Gonzalo Barr

Blogging
Law and Books
Writing

The Dangers of Living a Double Life

If you are leading a double life (lawyer by day, blogger or fiction writer by night) you need to consider whether your extracurricular activities can land you in trouble with your day job. Previously, I linked to an article in Washington Lawyer that listed seven points to avoid getting into legal trouble. The points are common sense — don’t defame your employer, don’t post any trade secrets, that kind of thing.

But what about that gray area lawyers call “the appearance of impropriety?” You aren’t writing about anything related to your job. You are doing it on your own time and your own computer. But the partners think that your activity reflects poorly on the firm. What happens then?

Take the case of Deirdre Dare. She was a senior associate at the UK firm of Allen & Overy and was assigned to their Moscow offices. The Daily Mail reported that she was earning GBP 150,000 (about USD 215,650) a year. That is a good salary for an associate, even if Moscow is one of the world’s most expensive cities to live in. By day, she was an international finance and projects lawyer. By night, she was the author of an online pornographic novel.

According to The Daily Mail, Dare’s online novel –

describes the sordid lifestyle pursued by staff at a British-led professional firm in the capital. [The] heroine describes herself as a ‘part drug addict, part alcoholic’ who regularly turns up for work hours late and hungover. She and her colleagues are constantly seeking new sexual conquests, attend obscene sex shows involving donkeys and dwarves, blow fortunes at expensive restaurants and gossip about where they are planning to get drunk next.

When the partners discovered the online novel, they warned Dare to stop or be subject to disciplinary action. The novel, the partner’s believed, brought disrepute to the firm. Allen & Overy is considered one of the world’s elite law firms.

Each law firm has its own culture. A lawyer looking to jump should be honest with himself and apply only to firms whose cultures are compatible with his own. No matter how much they pay you, life will be hell otherwise. You will dread every minute you have to be there. You will lose (or gain) a ton of weight. You will take up smoking or drinking or both. And by the time you’re thirty-five (assuming you are still with the same firm) you will look like you are fifty-five. Life’s too short for that.

An unidentified source at Allen & Overy was quoted by The Daily Mail as saying about Dare –

‘As it is, we’ve still got her name on our website, so there’s no indication she’s facing the sack.’

That article was published January 17, 2009. A search of the firm website earlier today did not list anyone by the name of Deirdre Dare, in Moscow or anywhere else.

Sources: Neil Sears, “Miss Dare, the £150,000 lawyer, told to stop putting porn on the net,” The Daily Mail (Jan. 17, 2009), Allen & Overy website

2009 02 04

Mayor of Batman, Turkey Threatens to Sue “Batman” Producers

I classified this post under “Law and Books,” even though Batman, the series, is more than a book and even though the law likely has little to say about a publicity-seeking venture like the one concocted by Huseyin Kalkan, another politician with too much time on his hands.

Kalkan is the mayor of Batman, a city in southeast Turkey. Recently, he threatened to file a lawsuit against the producers of The Dark Knight, the latest installment in the Batman films, claiming that the defendants had used the name of the city without permission of the municipality. Let me repeat his principal allegation — according to Kalkan, the producers of Batman unlawfully appropriated the name of Batman.

Not too long ago, I posted about another politician with too much time on his hands, one Ernie Chambers, who sued God twice in court and lost. Courts have become clown-friend places. If they welcome an Ernie Chambers, why not entertain the charge that Batman ripped off Batman, especially after the box-office receipts of the movie exceeded one billion dollars?

Let’s compare and contrast:

Batman is a city. Batman is the eponymous series about a superhero.

Batman is in Turkey. Batman takes place in Gotham, a made-up city that is nowhere near Turkey.

Batman the city isn’t even Batman. According to wikipedia (that infallible and all-knowing source of reliable information), the name “Batman” is a shortening of the complete name of the city, which is Bati Raman. “Batman” on the other hand, the nom-de-guerre of the superhero, is descriptive of his costume, to wit — the man dresses like a bat. In the series, the protagonist’s real name is Bruce Wayne. Following Mayor Kalkan’s legal reasoning, that would be sufficient cause for the mayor of Fort Wayne, Texas to file his own suit against the movie producers for misappropriation.

