Ripped Off by Matthew Rose and the Wall Street Journal

Matthew Rose has seen fit to write an article containing certain similarities to my own experiences with Facebook and, in fact, using the same Jonathan Franzen angle that I used here on September 26, 2007.

My lede: “Jonathan Franzen does not want to be my friend.”

Rose’s lede: “Is Jonathan Franzen my friend?”

Could such a similarity have been avoided? Well, enter the search terms “Jonathan Franzen Facebook” into Google and you shall see what comes up first.

Of course, Matthew Rose will deny it. But my post was the subject of some discussion — both in the blogosphere and on Facebook. I was the first to publicly out Franzen’s existence on Facebook. A friend of mine insisted that I write a feature article about the experience, but I told her that I honestly didn’t see any reason why any serious newspaper would be interested in my technological navel-gazing.

Oh, how wrong I was.

Open note to the Wall Street Journal: I happen to be a writer myself. And unlike Mr. Rose, I can actually generate original ideas.

© 2007, Edward Champion. All rights reserved.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Derek Catermole
Derek Catermole
17 years ago

And boy are you a pissed-off happen-to-be-writer

Matthew Rose
Matthew Rose
17 years ago

This is Matthew Rose of course denying it. It’s not my habit to Google chunks of unpublished stories to ensure they contain no previously expressed thoughts. Perhaps, instead, this shows the grip Jonathan Franzen exerts on the collective imagination?

Matthew Rose
Matthew Rose
17 years ago

Where would you like to have this conversation? The email you just sent was somewhat more offensive than this comment. I’m wondering why there’s a difference.

Bento Spinoza
Bento Spinoza
17 years ago

Where is the similarity? Franzen doesn’t want to be your friend. Matthew doesn’t want to be Franzen’s friend. It’s the opposite idea, if anything.

amelie
amelie
17 years ago

i, for one, am on matthew’s side.

as a writer myself, i realize that if two lines/plots/ideas/characters etc.etc.etc. seem to be oddly similar, or perhaps too like each other to be accidental, there’s no guarantee that one is, in fact, a copy of the other.

for example, one of my past writing teachers had the belief that ideas (as well as lines, characters, etc.etc.etc.) were all up in the air, and once you ‘caught’ one, it ‘flew’ away for someone else to take and use as they may. and i didn’t believe her until i read my critique packet for that week and realized that my poem and another student’s poem were very similar. we hadn’t spoken about our pieces beforehand—they just were.

all that so say that i think that matthew should at least have the benefit of the doubt. writing is so universal that you can’t just say ‘oh, gosh. our ideas were vaguely similar. you suck! plagiarist!’

not only is that immature, its downright ridiculous.