Thanks for all the thoughts. They have twitched my brain.
jiltedchild:
despite my best efforts to explain that the house was only a starting point and that not everything in the show was based on what actually happened in the show he still is not happy with the idea of the show ever being put on.
While not wanting to offend your housemate again by using him as a test case - what was it that ticked him off? Invasion of privacy? Exposure to the world? The fact that it was a comedy?
I was wondering if negotiated meanings might help (stealing tools from Oral History workers). As in, would people be less annoyed if you reached a shared interpretation of their lives and events? Do people get more angry when you've emphasised what they think is a mistaken view of their life?
Which also makes me wonder - who gets final say on what your life 'means'? People continuously interpret their friends' actions in ways the friends might not agree with - often in vast gossip fests - why shouldn't we write it down?
mcd:
If one of these ideas are cause for a friend's real life pain, then ethically it's a bad idea. So change a name, a few details, hair color and you're fine IMO. In other words, if you're knowingly hurting someone you should rethink it but if you're using real life stuff as juice for your story without any malicious intent, it's fair game.
This seems fair. But you've got two factors in there - outcome in the first bit of that and intent in the latter. Obviously they overlap, because you can set out to hurt someone, and you can make all possible efforts to avoid it. But is there a point where you'd put your foot down and say "I've done everything I can to disguise and alter and fictionalise this - I've dyed your hair, changed your name and moved you to Inverness - and you cannot in fairness be pissed off about my use of you as an inspirational start-point"? (Or would you cave to their judgement?)
And Baz - yes, I'd forgotten that Intimacy caused phenomenal family ructions. His sister wrote to the Guardian: "Does being famous mean you can devalue those around you and rewrite history for even more personal gain?" .
I've found this from an interview with Kureishi about self-censorship and writing about other people:
"If you think, 'I shouldn't say that,' it's always the things you should say."
But there are other people's feelings, too.
"Well, separation is traumatic. [...] And when you hate someone, you maybe behave monstrously towards them, which is a disgusting thought. And they hate you as well. That's what goes on."
I'm interested that he's saying "They hate you as well", suggesting a kind of balance in the situation - not: "They hate you, and they write a bestselling novel describing your loathsome qualities to the world, as well." I don't know if he sincerely thinks that whatever his ex wife can achieve with her hating could equal the exposure he's had for his own.
Quantum:
"..whose privacy is not mine to dispense with."
Class line. But I do wonder where my privacy overlaps with those of others. |
