Without meaning to be insensitive - in regards to AMOL

[zshadez]

You're all taking this thread/debate/whatever too far. We should all be sitting around taking pot-shots at Goodkind, not arguing. :D

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

See the post where I described why collars and female societies are not unexpected themes in a magical universe. Pebble in the pond/ta'veren, also a rather simple and obvious idea. many authors have used the idea that a few people control the fates of many. the authors describe this idea differently however, and use it differently as well. A dark and light side to the female faction. Who would have thunk it? Wizards webs, Jordan wasn't the first author to describe magic as something one weaves. The similarities of names? please. i'll look into word roots later but I would assume those names are both stolen from some ancient words.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: AN ARGUMENT WHICH LACKS DEPTH OR RELATIVITY TO THE SUBJECT FOLLOWS

 

Don't you think that at some point, when so many "common" ideas are put together, and that they all very closely parallel what is found in another series, it becomes more likely that the second author got his ideas from the single, original source (by original, I mean the series that was written first).

 

END OF DISCLAIMER

 

If you truly contend that this is not so much of a leap of faith, I challenge you to find all of the similarites Luckers pointed out in his last post in 3 other series of books, all of which who must claim to have not read RJ or who must not have made an allusion or reference to him or actually said they read his series.

 

The 3 series/novels must have all of those ideas used in each one separately.

[Great Lord of the Dark]

i don't really care who rights it as long as i get to read a book with the title A Memory of Light!

 

 

 

                END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!

 

go post on my topic for fun  ;D

 

 

.....no seriously

[Paviel]

i don't really care who rights it as long as i get to read a book with the title A Memory of Light!

 

I don't really care who rights it either. Or who writes it, for that matter.

 

If it's faithful to RJ's notes, well written, and well proofread (or righted...), it's all the same to me. That isn't asking too much, is it?

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

well written

 

Then you do care who writes it. You wouldn't want me writing it, for instance.

[zshadez]

i don't really care who rights it as long as i get to read a book with the title A Memory of Light!

 

I don't really care who rights it either. Or who writes it, for that matter.

 

You can both read, so learn to right.

[Luckers]

In sentence one you ask how a sum of the parts argument is relevant, and in sentence three you claim your argument was a sum of the parts.

 

Wow...

 

Let me, for you, quote the sequence of conversation.

 

Firstly, I said...

 

As for your stance, as i said i can see the logic in the arguments of a third base source, but that being said the sheer number of similarities, and the exact specific nature of those similarites does make a very impressive counter. Yes, you will see many common elements in fantasy--especially in terms of worldbuilding and concept basis--but the difference is that when these similarities appear they are not only similar nature, but similar in action and influence on the society and world of the story. And im sorry, but whilst you find them uninteresting, that is a key sign of fictional plagarism. Creating your on story and giving it depth by drawing on the meat of another story.

 

So. I'm claiming similar ideas do indeed appear in alot of fantasy, but that the number of those similarities between WoT and SoT combined with the similar usage and effect. The sum of those similarities is more significant than its parts.

 

To which you reply.

 

Having heard things about Jordan's books is not the same as having read them himself. People are convinced that he has personally read them, and I claim they lack hard evidence. A "sum of the parts" argument is being used to prove Goodkind has read this series, but the sum of the parts are completely different. As in, not at all alike. They both contain a few similarities which are unconvincing as proofs of plagiarism. To think otherwise is almost laughable.

 

... so what? The entirety of the book is dissimilar, therefore the argument about the total nature of ongoing similarities is not accurate?

 

The point about them being different stories doesn't even relate. Which is what i said in my reply, here...

 

As for the 'sum of its parts' comment... how is that relevant? I ask that honestly? My claim was the total sum of the similarities, the amount of their occurence, and the consistancy in the way they are included within the text and subsequent influence on the world of the text and the progression of the plot is indicative of plagarism, to which you respond... what? 'they're not exactly the same on every point'? I'm honestly confused. Short of an intentional misreading i cannot understand what you were getting at. Perhaps if you actually addressed the specific points in our posts it would help us understand

 

And indeed. I was asking honestly. Perhaps you had misread my comment to be saying that i was suggesting that the plots and stories were similar--because honestly i cannot see any connection between your comments about the series as a whole and my comments about similar points when looked at specifically. And thats fair enough, there is room there for confusion. So again i clarified myself.

 

To which you reply...

 

...did you read your first three sentences?

