If you write novels, your publisher has probably insisted on including a disclaimer on the copywrite page that states that the book is a work of fiction and any resemblance to real life people, living or dead, is mere coincidence. Even memoirs come with a disclaimer that says something along the lines that memories are not infallible so while the main facts are true, some events may not be accurate and that some names may have been altered to protect the privacy of others. These caveats are necessary to keep publishers and their authors out of court. While it's not failsafe, it is necessary. With this in mind, it may be surprising to learn that some books intentionally use actual names, while fictionalising events. If you are an American of a certain age, you will be familiar with the success of Truman Capote’s book In Cold Blood. It is a highly researched book about the murder of a midwestern family. The namws of the victims and the cobvicted murders are correct as are the facts associated with event but Capote fictionalised certain elements such as dialogue. At the time it was dubbed the ‘nonfiction novel.’ Or as Capote called it, ‘faction’.

Another example of a non-fiction novel is John Krakaur’s account of Chris McCandless. McCandless decided to drop out of University, eschew materialism and venture into the Alaskan wilderness where he perished. Using interviews and McCandkess’ journals, Krakaur attempted in his book Into The Wild, to understand not only what happened to McCandless but what motivated him. Like Capote, he wrote a non-fiction novel, a true story, filled in by the author's conjectures about what McCandless intended to do. These nonfiction novels, like autobiographies, are backed up by objective facts. But what if a novel purports to tell a true story, even includes actual events and people, all while claiming to be a work of fiction?

Returning to Truman Capote. He intended to followup the success of In Cold Blood with a roman-a-clef about the high-profile women he referred to as his 'swans'. The novella Answered Prayers was never finished but its early chapters published in Esquire Magazine created an incredible backlash from the women who felt betrayed by his portrayal of them even though he didn’t use their real names. Contrast that with a book written much earlier by the writer Pierre Ambroise LaClos. The book, Dangerous Liaisons while the author claimed was a complete work of fiction must have struck a chord with the French Aristocracy. It was rumoured that even Marie Antoinette read the book as if it were a roman a clef and that she, along with her ladies in waiting, speculated on what real persons the characters were based on.

There’s nothing new in writing fictionalised accounts of events. Historical fiction writers do it all the time. And there’s nothing new in writers drawing upon the people they know and using these people as the basis for characters in their novels. For example, D. H. Lawrence modeled Lady Chatterly on his wife. As for writers who draw on their own lives as inspiration for their novels, Tropic of Capricorn by Henry Millar is semi-autobiographical and much of Hemingway’s writings were based on his experiences. The author P.D. James perhaps said it best. “All fiction is largely autobiographical and much autobiography is, of course, fiction.” So why was there such a fuss over Karl Ove Knausgaard's series of novels? My Struggle, which is at times referred to as autobiographical and at other times, a novel, differs from my earlier examples in that Knausgaard refers to actual members of his family even though he fictionalises events. This artiface, he stated, allowed him to achieve certain things. Firstly, by claiming it is a novel, he was freed up to search for what one might call the truth of the situation. Secondly, by making himself the narrator of his story, he creates an intimacy with the reader which makes for a more compwelling story. This genre has been dubbed autofiction. It's  both autobiograhical and fictionalised in order to intentionally blur the lines that normally separate the two.

In my last blog, I wrote about memoirs and said that, unlike autobiographies, they do not need to adhere strictly to facts as long as the memoir is a factual account of events. Sounds a bit like having your cake and eating it too but actually there are good reasons to allow the memoirist this freedom. First of all, a memoir is about transformation. It’s meant to inspire or show others how to navigate similar experiences. Since it is the underlying message that is important, secondary details; names, sequence of events and so forth, can be altered to ensure the privacy of others or add dramatic effect. Similarly, autofiction takes liberties with actual people and events in order to explore themes. While disclaimers on the copyright page of a memoir state that the oeuvre is based on the author's memory and that some names and facts may not be factually true, does placing a disclaimer on a work of autofiction defeat its purpose? After all, autofiction is meant to be fiction  masquerading as non-fiction in order to unearth some truth. Perhaps that’s why Karl Ove Knausgaard’s series My Struggle deliberately omitted a disclaimer. And indeed, controversy followed because members of his family objected to the use of their names and lives being publicly exploited. Knausgaard’s uncle insisted his name be changed and 14 other relatives labelled his books “Judas books”.  And, as it happened, Knausgaard was forced to change names, most prominently the name of his father which becomes simply ‘father’. Oddly enough, by giving key characters relationship identities rather than names, the novels take on a more universal appeal.

Where does fiction cross the line? Works of fiction may be written with the intent to give readers an insight into the writer’s life. While it may be therapeutic for the author, it may be less so for those who are dragged in without consent. Sometimes the backlash is personal.It’s said that Truman Capote never recovered from the rancour he created with Answered Prayers. Other times, it results in legal action. The creators of the TV show, Law & Order, were sued by Ravi Baktral for creating the character Ravi Patel, who was portrayed as an unsavory character. Ravi sued for defamation. The author Hayward Smith lost a case brought by a (former) friend who said she was portrayed in a defamatory way in Smith’s novel, The Red Hat Club. These types of cases are referred to as libel-in-fiction. The basis for such a suit is whether a ‘ reasonable person … would understand that the fictional character … was, in actual fact, the plaintiff acting as described." Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting. (You can follow this link for more information on libel-in-fiction cases.

(For more information follow this link https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-monitor/2015/03/screenwriter-slapps-down-libelinfiction-claim.)