Hi all. I may get slated for this one....I started a book a while back called 'Scorning for Girls' which was supposed to be a guide to getting your own back on your ex. Now my worry was that some of the things in the book may be considered 'illegal' but it's only supposed to be a fun book and not an 'I told you to go out and do this'.
Therefore, I don't obviously want to have the law down on me like a tonne of bricks for things such as 'Create a funny poster of your ex on the PC and distribute it round town'.
I tried to change my tactic and turn it into a story, but it didn't flow as well (although there are possibilities for future books).
Can anyone advise whether I need to put a disclaimer in? Whether I should write it in a different way to avoid issues? It's kind of in the style of the 'Worst case Scenario' books, but I have so much material it would be a crime not to write about it!
Help please, and try to be kind :o(
Sounds to me like it may be in the vein of Charlie Brooker – correct me if I am wrong – and therefore would possibly be classified as 'Factual Satire'?
If that is the case, then I don't think you have a problem from the legal point of view.
Many people, writers, comedians are very successful in selling this type of thing, Frankie Boyle springs to mind – often the things he says are ludicrous, but then there is the old adage that if it offends, dont watch/read it.
Sorry if I have misinterpreted the angle of the book here...
I think you'll be okay provided you advocate nothing overtly criminal or dangerous. You could say 'stuff a banana up his exhaust pipe' for example, but not 'stuff a firework...'.
At one time there was a series of books entitled '100 Uses of...' one of which was '100 Uses of a Dead Cat'. Hilarious, but no-one would copy such things in real life because commonsense suggests they're unreasonable. Since your suggestions are tongue-in-cheek I'd have thought the same would apply.
There are similar dangers putting words in the mouths of real historical characters whose descendants might be offended. I gather in such cases a view is taken based on general perceptions of the character's documented actions. It's commonsense/reasonableness again.