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.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/02/11/a-suspense-nov...

That happened with "Life of Pi". https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/08/bookerprize200...

The author who stole was very arrogant admitting he stole the premise because he didn't want to leave it to a "lesser writer"

Here's the whole essay where he made the "lesser author" comment:

https://medium.com/@Powells/how-i-wrote-life-of-pi-6ffe1c017...

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.

Isn't that called quoting people?

In the most extreme form, yes. And no one should be shamed for quoting someone with attribution.

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.

Reminds me of folks that were convinced Hunger Games was a copy of Battle Royale.

We litteraly calls all the games genre based on the concept of last man standing a "battle royale".

So if you take a battle royal theme scenario, and you used kids, and you make it a politic mive, of course it will ring a bell...

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.

Stephen King's 1979 book "The Long Walk" is the same idea as well.

Or “Lord of the Flies”?

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.

With the comically ironic correction: “Our report should have acknowledged the New York Times as the source of some of the quotes.”

Here's the quote in context:

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?

Which is tragically funnier because the original author is a better writer in every aspect

Mirror: https://outline.com/FnfVMe

Classic plagiarism on plagiarism: https://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/the-ecstasy-of-influence...