 

Which makes no sense as a response. In what way do my first three sentences somehow twist my comments to be saying that the sum of the parts of the series are the same. In what way do the not say exactly that that entire point is in no way relevant to my comments? I'm not speaking of the entirety of the series, hence why your comments about it were completely irrelevant.

 

But ok, maybe you were still caught up in your initial misreading and didn't read all the way through. So i requoted my point...

 

Yes, I did. Here they are again for you.

 

 

"As for the 'sum of its parts' comment... how is that relevant? I ask that honestly? My claim was the total sum of the similarities, the amount of their occurence, and the consistancy in the way they are included within the text and subsequent influence on the world of the text and the progression of the plot is indicative of plagarism, to which you respond... what? 'they're not exactly the same on every point'? I'm honestly confused."

 

So thats why, after all that, i honestly cannot possibly see how you would say...

 

In sentence one you ask how a sum of the parts argument is relevant, and in sentence three you claim your argument was a sum of the parts.

 

Honestly. I'm struck dumb. Your argument was not relevant. I was quite clear on that. My argument is the sum of the similarities exceed the nature of its parts... specifically this is in answer to your claim that the fact that many fantasy's have similar idead basing them. The sum of the similarities are what make this invalid. The total amount within the story and its influence.

 

I honestly can't see how you missed that... what... three times? Four? Once i can understand. You misread the nature of my comment because of the words 'sum of its parts', and thats understandable. But after clarification and clarification?

 

 

[animus]

when I say a sum of the parts argument, I am referring to the philosophical concept, usually used when discussing the existence of a soul "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" which is basically what you are using as an argument.

 

you claim that are an overwhelming number of these similarities, yet you list only 5. 5 to me doesn't really seem odd considering these are both long series and are both high-fantasy novels which revolve around a hero, some villains, and a fantastical world which they travel about. They also share the premise of the hero finding out unexpectedly that he was to be one. [see Pawn of Prophecy (1982)]

 

Why should I list 3 books for each of those, 1 for each is enough to show he could have gotten the idea from a different source. Especially if I choose classic or popular books. Lets see...

 

Sisters of the Light - The Pelerines from Shadow of the Torturer (1980)

 

Sisters of the Dark - The Tombs of Atuan (1972)

 

Pebble in the Pond - This is an old saying, its been used for a long time. I can't find where or when it originated exactly but Asimov made a play on the phrase with his book Pebble In The Sky. Type it into google and you will find thousands of people using it, most of whom probably don't read the SoT series.

 

Collars - I can't think of any books off hand that use them to control magic, but they have been used to control people, and imply slavery, in probably thousands of texts. I'll try and find something better later

 

That leaves you with magic being weaved, which I doubt is original to either of these authors but I haven't read many books focusing on sorcery so I can't think of anything at the moment. I want to say Eddings used that idea but I read the books so long ago I can't remember.

[BrainFireBob]

Animus-

 

Have you read both series?

 

If so, lay the books out in order of original publication. You'll find SOT uses many of the same plot elements and plot points within a year or two of them appearing in WoT. It's possible Jordan and Goodkind were inspired by similar sources, and both series became popular at the same time because it's "what the public wanted" at the time. However, it is undeniable, considering both similarities and timeline, that there is at a minimum common sources being invoked or drawn on, if Goodkind isn't pulling from WoT- which he's always denied vehemently and aggressively, yet he also just as aggressively claims it's all his own invention. That's what irritates people. The similarities- particularly considering when they were introduced- are completely and totally undeniable. You might want to go educate yourself on those similarities and the relevent timeline if you really don't see it, since it beggars belief that anyone having read both series can't see them.

[animus]

I've read both series. The only thing it beggars is that you are all massive idiots who play dungeons and dragons all day long and have no real intelligence to speak of. I believe Terry Goodkind to be a rather hum drum writer along the lines of clive cussler, who uses ideas that are very run of the mill. You all think he copied these run of the mill concepts because you are all Robert Jordan dick suckers (and his writing is far superior to that of Goodkinds for the most part, so don't assume I dislike him as a writer) who lack real imagination and so find ordinary concepts as something approaching godly that nobody else could possibly think up on their own. My left toe could come up with better ideas. None of what you have listed is what made Robert Jordan stand out. Everything that made him stand out as an author differs so dramatically from the SoT series that it cannot be compared. Which just goes further to show that Goodkind didn't steal from Jordan. Why would he only steal the mundane pig excrement ideas? Probably because he stole them from a thousand and one other people that have had the same idea since the middle ages. You all think The Wheel of Time is the epitome of good writing, and although I like it (like I like doritos) it is nothing compared to the foie gras that is other literature. 

