an expert. Trying to do it yourself is asking for serious trouble, even if you're convinced the truth is on your side.

One of the lawsuits I've followed will be familiar to some people here: the case filed by Victor Cretella of PublishAmerica against Dave Kuzminski. I can't prove it, but I think if Kuzminski had been represented by any competent attorney, he would have won. As it was, he tried to defend the case himself and lost.

If you can't even afford an attorney, most organizations won't sue you. But some will. So if there is some danger of offending that sort of organization, it will pay to be extremely careful. That doesn't mean you must avoid any criticism of them, but it does mean you should think long and hard about any criticisms you may make.

But who cares? Please, sue me. I could use the money.

Click to expand...

Some people here might even remember Kuzminski himself saying something similar at one point. After many months of legal wrangling and a verdict that cost him tens of thousands of dollars, I suspect he had a different perspective on matters.

Quite often the threat of being sued alone scares publishers and the like into conformity. Better to just leave it alone. Self-censorship, the most insidious form so far available to man.

But if you state it's based on fact, one of two things could happen:

1) If it's based on fact and you change the name to The Organization or something and change it enough to cover much of it under a cloaking device, they might not twig to the fact you're writing about them and you probably won't have to worry too much about them suing. (But then there's search engines.)

b. You state everything's based on fact but don't change the name. The Scientologists and their cadre of lawyers will swoop down on you in a thrice.

Either way? If you state it's based on fact, you'd better be ready to prove it's fact. Not just anecdotes or stories you've heard from other people. Hard, incontrovertible, physical evidence that you can hold up in a court for people to read.

JHFC said:

I've heard before that most books never even make their advance back, so the publisher is taking a hell of a chance to add legal expenses on top of the money it already invested in printing the book.

Click to expand...

The last time I did any sort of checking, about 70% of the books published by the publishers I worked for failed to earn out their advances, but most of them still made a profit for the publishers which published them. A book doesn't have to earn out in order to turn a profit, although it's always nice when they do both.

And the investment in printing a book is only a small part of the investment made in publishing it.

Nitpicky? Moi? Why, yes!

Jamesaritchie said:

It shouldn't cost you a penny. Unless you said something yu have reason to know is not true, and unless you intend to do harm, you really don't have to defend yourself in court at all. The mistake people make is going into panic mode, hiring lawyers, and trying to fight them with money when it isn't necessary.

It would cost some time, but very, very little money. It almost certainly wouldn't even go to court. There are no grounds.

Even if it did go to court, the publisher's attorney could handle it easily.

The Church of Scientology may be sue happy, but they still need grounds, and they aren't going to sue over something like this, which is too bad because such a suit would make the book sell far, far better than it would otherwise.

People seem to forget that some extremely nasty books and articles have been published about the Church of Scientology, but nothing happened to the writers. Having deep pockets does not mean you own the legal system, or that you want to not only throw away that much money over a suit that you can't win, but that would almost certainly cause the writer to sell many more books.

As long as you do nothing wrong, a lawsuit is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. The Church of Scientology knows this, and is very careful about when and why they go to court.

But who cares? Please, sue me. I could use the money.

Click to expand...

James, I'm boggling at this post of yours.

It's horrible to be placed under the threat of legal action. It's happened to me several times, and even though I've always been certain that I've done nothing wrong it's been hugely stressful.

The assertion that one doesn't have to spend a penny to defend oneself under such circumstances is extremely dangerous. If I'd not defended myself I'd have ended up in a great deal of trouble.

And although I've never been found wanting, I have never made money out of the legal wranglings that others have put me through.

Please: do not give such misleading, potentially damaging advice here again. You do no one any favours with it.

James, I can join Old Hack and Mac in (gently and respectfully) calling bullshit. You have a wonderfully lucid mind and vast experience in many things, and your posts have enriched my AW reading over the years. But advising people to be sanguine about picking legal fights with cash-rich adversaries? Noble, but dumb.

For most of us, the sheer cost of even a basic legal defense is the stuff of possible bankruptcy and certain nightmares. Our jobs and personal lives can suffer from the strain. I've always wondered why the hell Dave Kuzminski fought that suit on his own when there were legal advocates he could have contacted - and whether that suit was responsible for any deterioration of his health before he passed away.

Truth is no defense. The defendant has to jump through flaming hoops, and many times judicial procedure is kinder to plaintiffs with money and power - truthful or not.

Self-censorship sucks, but it is a reality of our times and legal systems.