There's a world of difference between a gimmick and a hoax. Are you seriously claiming that the journals are authentic historical artifacts (hoax), or are you presenting them within the larger work of fiction (gimmick). Gimmicks are good when you can pull them off. They add to a reader's immersion in the story world. Publish the journals as works of fiction that are clearly there as supporting material for your novel, and you have an interesting hook. This could include making them look and feel incredibly authentic as long as they are still part of your fiction. Video games do this all the time -- putting up websites for fictional entities or corporations that, on the surface, look real, but wouldn't actually mislead anyone unless they were completely unfamiliar with the story world (in other words, they look and feel real, but they are never explicitly presented as nonfiction). Publish them or represent them as works of nonfiction in a deliberate attempt to mislead people, and not only are you stepping over all kinds of ethical lines, but you're also inviting people to discredit you as an author. I am not a lawyer, but depending on the level of the hoax, I could imagine that you might also be inviting legal trouble for this.
I know that the disease never happened and anyone who does research would realise this. However, people still believe The Da Vinci Code despite it being a blatent piece of fiction... and then there are the fantasists who want to believe something happened even though they know it didn't. So hey, there's still hope. I'll be honest, I don't mean to sound stupid but I'm not really sure what you mean. If you read the summary below it could help. As I said to shadow, I'm not really sure how I'd define my story as hoax or gimmick. I'd like to think it is appearing as a hoax, personally. I would not say "This is fiction" but I would also not say "This is non-fiction". I'd prefer to leave it unsaid. I mean if it's going to be sold as fiction, I don't need to say anything. Also, I can't really publish the journals as works of fiction before the story, as 'supporting', because the journals are the story, such as with the traveller who finds Dr Frankenstein in the arctic. It starts off as a journal (but isn't really, so I'd like to think I'm not copying the style, this really is about following a small group of people's experience, almost day by day). Similarly so, the journals "were" compiled and written pre 1900s. It's hard to explain but I'll do it as it goes chronologically: There are two sets of journal documents, the first is by an aristocrat leading his own life. The protagonist has not come onto the scene yet. An outbreak happens and eventually the life of the aristocrat meets the life of the Doctor (General Practitioner) who starts documenting this outbreak in his own journal. The aristocrat dies and that line of the journal ends after the Doctor's journal starts and continues the story on to the bitter end. Just before the end, the Doctor combines both his journal and the journal pages of the aristocrat (given by the man's wife) and posts it to his Junior Practitioner who, after the whole story, compiles it and adds a foreword and an end. This book never sees the light of day until I "find" it. Hope that made sense. In a way, I guess this is more of a hoax.
Well, if you are hinting or intimating that you actually found this journal outside the parameters of the book (ie, you're doing this in real life), you're implying that it is a real journal (nonfiction). And that's not good IMHO. That's the kind of gimmicky thing I hate. Even publishing it as fiction, people would have the impression that it's a fictionalized version of a true journal. Or they may have only heard the hype about it being a real journal and buy it. Either of which means many readers will not be pleased when they discover it is pure fiction - and they will remember you. If, however, you act as the fictional person who found this journal and got it published (all within the book itself), then it's part of the fiction and perfectly acceptable to readers such as myself.
I think I see what you mean. Aside from the Junior Practitioner's introduction, if I then wrote a foreword pretending to be a modern author who found it but I personally didn't try and make out that I found it, that'd make it less... douchey?
Definitely. As long as the line between reality and fiction is 'visible', people will enjoy going along with the act (that 'suspension of disbelief'). If it disappears, then they feel taken. Play with the readers - don't make fools of them.
this has often been done by successful authors... one such series i greatly enjoyed is laurie king's holmes-russell romps... she prefaces the books by telling the readers 'she' found the mss in the attic or whatever... check them out to see how well it can be done in the hands of a masterful wordsmith...