No one knows how long Batman the city has been around (not even wikipedia), yet it is only now, almost seventy years since the comic Batman was first published, that the mayor of Batman, is talking lawsuit. He says –

“There is only one Batman in the world, … [t]he American producers used the name of our city without informing us.”

Mayor Kalkan claims that the “misappropriation” by the producers and the psychological impact of the movie have caused a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate in Batman. This is where the story turns quite dark.

According to The International Herald Tribune, from 2000 to 2006, there were 165 suicides or suicide attempts in Batman, 102 of them by women. Thirty-six women killed themselves in the first six months of 2006 alone. The UN claims that the suicides were sparked by relatives who accused the women of bringing dishonor on their families. Batman was featured prominently in Orhan Pamuk’s novel, Snow, about a journalist’s investigation of a suicide epidemic among teenage girls and was based on that grim reality.

“Why don’t you tell the story, Hande?” said Kadife. “There’s nothing to be ashamed of.”
“No, that’s not true. There’s a great deal to be ashamed of, and that’s why I want to talk about it,” Hande said.
– Orhan Pamuk, Snow

It is ironic that Kalkan’s flat-footed attempt to attribute the cause of the suicides elsewhere has only brought it right back where it belongs. In the meantime, Pamuk’s novel resonates all the more.

“Oh, a writer should be able to talk about everything that’s important,” said Necip, in a nudging voice. “If I were a writer, I’d want to talk about everything that people didn’t talk about.”
– Id.

Sources: Ali Jaafar, “Mayor of Batman Sues WB, Nolan,” Variety (Nov. 11, 2008), Dan Bilefsky, “‘Virgin suicides’ save Turks’ honor,” International Herald-Tribune (July 13, 2006), Orhan Pamuk, Snow (2004, translated by Maureen Freely), at 119, 134, wikipedia article on Batman, Turkey, loweringthebar blog

2008 12 22

Comments (2)

Law and Books
Miscellaneous

Everybody’s a Writer Part 2

The first entry on this topic was posted last December and entitled, “Everybody’s a Writer.” It never occurred to me that the post would become a series, which only goes to show how naive I can be. The original post (see here) reported that the first page of a love story written by Napoleon Bonaparte had been sold at auction for the price of a modest four-door sedan. At the age of 26 years, Bonaparte wrote a 22-page manuscript before deciding that conquering Europe was so much easier that writing a long narrative.

Now there’s news that Heather Mills is “writing” a novel. Not shy about discussing a work-in-progress, the novel is reportedly about a former model who marries a rock star.

The reasonable person should remember that libel laws are very plaintiff-friendly in the UK. (See my previous posts on this subject here and here.) Unlike the US, where thanks to the First Amendment it is much harder to prevail and get damages for perceived slights, in the UK if you publish something that offends someone, you will likely find yourself at the wrong end of a lawsuit. A disparaging passage about the rock star protagonist in Mills’s novel may subject her to a suit for libel and the significant damages that are sometimes awarded at the end of them, regardless of how well the book does.

Just a thought…

Source: Richard Simpson, “Now Heather Mills writes a novel: Surprise, surprise… it’s about a model who weds a rock star,” Mail On Line (Sept. 9, 2008)

2008 09 09

Kenzaburo Oe Prevails in Libel Suit Against Him

Japanese novelist and 1994 Nobel Prize laureate, Kenzaburo Oe, prevailed on Friday in a libel suit filed against him.

Thirty-eight years ago, Oe published an essay entitled, “Okinawa Notes.” In the essay, he argued that the mass civilian suicides that occurred during the 1945 Battle of Okinawa were directed by the Imperial Army. He did not name anyone as responsible, though.

In 2005, Yutaka Umezawa, 91, and Hidekazu Akamatsu, 75, filed a libel suit against Oe. Umezawa commanded Japanese troops on Zamamijima island during the Battle of Okinawa. Akamatsu was the brother of the man who had commanded the troops on Tokashikijima island. The plaintiffs also sued the publisher, demanding that they stop publication of the book.

