[eradicator]

Hey, I could actually use some advice on this. My post # 2 in this thread actually happened, and after reading this thread, I am actually trying to track down the professor to get my paper back. It is from a good 15 or 20 years ago, but I think the guy is still alive, I know his name, and the title of one of his published books, and it just turned up on ebook a month ago, so he is probably still around, but I have no way to contact him. I am not that savvy about that sort of thing, if you are an internet sleuth, drop me a PM, I just want the paper back because frankly it was one of the best works of writing I ever did in my life, I am not a professional writer at all, and was just in the zone when I wrote it. I bet he absolutely kept it, he would totally do that sort of thing. Or maybe he threw it out and never had it published at all, no way to know. He was fired from his job at the end of the quarter.

[LongDongSilver]

I dont have any plans or schemes to go after this guy, would be pointless. Its just a story my father has talked about since i was young. Even back then when it first happened there was no way to prove she had written it before he published, just word of mouth.

I definitely understand you guys calling bullshit, it sounds pretty out there. Why i believe its true is because my dad has the original, in her handwriting with some passages being verbatim from bachs but a lot of minor changes.

It just doesnt make any sense for someone to have handwritten the whole damn thing for no reason but to make up an extravagent lie to tell nuclear family members. Noone tried to sue or write bach, she had written the book for a couple nephews and wrote the whole thing off as far as going after the "publisher" who had sold off her draft.

I never got to meet my grandma, so i have no firsthand knowledge if she was smart enough to write it or not. She was an amateur, writing for some kids in the family,not an aspiring author. They were already fairly well off and i doubt they had any idea how many copies it would end up selling so i assume their thoughts were basically fuck it.

Like i said i have no schemes or ideas to try to scam money. I just wanted to hear a few opinions on the story. My apologies for taking up thread space with such an inane unprovable story.

[LongDongSilver]

Geographically it makes sense as well, bach still lives in the same area my family does.

[evilhei]

[FireStarter]

(04-28-2016 10:08 PM)LongDongSilver Wrote:  

I definitely understand you guys calling bullshit, it sounds pretty out there. Why i believe its true is because my dad has the original, in her handwriting with some passages being verbatim from bachs but a lot of minor changes.

Have you seen it yourself? Would an unbiased person believe that it's the same story? Does your grandmother's version include part 4?

(04-28-2016 10:08 PM)LongDongSilver Wrote:  

It just doesnt make any sense for someone to have handwritten the whole damn thing for no reason but to make up an extravagent lie to tell nuclear family members. Noone tried to sue or write bach, she had written the book for a couple nephews and wrote the whole thing off as far as going after the "publisher" who had sold off her draft.

It's quite possible that the two stories were written independently of each other. And it might just be coincidence that two people in the same area wrote about a rebellious, misfit seagull. I'm sure there's many more work of fiction that have similar ideas.

One of the reasons I believe the story is unlikely is, Jonathon Livingstone Seagull was rejected by multiple publishers before being accepted by Macmillan in 1969. It doesn't make sense that anyone would fight that hard to get something published, that they didn't write themselves.

(04-28-2016 10:08 PM)LongDongSilver Wrote:  

Like i said i have no schemes or ideas to try to scam money. I just wanted to hear a few opinions on the story. My apologies for taking up thread space with such an inane unprovable story.

With the details that I know about this story, I believe it's unlikely to be true. But it's not impossible. If true, it wouldn't be the first time an artist had work plagiarized. I am genuinely curious about how closely these two works resemble each other.

[spokepoker]

Type it up and post it here, I want to read the original.

[Que enspastic]

When I was at high school I was the dux of English two years running. My teacher used to photocopy my essays and tell students to strive to hit my level if they wanted to ace the final year exam and get the best grades for university entry.

One of my friends asked me to review his essays one day before going into the exam. He had handwritten it but it was 98% my essay, almost completely word for word. He asked me what I thought of his arguments. I was nonplussed.

When our results came out, I scored top 10 out of 35,000+ and many of the kids in my class scored in top 0.3 - 5% in the class, some of whom were very mediocre. My English class was easily the top performing out of the six at my school. I suspected many of them just lifted whole paragraphs from my essays and tweaked them slightly for the exam.

[PartManPartMonkey]

^^ Wait. 1) Your friend didn't think you'd know he copied your paper? 2) Teachers at your school didn't realize that many other students plagerized your essay? That sounds implausible.

[Conscious Pirate]

(04-28-2016 11:57 PM)FireStarter Wrote:  

One of the reasons I believe the story is unlikely is, Jonathon Livingstone Seagull was rejected by multiple publishers before being accepted by Macmillan in 1969. It doesn't make sense that anyone would fight that hard to get something published, that they didn't write themselves.

Intriguing thread. that said, in regard to the bolded above...

...in my mind it makes perfect sense. Maybe because I have surrounded myself with sharks or maybe I'm just too cynical for my own good (whatever that means). I think it makes perfect sense that someone wanting to profit from someone else's work would push that hard; see Belle Gibson (WB, BTW) - we could dredge up plenty more less fuckable. Philosophically it could quite easily be argued both ways.