[animus]

and I just noticed this, and feel rather stupid for not seeing it before, but does anybody notice that a'dam looks a like like A Dam. As in something used to control the flow of water. Jesus, I was thinking arabic roots when the obvious was right in front of me. As for rada'han, rada itself refers to council or assembly borrowed from the pols. han is a river or a dynasty. the council of the rivers. something that controls the torrent. massive points for me.

[RobertAlexWillis]

and I just noticed this, and feel rather stupid for not seeing it before, but does anybody notice that a'dam looks a like like A Dam. As in something used to control the flow of water. Jesus, I was thinking arabic roots when the obvious was right in front of me. As for rada'han, rada itself refers to council or assembly borrowed from the pols. han is a river or a dynasty. the council of the rivers. something that controls the torrent. massive points for me.

 

-snicker-

 

-chuckle-

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAHAAAHAHAAAA .... hahhaaaa. ... oh ... ohhh hahaha ... ohhh .. oh my ..

 

-wipes a tear from the corner of my eye-

 

Thanks.  Now I know that I never have to take you seriously again.

[animus]

laugh all you want, but this only implies that the similarities in the words is mere coincidence.

[RobertAlexWillis]

What you're failing to appreciate, either deliberately or through a lack of mental capacity, it that it is the totality of so many specific "coincidences", so specifically timed, over multiple volumes, and the disingenuousness of Goodkind's claims to not even be aware of the existence of the Wheel of Time, all in combination, that make show him to be a ridiculous plagiarist.

 

But, no one is as blind as the one who will not see.

 

I have to say though, accusing all of us of fellating Jordan is, at best, juvenile.  It certainly goes a long way to demonstrating the strength (or lack thereof) in both your position, and your character.

[BrainFireBob]

Animus, that's trolling. Where are the mods?

 

Oh, and you might try reading the posts again.

[anamul]

TG might have read Wot. It is obvious in his writing that he dis-agreed with some crucial concept of WOT. So he decided to write a series that would reflect his point of view. He would have refused point black that he didn't read WOT just to avoid the accusation of "plagiarism".

 

In WOT, Raven is considered a vile bird, enemy of the light a shadow spawn.

In SOT, Raven isn't considered strictly as either light or shadow souled....but through out the series Raven has been appreciated just to prove a point.

 

In SOT, they hate snake...(kahlan does).

In Wot, snake, according to TG( which I agree), hasn't been given their rightfull place...which is that they are reprehensible and I hate snake and the AES sedai ring.

 

In WOT, Rand has been written mostly as a hot headed arrogant and such who has a biased opinion against the Aes sedai.

 

In SOT, Richard is cool headed, and doesn't snape at the sister of light or think that they on the whole can not be trusted.

 

Terry simply doesn't agree with three wife concept....the love between kahlan and Richard has been driven as hard as a nail in SOT series, may be because he didn't like the concept of "Min, Elayne and Aviendha" triangle with Rand.

 

Rape, has been drawn vividly in SOT and TG takes a more unforgiveable side on Rape then RJ.

By which I mean, the evil of mass raping is considered as a threat that comes with any invassion.

But RJ hasn't drawn any such picture. Seanchan attacks and no rapes...they must be angel from Haven.(that was unrealistic).

 

But I must agree that TG overdid the rape scene, quite boring.

 

My point is RJ has taken ideas from Tolkien and such, TG might have taken a few from RJ. But TG can't admit it, because his series is quite opposite in concepts with WOT.  ;D ;D ;D

 

TG doesn't think that we need, orcs or trolloc as enemy, he tried to prove that human is humans greatest enemy. The difference between philosophy(religion), is the key concept in his books.

 

Well, I seem to have babbled a lot. Personaly, I like WOT more than SOT. But I read both series and I am anticipating the last book of SOT, which is already out. It will be nice to have a series end for a change. I wish Wot would be finished.

 

 

 

 

 

[animus]

I'm not trolling, one post of venting should be allowed now and again. Especially since the argument has come to "There are sooo many similarities vs I don't think there's that many"

 

I'd rather talk about the origins of some of the words used at this point, merely because I find that more interesting. I'm not implying the dam thing is true, but it is interesting as a dam does control the flow of things, much like the leashes and collars control the flow of magic.

