Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Books The Red Hat of Shame
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Plaintiff's attorney Joann Brown Williams had brandished a clean, white piece of fabric before the jury in her closing argument and written the word “slut” on it with a permanent black marker.“This is what [Smith] did to the fabric of Vicki Stewart’s life,” she said. “She made her into a slut, an atheist and an alcoholic. Ms. Smith’s irresponsible words have stained the fabric of Vicki Stewart’s life. These stains will never come ou
The injured party won $100,000. After the verdict was announced, she claimed "All I wanted is for this not to happen to anyone else." Yes. Thank God this disturbing trend will never take off. Authors will never again base fictional characters on real people. What a terrible idea.
2
I'd never even heard of this red hat club until they had some major meeting in the Montana town that I grew up in. I happened to be visiting my parents back home at the time, and thought the farmer's market had been infiltrated by some flamboyant cult.
Trust me, Vicki Stewart, no one under the age of 60 will care.
Trust me, Vicki Stewart, no one under the age of 60 will care.
4
Wow. Maybe Ottoline Morell could finally get back at D.H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, and all the other ingrate leeches who made fun of her in their novels!
6
I'm confused...if it's based on her, and if the book characterizes her as a slut/atheist/alcoholic, isn't there a chance she actually IS a slut/atheist/alcoholic? Hasn't Vicki Stewart already "stained the fabric" of her own life? And if not, if the book just made up the fact that she's a slut/atheist/alcoholic, then how is it based on her?
7
Another real person rechristened in fiction: Kerouac's Seattle burlesque dancer "the Naughty Girl Sarina," who (it was recently discovered) was really named Zabuda. http://preview.tinyurl.com/yhtooq3
8
This book better have a forward that says, "This character is based on Vicki Stewart," because if it doesn't no one would have even known without this lawsuit. Vicki Stewart is just trying to cash in on her former friend's success. It's unfortunate that the jury fell for it, and even more unfortunate that anyone has ever read this truly awful-sounding book.
Also, now that we're not allowing calling someone a homosexual to be considered libellous, can we extend that to calling someone promiscuous, too?
Also, now that we're not allowing calling someone a homosexual to be considered libellous, can we extend that to calling someone promiscuous, too?
9
Huh? If she IS a slut and an atheist, then it's not libel. If she's NOT a slut and an atheist, how is the character recognizable as her. And so WHAT if it's a character that's just like her, only she's a slut and and atheist? That means the author used her as a character and added some not-her characteristics on, no? I don't get it. BTW, I AM a slut and an atheist and I'd PAY the author to expound on same in the next book.
11
As someone familiar with the case, I can tell you that she is not an atheist/slut/alcoholic, but there were numerous other similarities, how the husband died, a second husband who embezzled from her, she was a flight attendant, etc. 31 similarities in all that the jury heard about. Many people who moved in her social circle abandoned her as a friend because of the book. There was also the feeling that the author INTENDED to hurt her, though this was not deemed to be admissible. She was damaged and the verdict should have been more.
Comments (11) RSS