After reading the citations on Walden's website, Cleves didn't say, "Oh, whoops, Walden DID give me credit repeatedly for things," she said something like, "This is all the more proof that Walden's work is an adaptation of my own" in that first Comics Beat article about this situation.

Show Post

Cleves wrote her original "open letter" post with those claims before she knew about Walden's website of citations, charityandsylvia.com. It's ironic that Cleves did such a piss-poor job of researching how much she'd been credited by Walden before she published her open letter online.

Show Post

As far as I can tell, Walden absolutely did due diligence. "Cleves acknowledged that Walden had reached out to her during the writing process and cited her book as a source." The problem is only that Cleves realized Walden's comic is going to be more popular than her book. Then the ego rises up.

Show Post

Yes. I'm also noticing who gets accorded credibility here, & how. Walden says her book is not an adaptation. No one has produced any TEXTUAL evidence that it is an adaptation. Why is it that people are treating Cleves as credible but not Walden? Or you, an ADAPTATION PROFESSIONAL who has read both?

Show Post

Having looked into this more: Calling Tillie Walden's graphic novel a "rip off" of Cleves' nonfiction book is an unfair attack on Walden. Let's compare the same event in both books - the lead-up to Charity and Sylvia's first meeting. (thread)

Show Post