- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
The guy forgot to mention the most important similarity: Both books, from beginning to end, are written in English.
Well, once a text exists in tangible form and is out in the world in an independent form (ie not just in someone email account) then it is obtainable and readable. As that is the case, arguing that it would be essentially impossible that King would see it/ read it, could hold not credibility, because the possibility exists that he could have, however improbable.Beyond the unconvincing examples of "similarities," the thing that seems to me (non-lawyer that I am) will sink this case is that it proposes no mechanism by which King might actually have seen the other book in order to plagiarize it. The entire argument seems to be a) Marquardt's book was published before King's, and b) it has been available for sale the whole time.
Other recent nuisance plagiarism suits--the Willy the Wizard guy who is suing J.K. Rowling, and the self-pubbed nutrition author who sued Elisabeth Hasselbeck (that case just got thrown out, for the second time)--offered a theory to explain how the defendants might have encountered the plaintiffs' work (totally unconvincing theories, but theories nonetheless). I think even Stouffer had a theory. But this guy--nada.
- Victoria
And both use punctuation and grammar.The guy forgot to mention the most important similarity: Both books, from beginning to end, are written in English.
And both use punctuation and grammar.
SUE THE ABSTRADS!
Well, isn't that convenient? Suspiciously so, I say.The guy forgot to mention the most important similarity: Both books, from beginning to end, are written in English.
Ouch. I feel your pain. In the early '80s I started thinking about writing a novel about a 14th century English monk who, using Aristotlean logic and incisive medieval scholarship, investigates several murders at an abbey, finding that they involve a copy of one of the great lost works of antiquity. (I was thinking of Eratosthenes.)TheTinCat said:I had to throw out a perfectly good first 100 pages of a new manuscript some years back, because someone pointed me to a book, and said "You should read this, it's the new big thing right now", and suddenly I had no more use for my story about a kid going to a school of magic where they kept the philosopher's stone...
And now that I've gone and read through the PDF, there are definitely some eerie similarities between the two books. But still.
Having many Southern relatives (Alabama), I can attest to that.
- Victoria
Four secondary characters are killed on both novels
The guy forgot to mention the most important similarity: Both books, from beginning to end, are written in English.
I kill off two secondary good guys and two minor bad guys! OMG, I'm plagiarising Stephen King!!!
Once google cache snags this page, you'll be sorry you said that...
Beyond the unconvincing examples of "similarities," the thing that seems to me (non-lawyer that I am) will sink this case is that it proposes no mechanism by which King might actually have seen the other book in order to plagiarize it. The entire argument seems to be a) Marquardt's book was published before King's, and b) it has been available for sale the whole time.
Other recent nuisance plagiarism suits--the Willy the Wizard guy who is suing J.K. Rowling, and the self-pubbed nutrition author who sued Elisabeth Hasselbeck (that case just got thrown out, for the second time)--offered a theory to explain how the defendants might have encountered the plaintiffs' work (totally unconvincing theories, but theories nonetheless). I think even Stouffer had a theory. But this guy--nada.
No, even one book would have been enough. Trouble was, there wasn't a single copy anyone could find anywhere, except a copy that was altered long after the fact. This is why the lady who sued ended up being fined a lot of money.
Actual plagiarism itself is proof of having read a copy, not number of copies out Terr. It only takes one copy for someone to copy the contents.
Tell that to Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, Howard Dean, and Micah Ian Wright, among others. Infamy isn't always a good thing.There's no such thing as bad publicity
Let me guess, they're what you feed the zombies on before you give them a running start?Originally Posted by circlexranch
10. In GWTW the invaders were Yankees. In TWD, the invaders are souless zombies. To southerners, this is the same difference.
I must protest! Born and bred in the South, I must protest this insult heaped upon us. We are known for our fair treatment of souless zombies. We feed them, first, give them a good running start, then we shoot them.
Now those Yankees...
Let me guess, they're what you feed the zombies on before you give them a running start?
Love it! However, I do have to point out that y'all are blatantly stealing and plagiarizing my comparative analysis essay on Gone With The Wind and The Walking Dead. Just putting you all on notice that a lawsuit in Georgia may be forthcoming . . . conduct yourselves accordingly . . .