My story takes place about 100 years into the future. It's written in a first person account, and my MC is a cop turned criminal. The in-canon reason why he wrote the book was because the government was spreading fake propaganda about him, so he wrote his side of the story. Since most of the people he's writing about criminals, and some more sensitive information, he could imply that the names were changed. But would that ruin his "credibility" and make him look stupid.
Hi - I'm struggling a bit with this sentence. Did you inadvertently leave some words out of it? I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking if it will make him look stupid if he changes names (to protect the guilty or innocent) I'd say probably not, especially if he makes it clear at the start of the book that he's doing it. However, if he's telling the story to basically clear his name or make his side of things known, he will probably need to give real names. Otherwise people can say he's just making it all up. Tricky situation for him—unless he's not getting this 'published' till after he dies? Assuming he doesn't have any loved ones for the criminals to punish in his stead?
He's doing a bit of both. He actually admits to doing some heinous acts like murder and stuff, but he sees the government making him out to be some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984. Maybe a bit like "All Quiet On The Western Front". And since he's around other criminals and wishes to protect their identities, he changes their names. Edit: I wrote the question when I was really really tired.
I don't think you/he can have it both ways. He can either tell a story that's true enough to be proven or change enough of it to protect people and risk the fact that it might be written off as fiction. Which of those would your character choose? Try this out. Plenty of fiction books (and gangster movies) start with a similar sentiment: "I know what you've heard about me, and you can believe it if you want. Most people do anyway, but if you want the strait story, this is it. Now, I don't rat on friends, so you're just going to have to deal with the fact that I changed some names here and there, but that doesn't make it any less true." I tried to keep that stylistically neutral in case you wanted to use something similar and make it your own, but halfway through, a touch of Ray Liotta from Goodfellas crept in.
Yeah. If he's writing in his own time and not for posterity, he will need to change names, if he doesn't want to get caught. And yet that might mean he's going to struggle to be taken seriously. And won't fool the criminals all that much anyway. The criminals he's 'protecting' will recognise themselves and will probably be pissed off. The neutral public, however, whom he's trying to enlighten, will have no clue about who the bad folks are if he doesn't name them. Hmm. Not sure how to get around that problem. Will he be writing under his own name? Maybe disguising HIS identity would be the way to go. If I were him, in any case, I'd drop the book off at the publishers and head for the hills. Permanently!
Maybe in this criminal society, participating in or getting out some kind of media to tell the truth, or at least your side of the story, is common. Since the government spreads lies about them. So because of this, everyone has thick skin and an "I don't care what anyone thinks about me, this isn't high school.", as long as they tell the complete truth however. Or they just go with the fact that their names are changed so nobody really knows it's them as long as they shut up.
It's an interesting dilemma, for sure. Good luck! The only thing that really matters is how it sits with readers after it's written. If people believe this scenario could happen, then you're on a winner.