I saw that, and yeah, the idea that it was unconscious seems... unlikely. Once or twice I could buy that - I've certainly had certain books that I've read enough that I know there are turns of phrase that have sunk into me far enough that I can imagine using them unconsciously. (To use a not-so-literary example, I've used phrases from Buffy in conversation and then realized later where they came from, though I do that usually when talking with other fannish types.)

Multiple times, and all from the same source, though? No. My guess is that it was more "wow, that's a great scenario, it would really fit these other two characters" and in the course of porting and re-reading and adjusting a bunch of phrases crept in.

Then again, random bit of fanfic not the Bible. You'd have to have been pretty obsessive to pick up that much phraseology, and then gotten over the obsession pretty much completely to not realize where the phraseology is coming from.

I'm finding that pretty unlikely, given that the writer acknowledges she took the inspiration from the original XF story. It's not like she forgot it existed.

I think she just doesn't understand that changing "happy" to "glad" (for instance) doesn't make the language hers, doesn't make it not plagiarism.

But I'm a skeptic and a hardass, so I expect nothing much will change.

Someone (an author (and a crappy one)) told me that actual plagiarism could be avoided by changing one word in four.

Which seems terribly unlikely ... is there a legal definition out there?

Someone (an author (and a crappy one)) told me that actual plagiarism could be avoided by changing one word in four.

Wow. I do not begin to begin to understand the mindset. I mean, if you're not enjoying the whole creative thing in the first place, why the hell are you writing?

I mean, I can see that it could be an interesting creative writing exercise, I suppose - take such and such a text and see how far you can bend it by changing every fourth word. Okay. As a one-off game-type thing, I can see that being interesting. But as a choice for your normal writing? If they don't LIKE writing, why aren't they out playing football, or crocheting something, or baking something, or otherwise using their time?

t baffled

Well, there is that thing about copying stuff and using not more than 10% of the work. . . but I'm sure that plagiarism laws cover things more abstract than actual word counts.

why the hell are you writing?

Ego gratification for getting praise, even if you stole the work. People are weird that way. I was just listening to the TAL episode the other day about fans of the musical Rent who had a close knit community and one of them faked the classic "I'm dying of a dreadful disease" sympathy bid and totally burned the cast and community. People do some freaky things to get validated.

Plagiarism, I think, is covered under fraud, isn't it? Representing another person's work as your own is fraud. When you see authors get yelled at in the newspapers for making up quotes, they get censured by the court of their peers, and sometimes their publisher goes ape, but they don't get taken to court unless they're actually -- fraudulently -- trying to make money off something whose money rightfully belongs to someone else.

Ego gratification for getting praise, even if you stole the work. People are weird that way.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess. Mad. You'd think there'd be easier ways, you know?

Someone (an author (and a crappy one)) told me that actual plagiarism could be avoided by changing one word in four.

Bullshit, but an incredibly common misconception -- when I was teaching writing and research to college students, I'd say a clear majority of them came in with ideas like this.

Which seems terribly unlikely ... is there a legal definition out there?

Not that I can recall.

I think for plagiarism you need to establish a pattern of using phrases verbatim.