Bsrgvty

The Spy is a Netflix series about Israeli spy and hero Eli Cohen. In a recent interview, Eli's widow Nadia expresses great dissatisfaction with the series: a lot of changes were made, ostensibly to "add drama", that in her opinion diminish him. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the casting of Sasha Baron-Cohen as Eli because of his record as "a clown" (her words), and she was deeply hurt by the whole thing. (Source in Hebrew)

The thing is, Shasha Baron Cohen stated that he wanted to play Eli Cohen because Eli was an awesome hero. And the director was drawn to the material because Eli was an awesome hero. I'm sure the last thing they wanted was to give his widow pain. What they wanted was to glorify his name.

That made me wonder: writing a fictionalised story based on real events or real people, where the relevant people or their relatives might still be alive, how does one avoid causing pain? Note, this question is not about legal aspects, but about ethical and human aspects.

In particular, there's a fantasy story in the back of my mind, rather inspired by Eli Cohen's life. The reason I'm drawn to this material is the same as for the others - Eli was as awesome as they get. So the last thing I'd want is to give his widow any pain. But at the same time, the story I want to tell is my story, fiction, not "an official biography".

By inviting the relevant people (or their families) to your creative team.

Many books and movies are made "with the cooperation of" so and so. This can mean a single interview, or just permission to to use certain materials, or it can involve multiple interviews or bringing in the person to the set (if filmed).

In other cases, the relevant person, or a representative, is actually employed by the production company. Or a co-writer of the book.

There are many ways to do this. But it's not done all that often. Why? Because you lose creative control. When Netflix made The Spy they probably really didn't want to cause offense. But they also weren't going to close down production or leave themselves unable to make the changes they felt were important to make.

This is the tradeoff:

• If you go out on your own (either literally on your own or a group of 100 writers, editors, producers, directors, etc, backed by a huge corporation) you can made your work any way you choose, but you probably will upset at least some of the real life people your work is about (or their loved ones).


• If you work closely with the object of the work and/or her/his family, you will get their buy-in and be less likely to offend someone (though you probably still will) but the process will take longer, will be more expensive, and you might not get the results (or the audience) you desire.

How you do it is up to you. In the case of your example, they might say they didn't want to do anything but pay homage, but they're lying. I mean, sure, that may be one of their goals. But their main goal is to make the show a success and make their audience happy. If they can do that without hurting the family, great. If not, oh well.

As a sole author, you can choose to be more collaborative with your subject (and family) and it won't necessarily cause problems. It will probably strengthen your work. But really, that's the only way to do it if not causing offense to them is your main aim. Give them a seat at the table.

You don't. Turning a life into drama will almost certainly cause pain to those who remember that life. Life is more subtle than drama. Drama needs a definite shape that life lacks. That is why we value drama: it gives a shape to human experience that our pattern-seeking brain craves but cannot find in ordinary experience. But in doing so it simplifies, heightenes, rearranges, and makes its subjects either lighter or darker than they are in reality.

There is a reason that the news refers to its product as "stories". It twists the complex and inconclusive reality into a simple and conclusive drama that is easy to digest and takes sides on. Drama is how we want the world to be, not how it is. Drama is the world we can get our simple inadequate brains around, not the incomprehensive reality we actually live in.

Make a real life into a drama and it will either work as a drama and offend those who knew the real life, or it will suck as a drama and bore everyone else.

There is a very good reason that books routinely deny any depiction of any person living or dead, even the ones that most they most obviously portray. It is not just to avoid liability, though that is the heart of it, it is to distance them from the reality on which they comment, but which they cannot pretend to fully portray.

It's impossible to write anything about anyone at all without offending someone, potentially.

Say you're writing something positive about a person, let's call him X. Now, X has a detractor named Y who seriously, seriously, dislikes X.

She's likely to be offended by whatever you write about X that's not offensive to X himself. And maybe the reverse is also true.

And that's just 2 persons. It gets worse when religious groups are involved. Or entire countries. Write something positive about say Chang Kai Check and the PRC government is not going to like it at all.

You either write a biography, as accurate as you can, as respectfully as you can, or you write a clearly fictional story that is as different from its inspiration as you can make it.

Do not try to do this half way. That way lies pain and law suits.

From your question, it seemed that you want to write fiction. Then do just that. The best way is to get inspiration from multiple sources and mix them up. If that is not an option, you should at least change anything that can be changed without losing the point you want to make.