“Fuck Ryan Murphy for making Richard Ramirez into a horror chic character,” a friend texted me last weekend. He was bingeing American Horror Story and had just gotten to the 1984 season, which features Ramirez as a figure of anti-heroic fun. “Murphy had to know that there are still people suffering from his spree.”
Coincidentally, the text arrived while I was watching Netflix’s Night Stalker: The Hunt for a Serial Killer(which Sarah recently reviewed). I had just finished listening to Anastasia Hronas describe how Ramirez assaulted her for hours when she was only six years old. She is not the only child he harmed, nor was she the only victim of his — from rape, or beating, or shooting, or a combination thereof.
It made me wonder how San Franciscans reacted when Armistead Maupin made Jim Jones an arguably romantic figure in his 1982 book Further Tales of the City, just a few years after the 1978 Jonestown Massacre. Maupin lived in San Francisco, where the book is set, and knew that the city was still reeling from the tragedy. If there had been an internet back then, oh, boy.
Is there an ethical statute of limitations on when a crime or killer can be adapted in ways beyond the straightforward? Is it as simple as thinking “are there still folks around who might be harmed by this”? Or is all fair when it comes to crime and fiction? I haven’t made my mind up myself, and can’t wait to hear what you think. — EB
When serial killers/professional assholes enter our public view, they become public 'property' of a sorts and, just as they cannot claim privacy when shopping at Walmart once they become known, the public is then, sometimes/often times, unfortunately free to exploit them as they deem fit. This does not necessarily mean adaptations/representations reflect the reality of the subject. After all, there is an actual action comedy about Hitler, Mein Furher (2007), so there are really no brakes on any crazy train pulling out of a so-called creative station. Also, I stopped watching Ryan Murphy properties after AHS Asylum. Don't @ me.
I hold Ryan Murphy most responsible for inflicting Nene Leakes on a broader population. I understand poetic license but when dealing with living victims it would seem wiser to make a nod in the actual killer/rapist/nasty person’s direction while creating a more fictional character. A Ramirez-like character could have killer cheekbones and hail from a small town in Texas but would use a completely different m.o., pick different victims, live in a different large city. At all costs avoid a sympathetic or charming portrait of an average, smelly monster. Take poetic license all the way, in other words. Don’t use it to glamorize.
I have been consuming all kinds Richard Ramirez stuff, mostly in reaction to the Netflix property and I CANNOT get see why women were into him. YIKES. Anyway, I think it depends on time somewhat and unfortunately, how many people were affected (like will 9/11 ever be funny to most Americans, etc.). As an aside, I find AHS wildly inconsistent and could not get through the 1984 season.
I think there's a difference between [even thinly-veiled] fictional characters and representations of the actual criminal in a fictional setting and/or situation. I think either could be done respectfully or in very poor taste. I wouldn't ban either of them, but I would be cautious about which I consumed, particularly if I were a survivor, or close to a survivor.
The tv series Search Party deals with this issue in its final season. A fictional version of it, but still.
When serial killers/professional assholes enter our public view, they become public 'property' of a sorts and, just as they cannot claim privacy when shopping at Walmart once they become known, the public is then, sometimes/often times, unfortunately free to exploit them as they deem fit. This does not necessarily mean adaptations/representations reflect the reality of the subject. After all, there is an actual action comedy about Hitler, Mein Furher (2007), so there are really no brakes on any crazy train pulling out of a so-called creative station. Also, I stopped watching Ryan Murphy properties after AHS Asylum. Don't @ me.
I hold Ryan Murphy most responsible for inflicting Nene Leakes on a broader population. I understand poetic license but when dealing with living victims it would seem wiser to make a nod in the actual killer/rapist/nasty person’s direction while creating a more fictional character. A Ramirez-like character could have killer cheekbones and hail from a small town in Texas but would use a completely different m.o., pick different victims, live in a different large city. At all costs avoid a sympathetic or charming portrait of an average, smelly monster. Take poetic license all the way, in other words. Don’t use it to glamorize.
I have been consuming all kinds Richard Ramirez stuff, mostly in reaction to the Netflix property and I CANNOT get see why women were into him. YIKES. Anyway, I think it depends on time somewhat and unfortunately, how many people were affected (like will 9/11 ever be funny to most Americans, etc.). As an aside, I find AHS wildly inconsistent and could not get through the 1984 season.
My answer is a wishy washy "it depends" - I think context is always key (and that includes the wider cultural landscape of a work)
I think there's a difference between [even thinly-veiled] fictional characters and representations of the actual criminal in a fictional setting and/or situation. I think either could be done respectfully or in very poor taste. I wouldn't ban either of them, but I would be cautious about which I consumed, particularly if I were a survivor, or close to a survivor.
The tv series Search Party deals with this issue in its final season. A fictional version of it, but still.