Spending more than five minutes thinking about it would be a waste of time unless you had the desire to demonstrate that you possess some editorial skills and are dying to prove it by using a case against, oh I dunno, a VERY FAMOUS AUTHOR WHOSE WORK YOU ADMIRE AND WHOSE ATTENTION YOU SEEK.
Still getting over the Violet Blue thing.
It's sycophantic commentary like the above that makes me wonder what draws a person to Metafilter. People who harbor inner rage to that degree and encourage it to be manifested by third parties are not the type of people with whom I would place much confidence in their ability to discern between right and wrong and usually leads to the suppression of ideas which in itself runs counter to the flow of MeFi.
"It's true that we writers borrow words from each other-- but we're supposed to admit it and not pretend we're original when we're not. I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything. [. . .] Rowling claims Vander Ark's book 'constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work.'
Seventeen years? What a crock. Apparently she includes in that total the timeframe in which she was reading--and borrowing from--the work of other writers."
"'Given the success of Rowling’s Potter series it seems unlikely that she’ll stop being a lightning rod for suits of this nature,' Barack wrote. 'While her stories are hugely popular, they do mirror many archetypes and story arcs found in popular tales.'"
"People mutht be amuthed, Thquire, thomehow," continued Sleary, rendered more pursy than ever, by so much talking; "they can't be alwayth a working, nor yet they can't be alwayth a learning."
« Older The Blind Swordsman | 30 Minutes or Less Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments