Talk:Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I cut and pasted most of the text on this topic from the MZB and Darkover pages. I've pared what's on those down to the bare minimum and linked here. I really think we need much longer direct quotes from all parties involved. For one thing, some of the cited pages may disappear. For another, I'd like people to be able to read this page and just decide for themselves who they believe without too much extra interpretation from us and without reading every single page we link to. Franzeska 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a complete rewrite which incorporates almost all of the prior material, scales back a little on some of the undocumented bits (notably the "urban legend" commentary), and adds a couple of quotes. Possibly the most notable new datapoint: Jim Hines' statement quoting DAW publisher Betsy Wollheim, who says MZB -- not DAW -- spiked "Contraband". Hopefully this will provide a framework for further refinement.... --djonn 20:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for cleaning up the health section in particular. People always leave that out, and I think it's very important for the perspective it gives (on people's attitudes at the time if not necessarily on The Truth), but it's so rumor-filled that I was having a lot of trouble with it. Franzeska 14:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just checking to see if the Jim Hines post was here, and it was. Good work djonn! --msilverstar 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just made a quick section-title change, correcting the title of the MZB novel at the center of the original controversy (which had somehow been conflated with the title of the Jean Lamb story). --djonn 21:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

References

These are links from the MZB and Darkover talk pages. Some might make good references for this article if they aren't in there already.

- A criticism of Coker's MZB article in particular in the TWC symposium *blog*, this time. Not sure if relevant, but dropping the link just in case :) --lian 17:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

1978 letter

I don't think the 1978 letter belongs on this page. It's about her involvement in fandom, a general topic, this here is about a controversy that happened in 1992. IMO that letter should go to the MZB page. --Doro 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The letter, though, is 99% foreshadowing of the incidents in 1992, pretty much spells out a lot of what happened, and provides a huge backdrop to the controversy. But if folks agree it should be moved, then I'd like to see a specific link to it on this page someplace. --Mrs. Potato Head 21:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm of mixed minds here. I think the exchange is indeed on-point, given the degree to which events as they eventually unfolded were predicted pretty accurately by the fans commenting here. However, I also think that for purposes of this page, fully quoting both halves of the exchange in the body of the article is excessive -- especially since the same material is also now supplied on MZB's main Fanlore page. I suggest that what might be best is a short paragraph in the "Before the Controversy" section, describing the exchange and linking back to the text on the main MZB page, but will hold off actually doing such an edit pending further discussion here. --djonn 02:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
A summary and a link to MZB's page works for me. --Mrs. Potato Head 03:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Molly of Darkover and The Women of Darkover

