I know Harlan won this suit -- but it is an incredibly slippery slope. If a writer can claim another writer has plaigarised elements from more than one of his stories, can there truly be said to be anything "original" out there? If George Orwll was still around, for instance, he might get all huffy and argue that Ellison's own "Repent Harlequin, said the Ticktock Man" is chapter and verse "1984". And there's hardly a story ever been written that did not contain some elements from previous works.

The camps are implied by elements of Kyle's descriptions of the future.

John Byrne wrote: The camps are implied by elements of Kyle's descriptions of the future.

Yes. For instance, Kyle has a barcode laser-printed on his arm.

***

The camps are implied by elements of Kyle's descriptions of the future.

+++++++++++++++

Reese does make explicit mention of such camps in the film:

"Most of us were rounded up, put in camps for orderly disposal."

"(John Connor) taught us to fight, to storm the wire of the camps, to smash those metal mother****ers into junk".

JB wrote:
"And there's hardly a story ever been written that did not contain some elements from previous works."

Indeed. It is interesting to think that Shakespeare, a writer held in such high regards, would probably have been in some problems writing under today's copyright laws, since many if not most of his plays exist in previous versions by other playwrights. Now old Will was an excellent writer and did bring something to the table, but it shows that literature and art (even great literature art, perhaps even especially that) do have cannibalistic tendencies.

One of the distinct advantages to the Oxford solution to the Authorship Question is that it much reduces, if not entirely eliminates, the Shakespeare-as-plaigarist problem. Rather than pirating plays from other authors, DeVere would in many cases have been simply revising his own earlier works.

How's about we call a Full Forum Moratorium on this kind of pointless "correction"?

JB wrote:
"One of the distinct advantages to the Oxford solution to the Authorship Question is that it much reduces, if not entirely eliminates, the Shakespeare-as-plaigarist problem. Rather than pirating plays from other authors, DeVere would in many cases have been simply revising his own earlier works."

Still, the literary climate of the time was very much about retelling certain stories over and over, take a piece her and a piece there, so I'm not entirely certain that even the DeVere theory can get around the whole of it.
And to some extent, I think it's still true today. Stories aren't told in a vacuum. Now, I am naturally not promoting downright text theft (being a writer myself, that goes against the grain), but I do believe in the fact that all fictional writing does include a certain cannibalistic element that is derived from what the writers devour as readers. And as Stephen King has repeatedly said, it's not really possible to be a good writer if one does not read.

The "Demon With A Glass Hand" reference reminded me of the DC graphic novel interpretations they were doing at one time of classic SF stories.  Marshall Rogers did the artwork for the "Demon With A Glass Hand" GN, adn Klaus Janson, IIRC, did one of Ray Bradbury's "Fire and Ice."  Anyone else remember these?