Talk:Melody C.

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Update Sept. 24, 2011

There's an update on Melody's user talk page.

Rbarenblat 21:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


Huh? Why does this article start with a technical conversation about her zines, instead of about her?

Melody's POV

I'd kind of hoped to just delete it. It's clearly written/edited/added to by someone trying to knock me and I'd just as soon be absent as receive "faint praise". I don't need the grief right now. However, I edited the entry to reflect my own side of things rather than just the Fan Wank perspective.

cleanup of the mess

In think past fandoms need to be listed too. I've seen she cropped down the list to her present fandoms (the ones also listed on the user page), but as this is a fandom history/bio the past should be on here as well, otherwise you go bzuh? if you follow the link from some zine page and don't see the fandom even listed. Not to mention that a whole chunk of the page is currently about that Sherlock Holmes story fb kerfluffle, and Sherlock Holmes is not listed anymore.

If stressing that these fandoms are in the past is important to the author, maybe that POV could be incorporated by splitting the fandom list here into "present" and "past". Also I think that link to that zine project should go back again, even if it is now taken down, because it was not a couple of days ago, and again, this page is not just to reflect the present state but to chronicle past developments. So I'd be in favor of including the Media Fen project sentence again with a note that it is now defunct. Or if it never got going maybe a note that it was short live or something (I only visited briefly to fix the references, it seemed to have only started in summer 2009 iirc?), but I'm against removing mention of fan projects that clearly were there to reflect only the present.

Also, while it seems that for now the short lived back and forth editing conflict has settled into just adding perspectives (as I understand it should be as per the PPOV policy), if this crops up again, I propose that maybe the controversial article could go into a moderated status or something like that so that a gardener needs to approve additions and deletions and such, instead of inviting editing wars with commentary on the pages and deletions vs undos.--RatCreature 11:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that past fandoms and projects should be included. Splitting it up between past and present seems like a good idea.--Doro 11:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually looking closer I'm not sure this is a past/present split or even preference, because on her Userpage she mentions John Adams HBO, but deleted the same here. So I'm not sure what the criteria for the edit were. At least the fandoms for the zine stories that already link here and attribute her should just go back in. For others, I have no clue whether there may have been errors or something?--RatCreature 11:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I think she just wanted to delete everything, no matter what. If she lists it on her Userpage, it's probably correct, but taking her whishes into account maybe we should only list those that are needed here because of notable fandom activity or because another page links to this page, etc.--Doro 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I went through the pages linking here, and the fandoms then would be Blake's 7, Wiseguy, Dark Shadows, Law & Order: SVU, Altered States, The Flying Nun, Brokeback Mountain, Bonanza, The Sentinel, House, Northern Exposure, X-Files, Monk, Sherlock Holmes and either Beauty and the Beast (TV) or Phantom of the Opera (as she is listed in a zine that mixes those fandoms, but the TOC does not say which stories are what fandom, so that should probably be postponed). So a bunch more fandoms would be added, but missing would be the John Adams HBO, because as far as I can see no fanworks for that have been cataloged yet at all.--RatCreature 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Melody's POV, part 2 (in response to above conversation as well as the page in general)

I'm up at 6:33 AM with an ill husband. I've had little sleep and I'm bleary-eyed at best. I actually was not trying to cut out the list of my fandoms (John Adams HBO has an active story on my site), I was attempting to just delete myself (online suicide I guess lol) entirely. I've been writing fan fiction for thirty years and yet my entry had been reduced to a summation of this silly run-in with an ignorant fan writer (who also writes in Holmes) who is still pouting because I rightly challenged her on her obnoxiously stupid remarks (about my "weird Victorian wording", including numerous weird Victorian words Conan-Doyle used, in my first-person Watson voice story). She's allowed to knock my story apparently but she's been having her buddies snipe at me online ever since simply because I dared point out her remark was ignorant. They've even recently baited me onto Fandom Wank about it. When does a "review" become nothing but a cloaked jealous attack? Unfortunately, about half of "fan criticism" is nothing more. That is the reason I took my fan fiction down (and the snotty thing about my "having done that before" is immaterial for various reasons). I work very, very hard on my stories. They aren't one-draft-wonders. I'm sick of the sociopathic adolescent fan attacks against them and me. Incidentally, I write as part of my living. I receive pro edits so I have a hide like a rhino but those edits are professional, fair and impersonal. I also get paid for having them. Any wording is fine by me that makes a truly neutral statement. I'm sorry to trouble you guys about this but sometimes you just have to take a stand against these trolls. --Melodyclark 14:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing Melody's POV