[trakand_01]

I'm not trolling, one post of venting should be allowed now and again.

 

There is a vast difference between having a post of 'venting' and spitting out your dummy because people dont believe you. I dread to think what you might do for a living if disagreeing on something like this brings such a response.

 

The bottom line is, we all have our own views and are all perfectly entitled to them. We also have to accept that others hold different views, and are equally entitled to those.

 

 

[Luckers]

when I say a sum of the parts argument, I am referring to the philosophical concept, usually used when discussing the existence of a soul "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" which is basically what you are using as an argument.

 

Basically what we are saying...

 

What. The. Hell?

 

Firstly, whatever you 'say' to be the sum of its parts' argument is irrelevant. Totally irrelvant. You were commenting on someone elses stated theory, your perception of what those words mean mean absolutely nothing. You actually going on to try and claim authority in the way youn dismissed the original posters statement is absurd...

 

I dont say that minutely.

 

Absurd.

 

What we are saying?

 

None of that was even mentioned. Even suggested. Hell, none of what your ranting about is even influenced.

 

Secondly, theres no philosophical treaties relating to the soul and the sum of its parts. Jaegwon Kim came close with his treatise on the mind-body problem in the oxford  press, and Richard Swinburn dance kind of clos himself. But yes... there is no actual philosophical treatise of the nature you describe currently in existence as far as i am aware.

 

you claim that are an overwhelming number of these similarities, yet you list only 5. 5 to me doesn't really seem odd considering these are both long series and are both high-fantasy novels which revolve around a hero, some villains, and a fantastical world which they travel about. They also share the premise of the hero finding out unexpectedly that he was to be one. [see Pawn of Prophecy (1982)]

 

Why should I list 3 books for each of those, 1 for each is enough to show he could have gotten the idea from a different source. Especially if I choose classic or popular books. Lets see...

 

Sisters of the Light - The Pelerines from Shadow of the Torturer (1980)

 

Sisters of the Dark - The Tombs of Atuan (1972)

 

Pebble in the Pond - This is an old saying, its been used for a long time. I can't find where or when it originated exactly but Asimov made a play on the phrase with his book Pebble In The Sky. Type it into google and you will find thousands of people using it, most of whom probably don't read the SoT series.

 

Collars - I can't think of any books off hand that use them to control magic, but they have been used to control people, and imply slavery, in probably thousands of texts. I'll try and find something better later

 

That leaves you with magic being weaved, which I doubt is original to either of these authors but I haven't read many books focusing on sorcery so I can't think of anything at the moment. I want to say Eddings used that idea but I read the books so long ago I can't remember.

 

Hey, wow, that would be a great argunment... except oh sorry i was making a sum of the points argument. Pity.

 

Do i really need to requote it? Ok, sorry, for you, obviously i do. Stupid me.

 

As for your stance, as i said i can see the logic in the arguments of a third base source, but that being said the sheer number of similarities, and the exact specific nature of those similarites does make a very impressive counter. Yes, you will see many common elements in fantasy--especially in terms of worldbuilding and concept basis--but the difference is that when these similarities appear they are not only similar nature, but similar in action and influence on the society and world of the story. And im sorry, but whilst you find them uninteresting, that is a key sign of fictional plagarism. Creating your on story and giving it depth by drawing on the meat of another story.

 

 

I feel like i should reiterate my incredulity of the last post. I wont. That would be mean.

 

[BrainFireBob]

I've read both series. The only thing it beggars is that you are all massive idiots who play dungeons and dragons all day long and have no real intelligence to speak of. I believe Terry Goodkind to be a rather hum drum writer along the lines of clive cussler, who uses ideas that are very run of the mill. You all think he copied these run of the mill concepts because you are all Robert Jordan dick suckers (and his writing is far superior to that of Goodkinds for the most part, so don't assume I dislike him as a writer) who lack real imagination and so find ordinary concepts as something approaching godly that nobody else could possibly think up on their own. My left toe could come up with better ideas. None of what you have listed is what made Robert Jordan stand out. Everything that made him stand out as an author differs so dramatically from the SoT series that it cannot be compared. Which just goes further to show that Goodkind didn't steal from Jordan. Why would he only steal the mundane pig excrement ideas? Probably because he stole them from a thousand and one other people that have had the same idea since the middle ages. You all think The Wheel of Time is the epitome of good writing, and although I like it (like I like doritos) it is nothing compared to the foie gras that is other literature. 