The Asahi Shimbun reports that at least 430 civilians committed suicide during the battle.

The court ruled that it could not –

conclude that they (the commanders) actually issued direct orders, but it can sufficiently presume that they were involved

In language that vindicates the author, the court further found that Oe had “reasonable data and grounds” for his thesis.

Photo: Kenzaburo Oe, by Hpschaefer, 2008, Wikipedia; Sources: asahi.com, El país, article on the Battle of Okinawa, Wikipedia

2008 03 29

Law and Books
Writers

Kahle and Stanford Defeat Stands

The US Supreme Court on January 7, 2008 denied certiorari to Brewster Kahle and Stanford University’s The Center for Internet and Society. Kahle and Stanford petitioned for certiorari after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them. The Ninth Circuit found that copyright protection for so-called “orphan works” did not violate the First Amendment, as Kahle and Stanford had argued. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari effectively leaves the Ninth Circuit decision in place. “Orphan works” include books that are still under copyright protection, but out of print. Kahle’s plan was to publish “orphan works” on line, effectively treating them as if they were already in the public domain.

This is good news for authors.

Sources: Kahle v. Gonzalez Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision denying Kahle’s appeal of District Court order dismissing suit (Jan. 22, 2007), Kahle v. Gonzalez, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision amending order and denying petition for rehearing en banc (May 14, 2007), Media News, Publishers Lunch blog

2008 01 16

Libel Tourism: Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz (Updated with the NY decision)

In late November, I posted about the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld against Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Five years ago, Ehrenfeld published Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How To Stop It. In the book, she wrote that Mahfouz had financed al-Qaida directly and indirectly. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in the UK. When Ehrenfeld did not appear, the English court entered a default judgment against her, awarded Mahfouz substantial money damages, and enjoined the publisher from making the book available in the UK. Ehrenfeld then filed a declaratory action in US federal district court, arguing that Mahfouz would not have been able to prevail had he sued in the US and, therefore, the court should declare that the British judgment is unenforceable here because it violates the First Amendment.

The federal district court, sitting in diversity jurisdiction, asked New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to interpret the state’s long-arm statute and whether it applied to Mahfouz to give the federal court personal jurisdiction over him.

On December 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals decided that Mahfouz had not transacted any business in New York “in person or through an agent” and therefore the state long-arm statute did not apply to him. If Mahfouz were to petition a US court to enforce the British judgment here, a sustained attorney-client relationship in the state might be sufficient to make him subject to NY laws and court jurisdiction.

As I noted before, it is unlikely that any US court would enforce a judgment without examining very closely that it does not run afoul of the First Amendment right of free speech.

This is not a defeat for Ehrenfeld. In their decision, the Court of Appeals stated –

At the outset, it is important to emphasize that we are called upon to decide a narrow issue. The Second Circuit has not asked us to opine upon the propriety of English libel law or its differences from its United States and, particularly, New York State counterparts. And we decline to do so.

One of two things can happen: Either Mahfouz chooses not to enforce the British judgment in the US, rendering it a paper victory, or he does choose to enforce it here and, by doing so, runs the risk that a US court will rule against him on the merits.

Source: Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, N.Y. Court of Appeals (decided Dec. 20, 2007)

2008 01 07

Grass Sues Publisher Over Statement That He “Volunteered” For SS

Earlier this year, Harcourt published the US edition of Günter Grass’s memoirs, Peeling The Onion. In the book, Grass admitted that he had been part of the Waffen-SS, the combat arm of the Schutzstaffel. He has always maintained, though, that he did not volunteer, but was recruited and that his service was compulsory.

The distinction is important. At the Nuremburg trials, the entire Waffen-SS was ruled to be guilty of war crimes, regardless of the actions of any particular member. An exception was carved out for members who had been recruited, especially late in the war, and who had not volunteered.

In Grass’s memoirs, excerpts of which appeared earlier this year in The New Yorker, he denied that he knew he was being assigned to the Waffen-SS until his orders arrived –

As soon as the all-clear sounded, I took a tram to another station. The train for Dresden waited for departure in the gray light of morning.