I don't agree with the latest edits that integrated Melody's POV into the main text because they seem biased towards the other POV and might be against PPOV policy. The framing of her opinions seems to include a judgement and saying "Melody believed the review to be entirely unfounded and unfair" implies to me that she is wrong to believe such a thing. As this is a highly subjective matter, I would suggest that we restore the version where Melody says in her own words what she thinks about it.--Doro 13:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the point about the bias, but I also like it better if the text flows. I think we should change the framing to present both sides neutrally and give a short quote to both, instead of describing the review, and as the rec/review is not longer than Melody's counter POV it can just be quoted so the reader can make up their mind without sorting through links or one position being longer than the other, i.e. have the paragraph read something like:

In 2009 Toft posted a rec/review of her Holmes/Watson story "Akin to Love" which had appeared twenty years before in the print zine No Holds Barred #1 that said:

"I hesitate to rec this, but it really is one of my favourites in the fandom. The thing is, it's hysterical, and also charming. It harks back, I think, to an older style of fic writing, incredibly overblown and florid, and I've read it about five times now whenever I feel sad, because it just makes me laugh so much. If you appreciate the use of the word 'ganglia' while describing a blowjob, or extended similes comparing Holmes to a stallion, then this is the story for you."<ref>Toft. [http://toft-froggy.livejournal.com/448706.html recs! Psych and Sherlock Holmes]</ref>

In reaction Melody announced she would no longer be publishing her fan fiction on the Internet for free, choosing instead to work with print fanzines exclusively. Melody explained her reaction:

"This review wasn't not completely positive. The reviewer criticized the twenty-year-old story for its Victorian wording when it was written in the Watson first person ... in other words to suggest Conan-Doyle's Victorian wording. She obviously had never read the original Conan-Doyle stories and didn't know what I had been trying for. This story took me a long time and a great deal of work. Sadly, it is one of two that cause me endless grief. THAT is the reason it was deleted, not simply because of the reviewer's comment. If we can't respond to reviewers' comments without being dragged onto wank forums, what other form of redress do we have except simply deleting them?"<ref name="melody">See [[Talk:Melody_Clark]] (Accessed 08 January 2010)</ref>

Or something like that with the editorial side of the text not stating more than the events, i.e. that a review had been posted and a story withdrawal resulted.--RatCreature 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this version better, although I think that it would be best if the editorial text still included the phrase "not completely positve", since Melody refers to this part in her answer to this article and I think that part of context should remain there. You could also include something along the lines of "this review led to a heated exchange between author and reviewer", because at least to me it seemed as if the discussion in the comments played a big part in the decision. -- Rodo 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's better if we remove the first line of the quote instead because that line refers to something that will no longer be in the text and I wouldn't add even more about the "heated exchange" because that part of the page is long enough as it is (the two different POVs are testament to that and anyone looking for more can follow the links in the references). After all this is a page about the author and not about the reactions to one of her many stories. --Doro 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This is what I get for just diving in and not sticking a note in first. *g* I've just done a reworking that doesn't quite go along with this, but where I tried to take some bias out. So first I will say that I'll cheerfully revert if that's the consensus! But to give some context to what I did: I definitely don't want to discount Melody's POV. But I'm also not keen on setting a precedent where people use Fanlore pages themselves to make a direct, personal argument against something said; it's an open invitation to wank, IMO. We could also wind up with articles being de facto Talk pages as people argue in them. I think it's better to link to conversations elsewhere; in this case, I've also linked to the earlier page history in a couple of cases, so as not to lose Melody's direct commentary while not leaving it in the main article. But point very well taken about implying judgement, so I've reworked things a bit, hopefully to remove some of the implied bias and to add further quotes from off-Fanlore comments Melody has made. Did that help? (I broke out another paragraph because Melody's most recent statement wasn't actually about toft, but about fandom_wank, and it didn't make sense to leave it connected directly to the toft issue; also hopefully this makes it clear that Melody wasn't exaggerating, she really *was* being discussed on a wank forum.) --Arduinna 19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Did that help? No. It's still biased only now its even longer, completely overwhelms the page by turning it into a page about a specific heated discussion. I'm sorry, I appreciate what you were trying to do here, but I really think we should go with what Ratcreature suggested and cut right to the matter with the editorial side of the text not stating more than the events, i.e. that a review had been posted and a story withdrawal resulted. That's also the shortest and least controversial version. --Doro 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough! I'll revert and back off. :) --Arduinna 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

FWIW, Doro, I agree with your assessments. --Melodyclark 16:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Melody, thank you for adding to this discussion. We are trying to sort it out. :) --Doro 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last .02 here ... and I apologize for barging in on editorial commentary

I've been writing fan fiction for thirty years, as I've said. I've had tons of online hassles -- one much, much worse than this (involving a satanic curse ... no, I'm not joking ... in which I had to actually call in the authorities). When you have a readership, you become the target of a lot of strange, crazy, wacko people. Is it really necessary to mention the whole toft-froggy thing at all? My story is twenty years old. It wasn't originally posted online by me but was scanned in from a zine by a reader. I don't even write in Holmes any longer (I learned my lesson long ago). My reasons for not posting online anymore were many -- that toft-froggy crap was merely the tiny last straw. I'm just one little writer. Can't you just mark my little place in fanstory by a statement that I existed and leave it at that?

