<p>We all make occasional typing mistakes. Out of courtesy, we refrain from pointing them out. Sneering at someone and implying that the dumb native doesn’t know how to use multi-syllable words doesn’t achieve anything. </p>
<p>Any of us could go hunting for typos in your posts, or anyone else’s, and pompously point them out. “Ethic press”? “te risk”? But doing this would be pointless and silly. It’s evident what you meant - typos don’t render your message pointless.</p>
<p>If you disagree with someone, feel free to do so in your normal fashion, which I would consider to be erudite and hard<em>to</em>counter. But no sniping, please.</p>
<p>perhaps speaking to cultural differences is a little sensititve, but there definitely are INTERNATIONAL differences in perspective. It the past few months I’ve lost count of the number of international posts who claim: ED binding rules don’t apply to internationals; Finaid (income-asset reporting) rules don’t apply to internationals; etc. etc.</p>
<p>Garland and OD, the issue of what I call geographical differences in the interpretation of what actions represent or words really mean is at the heart of this discussion, not the exact spelling. I pointed out the fancy word because it meant nothing as written, and would have been an inappropriate and inaccurate adjective, assuming I guessed the word correctly. For instance, which of nefarious or notorious would I pick for an erroneously used “noforious?” </p>
<p>I do not spend my time scouting for correct spelling, and do not check my posts before posting. Accordingly, I am sure that I leave a good trail of spelling mistakes, transposed letters (often), and missing letters. On the other hand, I also use deliberate errors in spelling to make an occasional point. </p>
<p>Lastly, I sincerely believe that the comments about New Jersey were meant to be jocular.</p>
<p>Look, these are among the dozen examples of “plagiarism” cited by the Crimson; I assume they’re considered to be among the most obvious cases:
and
Maybe you guys see something there that I don’t. To me it’s just the limited variety of ways to describe commonly recurring themes. Obviously she read the first book; obviously it’s style and some of it’s phrasing stuck with her. But I don’t see the parade of horribles you guys are trotting out. Sorry.</p>
<p>it’s not style to use the same words to evoke the same sentiments - words don’t naturally occur in combinations - nonsexual-tenion-relieved, </p>
<p>the phrase- ‘sweet and woodsy’ is not just borrowed, it serves the same purpose, describing how a man smells, with just a small change from ‘cedar shavings’ to ‘sandalwood’ - but of course, sandalwood doesn’t smell so woodsy - which belies the theft.</p>
<p>I don’t know where the 30 or 40 are - I’ve only seen the link to the 12. You may be right; I’m just going on the ones I’ve seen. One strikes me as over the line. The rest, eh. Like I said, I’m assuming that this is genre writing. It’s in the nature of the form that similar themes, characters, descriptions, situations, and plots occur. Not every spy novelist whose character ordered a cocktail “shaken, not stirred” was plagiarizing Ian Fleming. </p>
<p>TH21, I’m sorry, but you’re really reaching. If that’s plagiarism half the popular fiction in America is plagiarized. Actually, probably more than half; maybe 80%.</p>
<p>Xiggi–I know the Jersey comment was in fun. I just don’t think national origins have any bearing on this discussion. I have no interest in anyone’s typos (being more than apt to make a bunch myself.)</p>
<p>mommusic - what makes you so sure that the “junk” was original with McCafferty?</p>
<p>DukeEgr - Of course, you’re right that those are the most extreme examples; particularly the first one. I guess I’m assuming that if there were “30 or 40” that clear they would have published them.</p>
<p>I got to thinking that the name of the problem Ms. Viswanathan suffered - “Cryptomnesia” - and the tail part of the title of this thread - “following your dreams” - are linked somehow…</p>
<p>DukeEgr93, I think that is a certain possibility. She said in an interview that she was greatly inspired by McCafferty’s works.
Michael Marr’s book ‘The Two Lolitas’ was an example of this…and has great resemblance to KV’s case.
May I also bring forth that this is true and not some stupid proposition as some believe. Our brain generates a MERIVIER each time we see, hear or do something similar to what we may have experienced in the past. It forms the basis of Brain fingerprinting. There is a small possibility that Kavya was so influenced that she unconciously incorporated this.
Is there any person in the medical field on this forum? What do you think of that possibility I put forth…can it happen as conspiciously as it seems in her writings?</p>
<p>Words or pictures relevant to a crime are flashed on a computer screen, along with other, irrelevant words or pictures. Electrical brain responses are measured non-invasively through a patented headband equipped with sensors. Dr. Farwell has discovered that a specific brain-wave response called a MERIVIER (memory and encoding related multifaceted electroencephalographic response) is elicited when the brain processes noteworthy information it recognizes. Thus, when details of **the crime that only the perpetrator would know are presented, a MERIVIER is emitted by the brain of a perpetrator, but not by the brain of an innocent suspect. **</p>
<p>Can we drop that non-sense of unconscious behavior and stick to the undisputable evidence of plain and blatant plagiarism.</p>
<p>You know what will be a lot harder to write than the potential sanitized version of Opal? Her next few research papers at Harvard. Impeccable paraphrasing, correct sourcing, and less ouija-like channeling will be expected from this virtual prodigy.</p>
<p>yes, a MERIVIER is still the basis of it…its application is in crime, but its based on storage of facts (in this case MCCafferty’s writings in her long term memory) </p>
<p>When she sat down to write the novel, she had an idea in her mind. She began putting it down in words. Howeever, at some instant, due to Cryptomnesia she unconciously began to incorporate McCafferty’s writings even tho she was not aware she was doing it while se was writing. Only later when someone explicitely pointed out the fact did she realize that she had unconciously incorporated it. It is a possibility…i don’t know…noone knows…but i think it is a possibilty</p>
<p>I fail to see if it could happen to M<ichael Marr, why it couldn’t happen to KV?</p>
<p>But her crypto-bs-mnesia failed enough for her to remember to adeptly change a few words in the borrowed sentences. </p>
<p>Oh well, believe what you want. Her name will be remembered for the cheat she is. And SHE is the one who will have to live with it. Too bad she did not borrow a nom de plume. Come to think about it, she probably had problems coming up with a … novel and creative one.</p>
You guys are too young to remember how Ronald Reagan once told a moving story about something he witnessed years before - only to have it revealed sometime later that the “event” actually happened in a movie he saw.</p>
<p>Xiggi: You’re sounding awfully judgmental these days (?)</p>