Can you write a nonfiction novel about a criminal who has been dead for over 30 years?

TwentyFour

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,135
Reaction score
299
Can you write a novel about a criminal?

cc
 
Last edited:

TrixieBelden

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
573
Reaction score
15
Location
at the top of the hill
Sure you can. Why not? If your saying itis nonfiction you have to be able to prove what your saying which it sounds like you have in the newspaper clippings.
 

Ruth2

Tam, na Koncu Drevoreda
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
8,910
Reaction score
490
Location
In your dreams...
You can write a nonfiction book about them, and you can write a novel about them but implicit in the definition of "novel" is that it is fiction. A "non-fiction novel" is oxymoronic.

But yes, if you can support your statements then I don't see why you couldn't write the book.
 

Allen R. Brady

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
189
Reaction score
22
You can write a nonfiction book about them, and you can write a novel about them but implicit in the definition of "novel" is that it is fiction. A "non-fiction novel" is oxymoronic.

A novel would be more problematic than a non-fiction work. In most jurisdictions in the US, your heirs control your personality rights for 75 years after your death. So you're free to write a book about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires, but if you want to write the same book about Ronald Reagan, you would have to get permission from his heirs.

The same restrictions don't apply to non-fiction.
 

tylertoo

Registered
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
37
Reaction score
2
Location
Philadelphia, PA USA
A "non-fiction novel" is oxymoronic.

Ah, but Capote changed all that.

From Wikipedia:

Truman Capote was one of the first authors who was recognized for nonfiction novel writing. ...The way in which the book is written objectively means that Capote has little influence over the granular facts of the case. The creative choices he can make are those of tone, tenor. ...
Capote argued that the non-fiction novel should be devoid of first-person narration and, ideally, free of any mention of the novelist. After the publication of In Cold Blood, many authors tested the form's "original" concept; notably including Hunter S. Thompson (1966's Hell's Angels), Norman Mailer (1968's Armies of the Night) and Tom Wolfe (1968's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test).
 

mugwort

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
175
Reaction score
9
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Website
www.societyfordaintydamsels.com
I think if you harbor concerns about the legality concerning any subject might be a good idea to contact a lawyer. Not implying in any way you are in legal trouble. Its just to know your rights, the legality of your proposal. Don't know where you live. I know in the US there are Community Legal Services with attorneys who charge very little for their service.
I am not necessarily in disagreement with the other posters. I just think to be on the safe side to take up my suggestion.
 

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
If a lawyer isn't a specialist in publishing law, he won't have any idea what he's talking about, and you'll just be wasting your money on bad advice.
 

iron9567

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
303
Reaction score
8
I agree with the opinion on asking a lawyer first. It never hurts to take that extra step to be safe.
thanks
the iron man
 

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
It's taken me a while to realize that no one in this discussion knows that you can't libel the dead. It's true. You can't. Libel laws apply only to the living.

If the dead criminals you want to write about have any living relatives, and you've said that they were participants or otherwise complicit in the crimes, they might have a case. If you didn't say that, simply being related doesn't give them standing.

You've said the police committed various misdeeds as well. If you've identified officers by name as being among the guilty, they might have a case.

Anything that's a matter of public record is fair game.

If you can prove something is true, it isn't libel.

If you're presenting your work as nonfiction, learn to be precise about your sources. If so-and-so said something useful and colorful for which there's no firm evidence, "So-and-so said [whatever]" is okay, because what you're asserting is that he said it. However, if your omniscient narrative voice simply repeats whatever that thing was that he said, then you're asserting the thing in its own right, and "So-and-so said it" is not a defense.

Allen Brady is mistaken on a number of points:
A novel would be more problematic than a non-fiction work.
No. It has a different set of potential problems. Given what you want to do, a novel might be easier to manage.
In most jurisdictions in the US,
In California plus twelve other states.nineteen states now, but those laws are seriously inconsistent from state to state.
your heirs control your personality rights for 75 years after your death.
That only applies if you're a bona fide celebrity, which for purposes of this law mostly means that your "name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness" has commercial value. If Bill Cosby died tomorrow, Royal pudding couldn't hire a Bill Cosby impersonator to do knockoffs of Cosby's Jello pudding ads.

How "personality rights" interact with freedom of speech, the right to say things that are demonstrably true, the interests of historical analysis, and other speech rights, has not yet been sorted out. What this means in practice is that whoever has the biggest lawyers gets to play the bully. Thus, you could in theory publish pornography starring Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Richard Feynman, Omar Bradley, or Rosa Parks, but the likeness of Sonny Bono is sacrosanct until 2073.

(Rant: The very existence of that law is a gross distortion of the legal system. Why should the heirs of celebrities have rights no one else does -- continuing for 75 years after their deaths? It's just one more bought-and-paid-for Hollywood law for which there's no sane justification: a standing affront to the public good and the common discourse.) (/End of rant.)
So you're free to write a book about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires, but if you want to write the same book about Ronald Reagan, you would have to get permission from his heirs.
If it's parodic, satirical, or otherwise functions as commentary, you're on firmer ground. To use a different strategy, if what you say is demonstrably true, you're also on solid ground.