I don't think the Mary Battle case should be covered on this page, it should have its own page instead. The Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy is a specific event, adding other cases to this page confuses the issue of that case. --Doro 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that, too, as it makes it long and confusing. But they're both MZB fan fiction controversies, so the topic works. But If you think that there should be two separate pages, will you make two and give them the titles you think are best? --Mrs. Potato Head 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy is something that's often referred to like that, so the title works for this controversy. For the other one I would suggest Molly of Darkover and the Women of Darkover as that is what you chose for the section header. Or maybe Marion Zimmer Bradley Trust and the 'Inferior' Darkover Books? Has a bit of a Harry Potter vibe to it. --Doro 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy (Lamb 1992) and Marion Zimmer Bradley Controversy (Battle 2011). The reason I don't care for the article titled with the names of the novels they don't describe the real reason for the page, as well as it being titled for the works themselves which should stand alone on their own page. And while your second title is eye-catching, I'd feel bad using it to name a page as it infers a judgement I don't want to make. --Mrs. Potato Head 20:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC) ADDED: I think we need more input. --Mrs. Potato Head 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The 'inferior' is part of the wording of the complaint and the reason they give for suing, so I thought it fitting. The reason why I don't want to change the title of this page is that it's not a Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy but the Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy. The event people refer to as Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy. Also, the other event is about two published books that were sold for profit and not about typcal fanfiction so calling it fanfiction controversy would actually be a misnomer, I think. --Doro 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understood the reason for the "inferior." The original page could be renamed Marion Zimmer Bradley Fiction Controversy as MZB's pro book was involved. As for the Battle books, they may have been sold for profit, but they straddle a very fine line, one I personally feel uncomfortable in defining. I'm all for dividing the page in two, but I think we need more input on titles. --Mrs. Potato Head 21:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the two situations should be addressed on two distinct pages. It also seems to me that while it's certainly accurate to call Molly of Darkover and Women of Darkover derivative works, I don't have enough background on the way they've been "marketed" to judge whether we should refer to them as fanfiction or Something Else. As far as page titles go, I think I'd go with "MZB Fanfiction Controversy (Masks and Contraband)", and "MZB Trust Fanfiction Controversy (Mary Battle)". Note specifically the use of "Trust" in the latter; I think it's important to distinguish a case that happened during MZB's lifetime from one that arose after her death. --djonn 21:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
We can always rename the second page later but I think it's important to move the stuff that doesn't belong on this page as soon as possible, before too many people have edited it and it becomes too difficult to sort through all the changes since the second event was added to the page. What about Marion Zimmer Bradley Trust and the Unauthorized Darkover Books? --Doro 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm of the view that page titles should be relatively short and specific whenever possible, in aid of users searching the wiki. If this is to be a separate page, perhaps "Unauthorized Darkover Books (MZB Trust vs. Mary Battle)"? --djonn 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
How about MZB Trust Suing Over Unauthorized Darkover Books? --Doro 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd stay away from "-ing" verbs in page titles; the page will (we hope) be around long after the conflict is resolved. --djonn 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Marion Zimmer Bradley Literary Works Trust and Unauthorized Fanworks: how about this one? Can we live with it long enough to separate the pages, as I agree with Doro that we should move quickly? --Mrs. Potato Head 22:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That looks workable to me. --djonn 23:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll switch it. And we can all tweak it later if need be. --Mrs. Potato Head 23:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An issue here: the pages for Women of Darkover and Molly of Darkover refer to "Mary Battle" as the author; however, one reference in the text here refers to the trust learning of "Sharp's book" -- giving the appearance that Battle and Ann Sharp are one and the same. It seems to me that the references should be consistent; either the connection should be made clearly or not made at all. (As to the question of "outing", if the trust has instituted legal proceedings against the author under her real name, that would seem to settle the matter.) --djonn 21:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that reference to "Sharp's book," too and was very confused. I think it is a mistake of the original blogger who wrote the article, as I'm like 100% certain Battle and Sharp are two different people. It is certainly something that should be mentioned in a footnote or something. Or perhaps write the blogger, Alison, and ask her. --Mrs. Potato Head 21:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Just did a quick edit to the main page addressing the point (and combining material, since there were two separate subsections mentioning the Mary Battle case). --djonn 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
And I'm going to make a footnote after "Sharp's" to explain that it is a typo. When we get the two pages separated, it will be easier to add to this one. --Mrs. Potato Head 22:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposing Subpage

This page is very long and the "Lasting Consequences" section is difficult to process. Can we move all the comments under "10.2 An Often Cited Cautionary Tale: The "Urban Myth" Element" to a subpage and add a summary of those sentiments to the main page? /Later_Comments or something? —caes (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

A subpage might be an incremental solution, but the real difficulty is that there are so many long, dense quote blocks throughout the text that the overall narrative is really difficult to read. (To be fair, that's in large part a function of the way wiki pages are built, grow, and change over time, especially here on Fanlore.) It also doesn't help that there appears to be a lot of repetition of the same handful of sources and accounts in various sections of the main page.
Ideally, the thing to do would be to cut the whole thing apart into narrative and source-quotes, then rebuild a whole cluster of pages - this, the parent page would have the narrative, and one would build a subpage for each major source containing a neat chronological compilation of each quoted statement by that source. That, of course, would be a fair-sized bit of work, but the end result would be a whole lot cleaner than what we have now. (And yes, I may just be insane enough to volunteer....) --djonn (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
My vote is for whatever makes it easier to read, and to preserve the quotes. My intention for documenting all these discussions and comments was to 1) display just how extensive they were 2) the change in narrative over time 3) show which fans were "controlling the narrative" 4) illustrate how the same "facts" were repeated and twisted up, some intentionally, and some that came about as a sort of a game of telephone 5) to show how these comments were entwined with other authors during that time who used it to piggyback their own bans.
I also wanted to get all these comments in one place so they weren't all confined to separate venues.
It's a page I feel very strongly about, and one that I take a great deal of pride in. Any help in making it clearer and more useful would be much appreciated. Djonn, you have my support if you decide to take this task on. --MPH (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes reference in Writer's Divest article or letter by MZB

I have read the Holmes stories and everything about them since I was about 10 years old, and I do not think Bradley is correct when she says Sir Arthur Conan Doyle refused to let anyone else write Sherlock Holmes. There is a fairly famous quotation of Doyle's to, I believe, the actor William Gillette: "You may marry Holmes off, or kill him, I don't care!" The result was a stage play in which Holmes did end up with a lady at the end. Pcdfanwriter (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marion_Zimmer_Bradley_Fanfiction_Controversy&oldid=1719496"