It was not until here, in a Dresden as yet untouched by the war, that I understood what division I had been attached to. My new marching orders made it clear where the recruit with my name was to undergo basic training: on a drill ground of the Waffen S.S., as a panzer gunner, somewhere far off in the Bohemian Woods.

The question is: Was I frightened by what was obvious then in the recruitment office, as I am terrified now by the double “S,” even as I write this more than sixty years later?

There is nothing carved into the onion skin of my memory that can be read as a sign of shock, let alone horror. I most likely viewed the Waffen S.S. as an élite unit that was sent into action whenever a breach in the front line had to be stopped up.

(Translated from the German by Michael Henry Heim)

This admission sent shockwaves through the literary world. Grass was known as a vocal critic of Germans who would not come to terms with the nation’s Nazi past. In 1985, a visit by then-chancellor Helmut Kohl and president Ronald Reagan to the cemetery at Bitburg infuriated Grass, who thought that their presence honored the Waffen-SS men buried there.

Journalist, Michael Jürgs, first published a biography of Grass in 2002, four years before the Nobel laureate’s memoirs and therefore his confession. That edition did not mention his involvement in the Waffen-SS. A revised edition of the biography was published last month and stated that Grass had “volunteered” to serve. Grass then sued the publisher, Goldmann Verlag, in a German court.

It is all about the language. The Guardian translated and quoted the passage from Jürgs’s book that is at the center of the suit –

He admitted … that as a 17-year-old he volunteered to join the Waffen-SS.

In an affidavit submitted to the court, Grass wrote –

…as a 15-year-old I volunteered in Gotenhafen to join the Wehrmacht. In fact I wanted to serve on a submarine or alternatively a tank unit…This has nothing to do, directly or indirectly, with volunteering for the Waffen-SS. I was enlisted with the Waffen-SS without my active cooperation only when I received the notification of the draft in autumn 1944.

Perhaps offering us a preview of the publisher’s defense, The Guardian quoted a lawyer for Goldmann Verlag as saying, “What is missing is a clear and simple statement: I did not volunteer to join the Waffen-SS.”

If Goldmann Verlag intents to defend itself by claiming that Grass has never been clear about the circumstances that led him to become a part of the Waffen-SS, it would not be the first time that the author was accused of muddling the facts. This June, William Grimes reviewed Grass’s memoir for The New York Times and noted that –

Peeling the Onion is a verbally dazzling but often infuriating piece of work, bristling with harsh self-criticism, murky evasions and coy revisions of a past that, Mr. Grass steadfastly insists, presents itself to his novelist’s imagination as a parade of images and stories asking to be manipulated….The constant muddling of fact and fiction grows wearisome.

Since his confession, some critics have called for Grass to return the Nobel prize. Others have been more understanding and forgiving. When fellow Nobel laureate Dario Fo was asked what he thought about Grass’s past, he quoted Brecht and said “Pity the land that needs heroes.” Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, offered this explanation for Grass’s silence (my translation into English follows the Spanish original) –

¿Por qué calló? Simplemente porque tenía vergüenza y acaso remordimientos de haber vestido aquel uniforme y, también, porque semejante credencial hubiera sido aprovechada por sus adversarios políticos y literarios para descalificarlo en la batalla cívica y política que, desde los comienzos de su vida de escritor, Günter Grass identificó con su vocación literaria.
¿Por qué decidió hablar ahora? Seguramente para limpiar su conciencia de algo que debía atormentarlo y también, sin duda, porque sabía que tarde o temprano aquel remoto episodio de su juventud llegaría a conocerse y su silencio echaría alguna sombra sobre su nombre y su reputación de escritor comprometido, y, como suele llamársele, de conciencia moral y cívica de Alemania. En todo esto no hay ni grandeza ni pequeñez, sino, me atrevo a decir, una conducta impregnada de humanidad, es decir, de las debilidades connaturales a cualquier persona común y corriente que no es, ni pretende ser, un héroe ni un santo.

