In a message dated 11/07/2001 12:57:38 PM Central Standard Time,
jeankomatsu(a)hotmail.com writes:
> This is definitely plagiarism. I agree with Isobel Hamilton that Pat's
> "Mixed Doubles" is probably the original and far superior. The plagiarized
> untitled story is a clumsy attempt to repackage the storyline.
Using this line of reasoning, William Shakespeare would be considered a
plagiarist. More likely it's a case of two writers using the same very
common premise, one far more effectively than the other. It is possible for
different writers to come up with the same idea or for a writer to be
unconsciously influenced by others.
Plagiarism is an easy accusation to make, but very difficult to prove. In
this case, there just isn't enough evidence to convince me beyond a
reasonable amount of doubt.
Tiger M