[submitted] Patron Sinner

[The Free Joy State]

New draft time.

I started wondering what would happen if it emerged that an acclaimed historical figure had a hidden criminal past (I've been watching Les Misérables on the BBC).

I know we have two issues about facts being uncovered about public issues (#701 and #935). But I see this one as sitting in it's own niche: #701 is about something that was previously viewed as acceptable (slavery) being viewed in a new light; meaning #935 is about a character doing something morally questionable but not technically illegal.

I don't think a historical public figure having done anything actually illegal has been covered before:

[TITLE] Patron Sinner

[VALIDITY] has capitalism

[DESCRIPTION] The John St. John Trust -- dedicated to the memory of the philanthropist, magnate and all-round good-guy who built several parks and concert halls in the major cities of @@NAME@@ -- were delighted for a chance have St. John featured on historical gene research show Are You Who You Think You Are. They were less pleased with the results, which revealed St. John was almost certainly a notorious highwayman by the name of Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack.

[OPTION] "His name was John St. John!" insists the Trust's most enthusiastic fundraiser and St. John memorabilia collector @@RANDOMNAME@@, gripping @@HIS@@ John St. John tote bag ferociously. "St. John endlessly gave to the country. The St. John Memorial Park, the St. John Philharmonic Hall... so many things wouldn't exist without him. This programme is nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-scientific thugs using kinship analysis to attack the dead when they cannot defend themselves. Please stand by John St. John and all he did for @@NAME@@. Punish those muckrakers for defaming his memory."
[EFFECT] some say that @@LEADER@@ can't handle the truth but can handle truth-seekers

[OPTION] "Well, the researchers did have St. John's bone sample... he probably was Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack," allows John St. John Museum docent @@RANDOMNAME@@, comparing a painting of John St. John to a wanted poster of Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack. "But the myth -- of the smooth orator, the philanthropist, the hero who saved a baby from the path of a train and threw an escaped murderer in front of the same train -- is more valuable than the truth. It helps us strive to greatness. The crimes of a person long dead matter far less than the inspiration he provides. Bury this programme, and instead fund a new St. John biopic that tells the established, encouraging story."
[EFFECT] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ firmly believe that their heroes never farted or popped their pimples

[OPTION] "I think it's cool," mutters your nephew, scribbling 'Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack woz 'ere' over and over again. "I used to think John St. John was just another boring dead guy. But now, he's kind of awesome! All those daring robberies and evading the law for decades, and then, of course, totally turning nice and stuff... The guy's a total role model. We should so teach that St. John was Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack. Don't you want kids to have relatable heroes, learn that they can do good stuff after doing bad stuff? Control their destiny and yadda-yadda... Plus, he was so cool! Look at that swagger!"
[EFFECT] history lessons resemble a who's-who and how's-how of crime

[OPTION] "I see the boy has already been imbibing from the heady cup of infamy, and confuses being 'cool' with being worthy of attention," intones overly wordy moralist @@RANDOMNAME@@, who never uses one word when ten will do. "Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack was a miscreant. Now it has been practically confirmed that John St. John was said villain we must denounce him and cleanse his influence from the public sphere. Remove his name from all places that bear it, sandblast his gravestone and burn his biographies. We ought not to idolise lawbreakers."
[EFFECT] it's hard to speak ill of the dead when you don't speak of them at all

Thoughts and feedback welcome.

[Verdant Haven]

The main comparison I see for this issue, in terms of similarities to others, isn't one of the published ones. Rather, it would be Dead Gay, which CWA just put in a few days ago. I think this has a lot of overlap with that one. It certainly isn't the same as being a major criminal figure, but it matches the "national hero has a secret that leads to the questioning of his validity as a hero."

[Trotterdam]

[OPTION] "I think it's cool," mutters your nephew, sketching Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack's prison number of '24601' over and over again.

If he were actually caught and put in prison during his lifetime, wouldn't people have noticed his identy back then? ...Or at least that this famous guy suddenly disappeared from public sight around the same time?

[The Free Joy State]

[OPTION] "I think it's cool," mutters your nephew, sketching Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack's prison number of '24601' over and over again.

If he were actually caught and put in prison during his lifetime, wouldn't people have noticed his identy back then? ...Or at least that this famous guy suddenly disappeared from public sight around the same time?

Good point. I was trying to get a little Jean Valjean '24601' reference in, but it doesn't really work.

That, and the nation may not have jails -- or ever have had jails, in retrospect. That'll have to go. I'll have to think of some other vaguely obsessive idol-worship action.

The main comparison I see for this issue, in terms of similarities to others, isn't one of the published ones. Rather, it would be Dead Gay, which CWA just put in a few days ago. I think this has a lot of overlap with that one. It certainly isn't the same as being a major criminal figure, but it matches the "national hero has a secret that leads to the questioning of his validity as a hero."

