True enough, but they were the kind of bad guys that the reader wants to like. They were patient, cunning, (mostly) meticulous planners, and carried out a brilliant robbery. IIRC, even the Queen herself was impressed by their ingenuity.
The good guys, for the most part, were made out to be bumbling fools.
I see that Chricton’s “Great Train Robbery,” isn’t the same heist that is usually called by that name, which is the one led by Bruce Reynolds in the 1960s. They pulled that one off without much violence (knocking one guy out with a lead pipe) and so live on in story and song .
Definitely not. Crichton’s version took place in 19th century England.
The violence contained within the book was justified (well, from a criminal’s point of view), as the only ones killed were those who would have spoiled their plans.
They weren’t exactly an upstanding bunch of thieves, but the book did make you want to root for them.
In this case, Michael Crowley did go to Yale.
It’s damn irritating when the overgrown college boys pull this sort of shit. And it’s worse when non-college boys do it, as in the case of John O’Hara.
That’s hilarious. It seems like Crowley may just have legitimate grounds for a defamation suit here - any informed opinions?
You mean this work of fiction, wherein any resemblance to any actual person, living or dead, is purely coindidental?
Yes. Does that disclaimer really mean anything when the “resemblance” is so obvious and intended?
IANAL, but, if my memory of People v Larry Flynt is correct, Crichton is safe.
I highly doubt that Crowley will be able to prove that people really do now think of him as a pederest pharma-shill any more than the preacher (who was that? Swaggert?) was able to prove that people thought him a whale-ophile after the comic in Hustler.
The movie The Greek Tycoon had that disclaimer, too.
It was Jerry Falwell. Hustler ran a mock-ad for a brand of whiskey where Falwell reminesced about his first sexual encounter – with his mother, in an outhouse. See here. But you’re right about the general principle: To win a defamation suit under Anglo-American law, you have to prove the statement in question actually damaged your reputation. No one who read that “ad” was really going to believe Falwell fornicated with his mother – nor even that Falwell would endorse a brand of whiskey. It was clearly parody.
Put another way: If Stone and Parker can get away with what they do to celebs quite regularly on South Park, Crichton is perfectly safe.
I’m not a lawyer either, but it seems to me Crowley has a non-negligible chance at winning a libel suit (assuming he wanted to go through with it, which I don’t really see happening).
In the case of “per se” defamation, Crowley wouldn’t have to prove he suffered actual damage. Here’s a section from ExpertLaw - Defamation: Libel and Slander Law
And Crichton could never get away with a “parody/satire” defense, as in the Falwell/Hustler case, for the simple reason that it’s neither parody or satire. And proving “actual malice” seems fairly easy, too. Who could doubt it was an act of deliberate revenge? Not to mention the deliberate and slimy employment of the small penis rule.
Furthermore, neither Crichton nor his publisher believed Crowley was actually a baby rapist – both demonstrated the requisite “reckless disregard for the truth”.
Stamping the word “fiction” on an act of libel is by no means a solid defense, either; there have been many “libel-by-fiction” suits brought in the U.S. (though success is generally uncommon). Publishing attorney Alan J. Kaufman acknowledges that “individuals can be libeled in works of fiction just as they can in works of nonfiction.” And here can be no doubt that the real Crowley is quite recognizable.
I’d say he’s got a case.
My friend at Pfizer thought that line was hilarious, idiot.
Whynot. I mean this in the most platonic way possible, I lurve you.
cough SallyStruthers cough 
I work for Pfizer and I thought it was hilarious too.
Aww…Surely you jest! 
C’mon now. It’s the 21st Century. We are not supposed to laugh at ourselves. Any slight, no matter how imperceptible, should be met with cries for apologies, visits from pandering politicians and other wannabes, wall-to-wall CNN coverage, and of course that staple of modern American life, class action lawsuits.
Get with the program or get out of the program, BMalion.
Now now, you can’t say that without appending that JohnT is an idiot. Precedent has been established.
You are aware of Plato’s up-the-butt proclivities, I hope. 
Why do you think she lurves him?