Practically speaking, the more literary oomph you can muster, the more rights you have. This isn't fair, and strictly speaking it isn't the law, but it's how things work. If your book has literary pretensions, cover quotes from distinguished sources, and it's published by the likes of Viking, or Atlantic, or Farrar Straus Giroux, you can get away with things no trashy paperback could ever dream of.
The same restrictions don't apply to non-fiction.
Again, a different set of restrictions apply.
 
Last edited:

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
7,632
Reaction score
1,204
Location
London, UK
Website
torgoblog.blogspot.com
To add to HapiSofi's words of wisdom, I'd also note that in the UK and Europe you also have to be a little wary of the law of privacy. You can't, in general, reveal private details of a living person's life without certain justifications (e.g. the details are not private; they are already in the public domain; you have express written permission; what you are revealing is in the public interest.)
 

HapiSofi

Hagiographically Advantaged
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
2,093
Reaction score
676
To add to HapiSofi's words of wisdom, I'd also note that in the UK and Europe you also have to be a little wary of the law of privacy. You can't, in general, reveal private details of a living person's life without certain justifications (e.g. the details are not private; they are already in the public domain; you have express written permission; what you are revealing is in the public interest.)

That's as opposed to the United States, which in theory distinguishes public figures from private everybody else, the latter having more claim to privacy. This distinction was a lot clearer before the internet came along. A blogger is clearly a public figure, but how about someone who has a Facebook page?

You should mostly keep this in mind if you're writing about someone in the U.S. who has no online presence, has never been the subject of news stories, and has never known, done, or been anything of significant public interest. You can still write about them insofar as what you're saying is factually accurate, and pertinent to the work you're writing.
 

Old Hoodoo

Be intolerant of intolerance.
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
Buda, Texas
I have a nonfiction idea about a family of murderers and all were convicted of murder or some other crime, but they are not famous and all but one is dead. The events happened some thirty plus years ago and I have public newspaper articles and accounts on the five or more murders the men committed. I've found only five right now but there is evidence of the contrary. I would also like to add the brothers were suspects in the harassment of local police and townsfolk. They were convicted, sentenced, and some were even murdered by police. I ask if it is legal to write a novel about this band of murderers after they have all died.

You are covered. Famous is irrelevant...felonious criminals are clearly public figures so even if you suggest they may have committed unproven murders you are OK. Don't worry, write happy. Sounds darn interesting.
 

WeaselFire

Benefactor Member
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
3,539
Reaction score
429
Location
Floral City, FL
Forget about the laws for a moment. One way this is often covered is a novel "inspired by a true story." Write the book, include the facts, even the names, and preface the book as based on the truth, not actually the truth.

This does loosen most of the legal issues but, more importantly, it frees the author to make a great story out of what may be a dry telling of just facts. When asked whether "The Amityville Horror" was true, author Jay Anson replied "How should I know? I only wrote it."

Jeff
 

Melville

Reader first, writer second
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
233
Reaction score
25
Location
By a lake, in the woods
I don't care if Wiki said it, its either non-fiction or it's fiction, and a novel is fiction. You can base a novel on facts and reality, but that doesn't make it non-fiction.

I don't care what Wiki says either since too much of what is posted there is simply incorrect.

(So I apologize in advance for not bothering to follow the link.)

But if it's referring to Truman Capote's calling his masterwork IN COLD BLOOD "a non-fiction novel" -- that's what it was, that's what he said, and he had every right to call it like he saw it.

But he was one of a kind. Period.

And he knew the two were mutually exclusive, of course, but he wanted to stress that he 1) freely used fiction techniques in the writing of the story of the murder of the Clutter family, and 2) that he freely embellished where he didn't have the exact facts.

In his book, his observations (linked to his unique persona) were a character in themselves... enough so to be fodder for two feature films.

However, nowadays, just like the phrase "fiction novel" brings on fits, so does "non-fiction novel" because, generally speaking, those who use those phrases do so because they don't really understand what the terms mean. An agent who gets a query letter with the term "fiction novel" in the first paragraph is likely to hit delete before reading to the end.

"Non-fiction novel"? That term isn't in use today, not professionally, unless you're talking about Capote.

Yes, indeed, "creative nonfiction" is now the term for what Capote did, and for a lot of us who write true crime where all the facts are just not known but we want the story to sail along "novelistically".

Maybe Capote would have embraced the phrase "creative nonfiction" if he were still around. Maybe not.

So, I agree with Shadow Ferret but I just wanted to, well, pontificate a bit.

:DMel
 

gingerwoman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
228
However, nowadays, just like the phrase "fiction novel" brings on fits, so does "non-fiction novel" because, generally speaking, those who use those phrases do so because they don't really understand what the terms mean. An agent who gets a query letter with the term "fiction novel" in the first paragraph is likely to hit delete before reading to the end.
I'm having fits. I'm having fits!
Absolutely any agent would hit the delete button or throw the manuscript immediately in the trash, and rightly so.
Unless that "agent" was a scam artist who wanted to charge you money to publish your work ie....Publish America.
 

LindaJeanne

On a small world west of wonder
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
746
Reaction score
120
So you're free to write a book about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires, but if you want to write the same book about Ronald Reagan, you would have to get permission from his heirs.

If it's parodic, satirical, or otherwise functions as commentary, you're on firmer ground. To use a different strategy, if what you say is demonstrably true, you're also on solid ground.

I now want to read a demonstrably true book about Lincoln and Reagan hunting vampires together. :D