A little disappointing that it doesn’t actually seem to be streaming anywhere.
2 Likes
Googling ‘defamation in fiction’ turns up lots of good stuff that all rather strongly suggests Ms Gaprindashvi has a case and one that IMO as a journalist with a working knowledge of UK libel law would be a slam-dunk in the UK.
For example:
Even if the work contains a disclaimer stating that it’s fictional, a libel claim can still arise. However, plaintiffs must clear certain hurdles. In order to state an actionable claim for defamation, a plaintiff must show: publication, defamatory meaning, false statement, identification and damages. In libel suits arising out of fiction, arguably the toughest hurdle for plaintiffs to clear is the identification, or “it’s me” requirement. The plaintiff must establish that it is the plaintiff being defamed. In libel-law lingo, this is called the “of and concerning” requirement. Harvard law professor Frederick Schauer has called the “of and concerning” requirement “the centerpiece of litigation involving fiction.” [my emphasis]
In one sentence Netflix has managed all five elements there, which is quite an achievement.
See also:
Whenever a work of fiction can be reasonably read as stating actual facts
about a real person, courts allow juries to decide whether the work actually
conveys a defamatory meaning.
Given the stupendous fuss Netflix made about this series attempting to portray the chess as realistically as possible, it would not be hard to infer malice in this characterisation of Ms Gaprindashvi.
My money is on Netflix settling out of court for a substantial but of course undisclosed sum and changing the line in subsequent releases.
4 Likes
Not sure how damages will be shown, but yeah, a real unforced error on Netflix’s part. Agree with your prediction.
1 Like
Just out of curiosity, how much of this was Unreliable Narrator, as the statement in question was made by a character who could have been belittling the (real) chess master and thus the veracity not actually considered important by the writers? Or did they do it on purpose to make the commentator more of an ass?
It does beg the question of how many errors made by fictive characters need to be corrected, and how. Do they need to be corrected by a footnote? Does another character have to point out that it’s a lie?
1 Like
It certainly comes across as “narrator making true statement, but also saying it to belittle Ms. Gaprindashvili” which would be in character for the time period (but worth suing over because it’s a lie).
However, if the intent was “period narrator is so biased that they said a super wrong thing and show was making a point about that”, I think the writing failed at that. Everyone in this thread seems to agree it didn’t read that way, so it’s a writing failure, regardless of intent. If the whole world interprets what you said differently than what you meant, the problem is probably not the whole world. 
7 Likes
Ah… just love it when fiction writers try to be all supportive of high-achieving women as a fictional narrative while contributing to the erasure of women’s real-world achievements…
7 Likes
Since I haven’t seen the show, I thank you. This information keeps me from passing judgement too quickly, and it does hurt Netflix’ defence. My reading now is “character made a biased statement, with no regard to if it was really true because the author didn’t bother to do actual research.”
To be fair, it’s on my watchlist, but I am so slow at working through the watchlist that I just now finished Dark.
1 Like
May I suggest a rule of thumb to anyone?
Never insult a Georgians honour, genatsvale.
1 Like
“That we mentioned a famous woman chess player named Nona Gaprindashvili is pure coincidence” would be quite the bold defensive strategy, Cotton, and I would love to see if it pays off.
9 Likes
Is it the Love Actually kid that actually says the line or Dudley Dursley?
It may not have been about supporting high-achieving women as much as about constructing a more palatable and sympathetic version of Bobby Fischer (that people could stand to watch for seven hours)
5 Likes
Tal v Gaprindashvili:
Last night the show’s director, Scott Frank, exhibited a stunning amount of entitlement at the Emmys.
It would be nice if the lawsuit targeted him personally.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