***

Why was he silent? Simply because he felt shame and maybe remorse for having worn that uniform and because such credentials would have been exploited by his literary and political adversaries to disqualify him from the civic and political battle that Günter Grass has identified as his literary vocation since the beginning of his life as a writer. Why did he decide to speak now? Surely to cleanse his conscience of something that had to torment him and, without a doubt, because he knew that sooner or later that remote episode of his youth would become known and his silence would cast a shadow over his name and his reputation as a committed writer and the moral and civic conscience of Germany, as he is often called. In all this there is neither greatness nor pettiness but, I dare say, conduct that is soaked with humanity, which is to say, with the weaknesses that are natural in any common person who is not, nor does he pretend to be, a hero or a saint.

So what importance does a literary biography have, coming after the author’s own words, whether fiction or memoir? John Updike, in a piece from Due Considerations, a compilation of his essays and reviews, wrote –

When an author has devoted his life to expressing himself, and if a poet or a writer of fiction has used the sensational and critical events of his life as his basic material, what of significance can a biographer add to the record?

Who knows? As a reader, I have indulged myself with facts about writers’ lives, thick books about Joyce and Hemingway and even books about writers whose work I don’t admire. It is a natural tendency to look behind the curtain and see what the operator of that wonderful machine known as the novel or story looks like. Moreover, writers read books about writers to see how others do it. The literary biography has its place and purposes, but always within the context of the author’s own words, I think.

Why did Grass wait all these years to admit that he had once been a member of the notorious SS? His own words, from his memoirs, provide an answer –

Enough excuses. Still I refused for decades to utter the word SS and admit that I wore that double symbol. After the war, with growing shame, I wanted to keep silent about what I accepted in the stupid pride of my younger years. The burden remains, and no one can lighten it for me.
True, during my training as an anti-tank gunner, which stupified me in the fall and winter, I heard nothing of those crimes of war which later came to light. However, insisting on ignorance cannot veil my awareness that I was made part of a system which planned, organized and carried out the destruction of millions of human beings. Even absolved of active guilt, there remains something that doesn’t go away, that all too commonly is called shared responsibility. I will have to live with that for the rest of my years.

Unless the parties reach a settlement, these questions are now a legal matter to be decided by a German court.

See also the article in Der Spiegel (in German).

Sources: Günter Grass, “How I Spent the War: A Recruit in the Waffen SS,” The New Yorker (June 4, 2007), Norman Birnbaum, “The Strange Silence of Günter Grass,” The Nation (Aug. 18, 2006), Alexandra Topping, “Grass Sues Publisher Over Claims that He Chose to Enlist With Waffen-SS,” The Guardian (Nov. 24, 2007), William Grimes, “Grass’s Fact and Fiction, Fighting to a Draw,” New York Times (June 27, 2007), Samuel Loewenberg, “Storm grows over Grass’s belated SS confessions,” The Guardian (Aug. 16, 2006), Mario Vargas Llosa, “Günter Grass, en la picota,” El país (Aug. 27, 2006), John Keenan, “Can Biographers Avoid Cheapening Their Subjects?” The Guardian (Nov. 27, 2007)

2007 11 27

Law and Books
Writers

Comments (2)

Libel Tourism

On one of my visits to London, I went to the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand and sat through the opening statements in a libel case. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant newspaper had libeled him when they reported that he was a professional “deprogramer” of cult members. The paper had described the plaintiff’s methods in terms that sounded like abduction.

Libel and defamation suits in the US against a newspaper rarely prosper. Courts have interpreted the First Amendment broadly to protect all forms of speech, including publication, except in limited exceptions. A private person must show that the allegedly libelous words were published with malice or reckless disregard for the truth before he can recover.

In the UK, libel laws are more liberal. No showing of malice or reckless disregard is required. Consequently, there are many more libel suits. It is easier to recover damages, even against a newspaper. It was more than a simple coincidence that I should walk into the Royal Courts of Justice and find a trial for libel about to begin.

For years, the difference in libel laws between the US and the UK did not matter much. More recently, with the advent of the Internet and the nearly simultaneous publication of books on both sides of the English-speaking Atlantic, that is no longer the case.

