Odd thing about published A/H fiction

In almost all A/H fiction, there's the standard disclaimer that you find in almost all novels. (This one is quoted directly from 1634: The Baltic War)
"This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblece to real people or incidents is purely coincidental."
How can they put that statement into a book on alternate history? Some of the characters in most Alternate Histories are as close to real as the authors can manage...that's the whole point.
 
Or maybe it is for those who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality you know like George W.:D
 
In almost all A/H fiction, there's the standard disclaimer that you find in almost all novels. (This one is quoted directly from 1634: The Baltic War)
"This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblece to real people or incidents is purely coincidental."
How can they put that statement into a book on alternate history? Some of the characters in most Alternate Histories are as close to real as the authors can manage...that's the whole point.
It's a legal point. If you look in the fine print at the beginning of every novel -- regardless of whether it's AH or not -- those words will be there. They're also there in the credits following a movie, and usually in the credits following a television show.

I don't recall the actual history of the thing, but apparently back in the first half of the 20th century, there was a movie that included an unflattering portrayal of a real-life person. The movie never used that person's name, and didn't use historical information, but the insinuation was that the person was being portrayed in the movie. The person sued the movie studio, claiming libel, and won. After that point, pretty much every work of fiction produced in the United States since then has included that disclaimer if there's a chance that someone might think that they were the ones being parodied.

It's not a very strong disclaimer, but it's held up in court several times now, and so people keep on using it.
 
It's a legal point. If you look in the fine print at the beginning of every novel -- regardless of whether it's AH or not -- those words will be there. They're also there in the credits following a movie, and usually in the credits following a television show.

I don't recall the actual history of the thing, but apparently back in the first half of the 20th century, there was a movie that included an unflattering portrayal of a real-life person. The movie never used that person's name, and didn't use historical information, but the insinuation was that the person was being portrayed in the movie. The person sued the movie studio, claiming libel, and won. After that point, pretty much every work of fiction produced in the United States since then has included that disclaimer if there's a chance that someone might think that they were the ones being parodied.

It's not a very strong disclaimer, but it's held up in court several times now, and so people keep on using it.

I thought it was because of the film "Citizen Kane". For some reason William Randolph Hearst had some issues with it. :D

I don't recall him successfully suing the studio, but I could well be mistaken.
 
In almost all A/H fiction, there's the standard disclaimer that you find in almost all novels. (This one is quoted directly from 1634: The Baltic War)
"This is a work of fiction. All the characters and events portrayed in this book are fictional, and any resemblece to real people or incidents is purely coincidental."
How can they put that statement into a book on alternate history? Some of the characters in most Alternate Histories are as close to real as the authors can manage...that's the whole point.
It's a legal point. If you look in the fine print at the beginning of every novel -- regardless of whether it's AH or not -- those words will be there. They're also there in the credits following a movie, and usually in the credits following a television show.

I don't recall the actual history of the thing, but apparently back in the first half of the 20th century, there was a movie that included an unflattering portrayal of a real-life person. The movie never used that person's name, and didn't use historical information, but the insinuation was that the person was being portrayed in the movie. The person sued the movie studio, claiming libel, and won. After that point, pretty much every work of fiction produced in the United States since then has included that disclaimer if there's a chance that someone might think that they were the ones being parodied.

It's not a very strong disclaimer, but it's held up in court several times now, and so people keep on using it.
I thought it was because of the film "Citizen Kane". For some reason William Randolph Hearst had some issues with it. :D

I don't recall him successfully suing the studio, but I could well be mistaken.
Actually it was "Rasputin and the Empress". The movie had a fictional murder, "Paul Chegodieff" (played by John Barrymore), but the real murdeer, Feliks Yussupov, sued because the Princess Chegodieff was portrayed as having been raped by Rasputin. They won £25,000, and Metro led the pack in introducing disclaimers.
(He sued CBS in 1963 over something similar, but with less luck.)

Rasputin and the Empress
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023374/
 
Actually it was "Rasputin and the Empress". The movie had a fictional murder, "Paul Chegodieff" (played by John Barrymore), but the real murdeer, Feliks Yussupov, sued because the Princess Chegodieff was portrayed as having been raped by Rasputin. They won £25,000, and Metro led the pack in introducing disclaimers.
(He sued CBS in 1963 over something similar, but with less luck.)

Rasputin and the Empress
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023374/
Ah, thanks for that. Citizen Kane came to mind, but I knew it was later than that. I'll definitely have to remember this answer for the next round of bar trivia.
 
It IS a legal point and completely non-sensical

However, if you look in Ben Elton's recent novel (Chart Throb) he does it more honestly explaining his portrayal there of Prince Charles

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Prince Charles is referred to as "Mad King Charles" and plays a most unflattering role in S M Stirlings "Protectors War".

Tony Blair also gets a dishonourable mention or two.

I did wonder about that.
 
Prince Charles is referred to as "Mad King Charles" and plays a most unflattering role in S M Stirlings "Protectors War".

Tony Blair also gets a dishonourable mention or two.

I did wonder about that.
I haven't read that series (since the scenario really doesn't attract me), but that drew my notice. Without knowing how Charles drew that sobriquet, I'd suggest that seeing technological civlization collapse and the bulk of the human race die off in various and sundry horrible ways would be enough to drive a lot of people mad. :p

-Joe-
 
I haven't read that series (since the scenario really doesn't attract me), but that drew my notice. Without knowing how Charles drew that sobriquet, I'd suggest that seeing technological civlization collapse and the bulk of the human race die off in various and sundry horrible ways would be enough to drive a lot of people mad. :p

-Joe-
I'd speculate that Charles "back-to-nature" organic farming hobby might be seen as less than sane in the post-change world. Although useful.
 
Well F me up the A and call me Ethyl, just shows to go ya i don't know as much about Mr.Blair as i thought!
 
Top