Lessen # 3: Perhaps you would learn more about writing by reading the works of these authors instead of throwing pebbles at giants.
Ya know...okay, this off subject a bit but, I find it interesting that people assume that they know what a story is about when they haven't actually read the book itself. Take HG Wells' War of the Worlds, for instance. People think that they know it. They don't. Not unless they have read the book they don't. Any time someone makes a movie of it they place it in modern times. I can't understand Hollywood; they love to make those great sweeping period pieces with lots of old fashion costumes with horse and carriages: then on the other hand they also love those great spectacular special effects. And in Wells' War of the Worlds, you got them both in one. Think about it...London in the late 1880's invaded by Martians. Great eh...? But they absolutely refuse to do the novel the way it was written. There some pretty interesting scenes foreshadowing real life events that will be visited upon the Earth 40 years later as well. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/warworlds/b1c1.html
There are other issues that play into this discussion as well, however. Authors in antiquity and even later times would write a sentence word for word from another in order to play off that earlier work, or to engage in a discussion with it. Hebrew/Jewish writers often engaged in that kind of use. Greek writers would do the same thing, i.e. the novel Callirhoe. Then you have issues of borrowing from same source oral traditions, myths, fables, etc., Certain written sources were authoritative and using them would not be plagiarism, but reliance on such authorities (see Greek works that incorporate Homer's work, considered authoritative for Greek culture by many Greeks in the ancient world and why it's transmission is so closely compared to the Jewish scriptures and how they came about). While there may be claims of this person copied from that person, it's not with the same weight or penalty as today's "Plagiarism." I would argue then, that it is an anachronism to equate the two in general, even though a person may find one or two specific cases that fall under today's guidelines and the person was accused of "cheating" or "copying."
War of the Worlds is probably the only H.G. Wells story I care fore. "Ulla Ulla Ulla!" The curate and the Thunderchild. A very interesting story indeed, and it did foreshadow some of the events of WW 2.
Well, I think the deal is this: Plagiarism is plagiarism, regardless. Like just now, I realized that the name of a fantasy race I wanted to write about had existed previously, in an obscure book published in the year 1990. I could still use it, as the only thing that's the same is the name, but then I'd risk that author coming after my ass, and what excuse would I have? "Oh, I didn't know you already came up with that name. Excuse me for not knowing about an obscure book that came out when I was a year old!" It also doesn't help that yet another fantasy race's name (and very appearance) is the same as George Lucas' sci-fi fantasy race (hint: They're both cat-people) So, I guess it helps to do the research before you assume that everything you come up with is inheritently your own, as someone else may have already made it up before you. That, and reading a lot. Only then, could you make a reasonable decision. Basic ideas are OK, you can do anything with basic ideas, but not everything is just ripe for the taking. That's my two Lincolns. Question: Does all this count when you do not intend to get anything published? You're just writing for your own pleasure, and absolutely no one is going to read it?
Not on this site. I'd tel you to read the site rules, but you already know them. We have, and you have paid for refusing to comply. The rules stand, even though I have left the mod team. But this is off topic. Please stop trying to revive a pointless argument. If you don't like the site rules, you're welcome to walk away.
But until you do know about the book, that's not plagiarism. You could still be accused of plagiarism, I suppose, so it might still be safer to change the name. But if you didn't know about it, you couldn't have copied it, so it's not plagiarism. Two people independently having the same idea/name/whatever, is not plagiarism. (Wow, I used that word a lot, didn't I?)