In 2005, Rachel Ehrenfeld published Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How To Stop It, in which she wrote that Saudi businessman, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, had financed al-Qaida through the family’s National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and Islamic charities. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in the UK. When Ehrenfeld did not appear, the British court entered a default judgment against her, awarded Mahfouz substantial money damages, and enjoined the publisher from making the book available in the UK. (For example, Amazon (UK) does not list the book.)

Ehrenfeld then filed an action in US federal district court, arguing that Mahfouz would not have been able to prevail had he sued in the US and, therefore, the British judgment is unenforceable here because it violates the First Amendment. She also argued that Mahfouz should have sued her in US courts, as she is American and lives here. And that Mahfouz engaged in forum shopping by bringing the suit in the UK, where the libel laws are more liberal.

Several procedural questions must be answered before the court can consider Ehrenfeld’s case. The first is whether the US federal district court has jurisdiction over Mahfouz. To answer that, the court must decide whether New York’s “long arm” law is applicable. The court has jurisdiction over someone outside the state if he “in person or through an agent” transacts any business within the state, as long as the legal action arose from those New York transactions. Federal courts sitting as courts of diversity jurisdiction (meaning that the plaintiff is from one place — Ehrenfeld is in New York — and the defendant is from another — Mahfouz is in Saudi Arabia) apply the law of the state where they sit. That is why the federal court is looking at New York law to make its ruling. In cases where the decision may have a significant impact on the fundamental rights of many others, such as protecting First Amendment rights, a federal court can request the highest court in the state to inform them on what the law is. The rationale is that the highest state court is best suited to interpret state law.

The highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, has received the case. The question before it is a limited one — does the state’s ”long arm” law apply to Mahfouz such that the federal court can hear the case against him.

If Mahfouz prevails, US writers are effectively stripped of First Amendment protections, especially as the Internet has all but erased national boundaries, at least in countries where the public has unfettered access to the Web. Publish something that someone anywhere in the world deems libelous and the offended person may sue you in a friendly court, like the UK, get an award for damages, then ask a US court to enforce the award here.

According to the Associated Press, Ehrenfeld, in her court papers, stated that Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue for libel and defamation in the UK at least 29 times for statements concerning his role in the financing of terrorism. The Guardian reports that every major media group in the UK, including The Guardian, signed a consolidated amicus curiae brief and filed it with the New York Court of Appeals. The brief cites the “growing and dangerous threat of ‘libel tourism’ — the cynical and aggressive use of claimant-friendly libel laws in foreign jurisdictions…” which “has chilled and will continue to chill Dr Ehrenfeld’s exercise of her free speech.”

Every writer needs to watch this case carefully.

2007 11 26

Comments (1)

Novelist Pummeled By His Own Characters, Court Fines Characters

It should be obvious that if you base a character in a book on a living person you should not do it in a way that the person will recognize himself. A living person can respond in many ways, including filing a lawsuit against you. Lawsuits are not fun, regardless of which side you are on, but especially if you are on the receiving end. Plus a lawsuit can take years to resolve, time during which you will likely not be writing much.

Worse still, someone unwilling to wait for the slow wheels of justice may skip the courthouse and take matters into his own hands.

That is what happened to French writer Pierre Jourde after he published Pays perdu (”Lost Country”) in 2003. The characters were based on the 20 villagers who lived in Lussaud in central France, a place and people he had known since childhood. Jourde portrayed the villagers as “one-toothed peasants, raucous shepherdesses and village idiots,” alcoholics and adulterers, some of whom were so stupid that they accidentally injured and even killed themselves with their own farm equipment. He did at least change the names of the characters. The author’s father came from Lussaud. And Jourde still owns a vacation home there.

You can see where this is going, can’t you?

After the book was published, Jourde heard nothing from the villagers. Why should he? There are 10 houses, 5 families, and one communal oven in Lussaud. There is no bookstore. The silence was not indifference. It was ignorance. The villagers didn’t know about Pays perdu. And even though sales were going well, no one in the media thought of visiting Lussaud to “get the story.” You know — assemble the villagers in front of the communal oven, read the worst passages out loud while the cameraman focused tight on their faces, conclude with a shot of the villagers tossing copies of the book into the fire.