 

I'm not trolling, one post of venting should be allowed now and again. Especially since the argument has come to "There are sooo many similarities vs I don't think there's that many"

 

I'd rather talk about the origins of some of the words used at this point, merely because I find that more interesting. I'm not implying the dam thing is true, but it is interesting as a dam does control the flow of things, much like the leashes and collars control the flow of magic.

 

The first post gives the lie to the second, in that it's beyond merely venting, it's chock-full of immature and juvenile personal attacks and aspersions.

 

Followed by posts trying to change the subject.

 

I still challenge you to lay the books out chronologically in order of publication and see the pattern that pops out.

 

[Tyrell]

Sisters of the Dark - The Tombs of Atuan (1972)

 

Have you ever actually read the Tombs of Atuan?

[elmis]

Who cares if he was inspired, borrowed or simply stole stuff from the the Wheel of Time? I don't like the Goodkin books because they're bad.

 

The first book was good, the others aren't. It's been years since I've read the books, and I think I stopped halfway through Blood of the Fold or whatever it was called.. I got annoyed with the whole love relationship, I want to read a good story, preferably a good fantasy story, not a paperback romance novel.

 

When it comes to the series as a whole, not the single books, I kinda got a feeling that he didn't have much planned after the first book came out. Like a hit movie, where they just make a sequel and another sequel, to capitalize on it. That's the feeling I got with Goodkin's later books anyway.

 

Jordan might not be the best author ever, but at least he's made very enjoyable books that have the consistency of a planned story behind them.

 

EDIT: Spelling.

[Kravchenko]

Who cares if he was inspired, borrowed or simply stole stuff from the the Wheel of Time? I don't like the Goodkin books because they're bad.

 

The first book was good, the others aren't. It's been years since I've read the books, and I think I stopped halfway through Blood of the Fold or whatever it was called.. I got annoyed with the whole love relationship, I want to read a good story, preferably a good fantasy story, not a paperback romance novel.

 

When it comes to the series as a whole, not the single books, I kinda got a feeling that he didn't have much planned after the first book came out. Like a hit movie, where they just make a sequel and another sequel, to capitalize on it. That's the feeling I got with Goodkin's later books anyway.

 

Jordan might not be the best author ever, but at least he's made very enjoyable books that have the consistency of a planned story behind them.

 

EDIT: Spelling.

 

With Goodkind, I didn't even like Wizard's First Rule.  I bought and the 2nd book rather blindly on the recommendation of an online friend who I had discussed WoT and A Song of Ice and Fire with.  I began reading the 1st page soon after I bought it.  I had to stop 1/2 way through the 1st paragraph. It just seemed like bad writing.  Really contrived... as though Goodkind was following some sort of prescribed formula.

 

Anyway, I stopped reading and went back to it a few weeks later.  I eventually finished the book, however, I literally threw it down about 5 times in the first 100 pages and just laughed at how stupid it was.  It was so painfully unoriginal and everything was just so convenient.  The dialogue was pathetic... the plot so linear… it left nothing to the imagination either and was so easy to figure out.

 

I’ll never read the 2nd book.  Why bother?  The 1st one has almost made me decide that if this man can be published, that I should crap something out and have my name on the shelves.

 

[animus]

The Tombs of Atuan may be a stretch, they didn't realize they were worshiping an evil power. But the lady in charge after the one died was bad, and it was an all female organization that protected ancient magic.

 

"Secondly, theres no philosophical treaties relating to the soul and the sum of its parts."

 

I can't remember the title of the book. I'll try and find it. But it was a hypothetical meeting between humans and an advanced robot race, where the author argued that souls might not exist because the robots didn't have them and yet were just as complex as any humans. The humans would counter with the whole is greater than the sum of its parts arguments at one point. But that book aside, there are plenty of other sources of the same nature. Even Aristotle toyed with the idea if I'm not mistaken. Google it.

 

You find it immature for a person to say insulting things when he thinks them. I guess I can understand  that,  but I don't agree. I'm speaking my mind and if it is sometimes an offensive mind so be it. Why must everything always be productive or positive? I'm sure all you have made fun of other people in your lives anyway. You don't care for my opinion so why even bother being insulted when I tire of arguing a point and toss out a few rather boring insults. And I tire because you seem unwilling to consider my side unless I go to extreme lengths to prove otherwise. And while I feel I am right, and I did look at this subject with a rather open mind before I came to my conclusion, I don't feel like spending massive amounts of time citing numerous sources of information to satisfy the people here. Especially considering that is a backward approach to this argument. Usually a person would have to prove there IS plagiarism by citing an exceeding number of similarities that have not been used elsewhere, and since you do agree that the ideas aren't noteworthy in and of themselves, provide a decent argument as to why it would be impossible for any two others to use these mundane concepts together in the way the authors have without one having read the other. Neither of these have I seen done. 