Dead Gay's a great draft. But I see that -- and CWA can tell me if he disagrees -- as occupying its own niche for homophobic countries and questioning the validity of that law.

This one is specifically about an action that is undeniably and pretty universally criminal. Also, Dead Gay looks at artistic works not civic works.

Also, there's never been any prohibition on drafts that overlap with unpublished drafts, which I personally don't feel this does. If/when CWA's is published, if this is thought to overlap too much, it wouldn't be the first time I've had to give up a draft I've liked. That's just a part of drafting.

[Window Land]

I hopefully got all the unintentional grammar errors hidden below. Besides them, I like this draft.

[TITLE] Patron Sinner

[VALIDITY] has capitalism

[DESCRIPTION] The John St. John Trust -- dedicated to the memory of the philanthropist, magnate and all-round all-around good-guy who built several parks and concert halls in the major cities of @@NAME@@ -- were delighted for a chance have St. John featured on historical gene research show Are You Who You Think You Are. They were less than pleased with the results, which revealed St. John was almost certainly a notorious highwayman by the name of Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack.

[OPTION] "His name was John St. John!" insists the Trust's most enthusiastic fundraiser and St. John memorabilia collector @@RANDOMNAME@@, gripping @@HIS@@ John St. John tote bag ferociously. "St. John endlessly gave to the country. The St. John Memorial Park, the St. John Philharmonic Hall... so many things wouldn't exist without him. This programme is nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-scientific thugs using kinship analysis to attack the dead when they cannot defend themselves. Please stand by John St. John and all he did for @@NAME@@. Punish those muckrakers for defaming his memory."
[EFFECT] some say that @@LEADER@@ can't handle the truth but can handle truth-seekers

[OPTION] "Well, the researchers did have St. John's bone sample... he probably was Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack," allows John St. John Museum docent @@RANDOMNAME@@, comparing a painting of John St. John to a wanted poster of Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack. "But the myth -- of the smooth orator, the philanthropist, the hero who saved a baby from the path of a train and threw an escaped murderer in front of the same train -- is more valuable than the truth. It helps us strive to greatmess greatness. The crimes of a person long dead matter far less than the inspiration he provides. Bury this programme, and instead fund a new St. John biopic that tells the established, encouraging story."
[EFFECT] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ firmly believe that their heroes never farted or popped their pimples

[OPTION] "I think it's cool," mutters your nephew, sketching Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack's prison number of '24601' over and over again. "I used to think John St. John was just another boring dead guy. But now, he's kind of awesome! All those daring robberies and evading the law for decades, and then totally turning nice and stuff... The guy's a total role model. We should so teach that St. John was Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack. Don't you want kids to have relatable heroes, learn that they can do good stuff after doing bad stuff? Control their destiny and yadda-yadda... Plus, he was so cool! Look at that swagger!"
[EFFECT] history lessons resemble a who's-who and how's-how whos-who and hows-how of crime

[OPTION] "I see the boy has already been imbibing from the heady cup of infamy, and confuses being 'cool' with being worthy of attention," intones overly wordy moralist @@RANDOMNAME@@, who never uses one word when ten will do. "Not-So-Gentlemanly Jack was a miscreant. Now it has been practically confirmed that John St. John was said that villain so we must denounce him and cleanse his influence from the public sphere. Remove his name from all places that bear it, sandblast his gravestone and burn his biographies. We ought not to idolise idolize lawbreakers."
[EFFECT] it's hard to speak ill of the dead when you don't speak of them at all

[Hystaria]

Also in some nations, there are no saints, or that the name has never been used as a title in their world..

[The Free Joy State]

I hopefully got all the unintentional grammar errors hidden below. Besides them, I like this draft.

Most of the things highlighted, like "all-round" "said villain" are perfectly acceptable.

Editor hat on: never correct British spelling (as you tried to do with "idolise"), which is equally acceptable to US and never an "error"

Author hat back on: "who's-who" is correct (who's being short for "who is", and a reference to this)

Thank you for picking up my spelling error and for your comment on the draft.

Also in some nations, there are no saints, or that the name has never been used as a title in their world..

I don't see that as an issue. It's the title of the issue, not St. John's title.

[Australian rePublic]

Can you call someone a saint if he's not a saint? Or is "St. John" a surname? What did he do that was so bad anyway?

[The Free Joy State]

Can you call someone a saint if he's not a saint? Or is "St. John" a surname? What did he do that was so bad anyway?

It's a surname (pronounced Sinjun)

And he was a highwayman living under an assumed name, Aussie.

[Sacara]

Just dropping in to say I love the title, FJS.

[The Free Joy State]

Just dropping in to say I love the title, FJS.

Thanks.

Made a couple of very minor changes (corrected the spelling and deleted the prison number thing -- shame, as I did like the Les Mis reference; but it didn't work).