Concerned about the silence, Jourde wrote to each of the five families to explain his book and to assure them that he was proud of his rural roots. Still, no one responded, so he waited another year before returning to vacation there, just in case.

Meanwhile, word about the book finally spread among the villagers. Some were offended at having been described as ignorant alcoholic adulterers. A married couple discovered they were also siblings, the result of their parents having an extramarital affair in the 1960s. A man crippled in a farm accident portrayed in the book grumbled that Jourde’s portrayal was insensitive. It was that man who organized the author’s reception, the event coordinator, so to speak.

At the end of July 2005, assuming all was clear, Jourde drove to the village for the summer. With him were his wife, two children, and 15-month-old child. He was still unloading the luggage in front of his farmhouse when two cars drove up carrying six men. The men yelled insults, got out of the cars and hurled stones at Jourde. They cracked the windshield of his car and injured the baby. Then they surrounded and hit him. Jourde struck back at the leader of the group.

When it was over, Jourde filed charges for attempted murder against the men. The leader of the group filed charges against Jourde for battery. The case went to trial this past June.

At the trial, the judge questioned the villagers, none of whom had read the whole book –

- Ce livre, il était pas bien pour Lussaud, quoi, a dit Christine.

- Vous l’avez lu? a demandé le président, Alain Venzot.

- Oh ben, pas tout, des extraits.

Le président s’est tourné vers Dominique.

- Et vous, vous l’avez lu?

- Un peu. Ma mère, il l’a traitée de sulfureuse. Il s’est moqué de notre tas de fumier, aussi.

- Et vous, Madame? a demandé le président en s’adressant à Jacqueline.

- Moi, il m’a choquée. J’ai ma soeur, elle était handicapée mentale. Il a dit des moqueries dessus. Et puis, j’ai un gendre, il a dit qu’il avait une tête de sanglier et que ma petite fille, elle avait été élevée au cassis dans le biberon. Je peux vous dire, moi, ma petite fille, elle va au collège, en sixième et elle est la première de la classe.

Tout près d’eux, Pierre Jourde a les mains qui tremblent et la voix sourde.

-Tout cela est un immense malentendu. Tout ce qui est dit dans ce livre est dans l’empathie, explique-t-il.

Jacqueline ne veut rien savoir. Ce sont eux les victimes et pas lui, affirme-t-elle.

-Mais nous, on peut pas s’esspliquer comme lui, passeque lui, il est poète, alors…

Elle admet tout de même qu’elle l’a insulté.

-Bâtard, connard. Mais c’est rien du tout avec toutes les saloperies qu’il a écrites dans le livre, avec tout ce que j’ai pleuré. Alors, le livre, moi je dis qu’il devrait pas être en vente.

Elle se tourne vers Pierre Jourde: T’avais qu’à pas revenir de sitôt!

– Excerpt from Chroniques judiciares: Le blog de Pascale Robert-Diard.

The prosecutor asked the judge to impose a six-month suspended sentence and a fine of 300 euros on each of the six attackers. The judge took it under advisement. On July 5, 2007, the judge sentenced one of the men to a fine of 500 euros. He gave the other five a two-month suspended sentence and fines of 600 euros each. The five were ordered to pay another 600 euros each in damages. They were also ordered to pay 1000 euros in damages to each of the three children.

Jourde has not returned to Lussaud since he was attacked in July 2005. But he has every intention of some day going back to spend his summers there, the way he did before publishing Pays perdu.

Après tout, c’est chez moi, he said.

I am going to guess that his next book will be entitled, Le malentendu.

Sources: Kevin Rawlinson, “Novelist beaten up by the neighbours he wrote about,” The Independent (July 6, 2007), Henri Samuel, “Author tastes brutal reality of village life in France,” The Telegraph (Sept. 24, 2005), “Un écrivain lynché par ses personnages,” Le figaro (June 21, 2007), and Chroniques judiciares: Le blog de Pascale Robert-Diard

2007 09 18