 

 

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

You find it immature for a person to say insulting things when he thinks them. I guess I can understand  that,  but I don't agree. I'm speaking my mind and if it is sometimes an offensive mind so be it. Why must everything always be productive or positive?

 

It doesn't have to be. You can continue saying those sorts of things as long as you want, if you so desire to persist. But why did we suggest otherwise? Because we're trying to help you. I'll put this as simply as I can: When you say things like that, it ruins the credibility of all of the parts of your post which have "depth and relevance." How can you expect us to actually read your post when we've become so angry while reading that halfway through we are too angry to listen? This doesn't occur for me, because its easy for me to dismiss those kind of remarks. It's other people who actually get offended. I just fire back in some sort of small, insulting way.

 

I'm sure all you have made fun of other people in your lives anyway.

 

What an assessment. If I were to be the lone voice in telling you this was untrue, would you believe me? Why not? Occam's Razor, you say? Exactly.

 

You don't care for my opinion so why even bother being insulted when I tire of arguing a point and toss out a few rather boring insults.

 

To the contrary; if we didn't care for your opinion, if we didn't in some way value that, then why would continue to debate you, to try to change your opinion? Why bother to change something you do not value or do not care about?

 

And I tire because you seem unwilling to consider my side unless I go to extreme lengths to prove otherwise.

 

Really? Have you for even one instance considered that we feel the same way? That you "seem unwilling to consider our side unless we go to extreme lengths to prove otherwise?"

 

And while I feel I am right, and I did look at this subject with a rather open mind before I came to my conclusion...[snip]

 

Stop right there.

 

There is less than one in a million chance that I am wrong here, so why argue?

 

Your point is absurd.

 

People who feel that Goodkind has ripped off Jordan are basically full of themselves, and without warrant.

 

The last quote was from the very first sentence of your very first post on this thread. Open-minded? Do you actually believe that or are you just trying to convince yourself?

 

I don't feel like spending massive amounts of time citing numerous sources of information to satisfy the people here.

 

Neither do we.

 

Especially considering that is a backward approach to this argument. Usually a person would have to prove there IS plagiarism[snip]

 

Point conceded. We would have the burden of proof. But we're not claiming it is plagiarism. We're claiming that there are "an exceeding number of similiarities." Not enough to be plagiarism, since the meat of the story itself appears to be entirely different. And since it is more likely that, with the similarites, Goodkind did indeed read WoT and (consciously or subconsciously) incorporate ideas, then the burden of proof is not so clearly on us, and in fact, more like on you.

 

by citing an exceeding number of similarities that have not been used elsewhere, and since you do agree that the ideas aren't noteworthy in and of themselves, provide a decent argument as to why it would be impossible for any two others to use these mundane concepts together in the way the authors have without one having read the other. Neither of these have I seen done.   

 

Did we say it was impossible? No. We merely said unlikely. Of course, we put it much softer than saying "there is less than one in a million chance" that we are wrong.

 

By the way, the sum of the parts thing is your misunderstanding of my argument. I did not use a philosophical context. I used simple logic:

 

If there is a 1 in 6 chance that you roll a 1, and you have two dice, what are the odds of you rolling two ones? 1 in 36. That is two variables. Now imagine if there were much more.

 

It's plain-jane theoretical odds. In real life other variables are factored into it, such as what side the dice were on when you tossed them from your hand, with what force you released them, how your palms/fingers inhibited movement, what trajectory the dice took, etc.

 

Or, to apply it to the argument: In real life, the amount of public exposure a book receives, the availability of information/media, the time spent absorbing news/other media, the number of friends you have and the same variables applying to them, etc, all are variables which can make it more/less likely.

 

By the way, and I'll play devil's advocate here, Animus is right about Aristotle having first mentioned it.

 

The principle is called holism, and it first originated from Aristotle in Metaphyiscs when he argued "the whole is more than the sum of the parts."

 

It also appears to relate to synergy and emergence.

 

But let it be understood I did not say what I did in a philosophical sense. Philosophy can be disputed. Pure mathmatics cannot.