If you haven't read The New Yorker expose yet, I highly recommend it. Something missing from this NYT article is the fact that Dan Mallory worked as an editor, and would have access to lots of manuscripts through his job. When reading The New Yorker article it was natural to wonder if he really did pen the successful book himself.
He made that comment as a hypothetical in the context of a really bad book review. He even said in the very next sentence that the book may possibly have been very well written. I don't think he's trying to make any personal attack.
My personal opinion on plagiarism is that everything is fair game as long as it's clearly acknowledged upfront.
The Life of Pi case looks a lot different than this one. In that case, it’s only the premise that is the same and the author of “Pi” gave credit to the other author, up-front and unprompted. So there’s no deception and the similarities are broad but shallow.
The concept predates that. I remember reading a Sci fi novel from the 80s at least, with teenagers being dumped on a planet to fight it out. Don't think it was last man standing, but similar in all other respects.
This is why it reminds me of it. The Running Man is the easiest pop culture reference that predates both of them. That said, the concept could easily be said as just a public gladiator contest. Because... that is what those were.
Sometimes things are just similar, was my point. Both being enjoyed should take nothing from the others.
Not really. The Lord of the Flies is the rather different premise of children being abandoned and things basically going to hell. There's no contest/game or outside influence generally.
Why put up with a brilliant premise ruined by a lesser writer. Worse, what if Updike had been wrong? What if not only the premise but also its rendition were perfect?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/a-suspense-nov...