This will be my last piece of input but it's here ... again, FWIW. --Melodyclark 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is relevant to an author bio because people are curious why stories vanished if links are not working anymore and wonder what happened. That is one of the most common things I wonder when stories go away. I don't think all the minutiae of the kerfuffle are important, but the basic fact kerfuffle -> stories got yanked, is of general interest even some time down the line.--RatCreature 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
IMO With thirty years experience, as well as being notable for other things, Melody Clark is not "one little writer" with a "little place in fanstory." Perhaps more could be put in about her other fiction (titles of stories? a list of the zines she's written for?) which would make the bit about the No Holds Barred story have less of a footprint? Mrs. Potato Head 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of beefing up the list of fanzines and notable works. Perhaps Melody could pull a list together of the work she's most proud of? or we could just create a link to 'what links' here for what we have here on fanlore. --Morgandawn 02:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much

You folk went to a bunch of work, I see. That's extremely kind of you and I'm very comfortable with the version that's on there now. I very much appreciate all the trouble and effort especially since I screwed the thing up in the first place. (ooops) --Melodyclark 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this stuff going on?

The Journal Fen Toft contingent has added to my page again. Someone came over to my LJ and sniped that I had created this Fanlore page. Yes, I did, so why can't we just delete it? I've stopped writing fan fiction, my fan fic has been largely removed from the web, and it's no longer published. I only write professionally now. I'm no longer a member of fandom. It has become little more than a psychological high school overrun by bullies. May I PLEASE be expelled? --Melodyclark 07:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly update the page to say that you are no longer in fandom, but we do not generally delete pages unless they a) are not related to fandom or b) violate the identity protection policy. Please see [1] and [2] for more information. Also, it is unclear which edits you are objecting to when you say "Toft contingent". The only people to edit the page since you last edited the page are Morgan Dawn and me (check out the page history tab). The page continues to be edited because editors browsing the wiki spot things they wish to improve. Looking at the page now, I see one of my additions was strangely worded, so I'll fix it.--æþel 08:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

the problem

Hi, Aethel. My apologies for my earlier snippiness. This all gets the best of me at times. My problem with the additions to the page is that it provides a platform for online fan fic bullies and trolls. Like a lot of people who write and publish online (or who have done so), I have stalkers with axes to grind. Their attacks are always personal. fanlore.org, by featuring links to these discussions, allows people to read through the troll attacks without any context from me. How is following the insanejournal attacks even pertinent to fandom? It's nothing but a vendetta against another person (someone they weirdly perceive to be a BNF).

The trolls have also gone after other people named Melody Clark by associating me with them. I understand that I am game -- I'm arguably a public figure. But there are many people named Melody Clark -- it's a very common name. melodyclark.com, for instance, is not my site. It's owned and run by Dr. Melody Clark, an expert in suicide psychology. She has received troll email. Her privacy has now been invaded through no fault of her own. Another person also targeted is the British oceanographer Melody Clark.

Couldn't deleting the page be acceptable by arguing for their privacy?

Thanks for whatever can be done to eliminate the problem.

--Melodyclark 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In looking over the page, nothing new of substance has been added to the article after the rounds of edits made per your request earlier last year. The bulk of the article lists your contributions to fandom. There are no insanejournal links so it is not clear what 'attacks' you are referring to. The feedback given on the Holmes/Watson story is noteworthy as it reflects fandom's reactions to earlier writing styles as well as providing the basis for decisions to withdraw from online publishing. In rereading the fandom wank discussion, however, I am not certain that new information is being added, so I think we can delete the link (and leave the mention that it happened since it helps underscore the fact that the overall reception of the story and the discussion surrounding the review continues to remain problematic). As for the actions of others...I suspect that falls outside the role of the Wiki (although I am not speaking on the Wiki's behalf). However, there is nothing on the page that would lead people to believe that Melody Clark fan fiction writer is Dr Melody Clark or a British oceanographer. Hopefully, the two of them can take whatever steps they think necessary to correct possible confusion.--Morgandawn 09:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Except for the last part about the fandom wank mention, nothing of substance has been added to what we all agreed on, and it says the fandom wank thing was unrelated so I don't think we need to keep the link. Also, I don't think there is a way for us to verify what kind of attention it attracted to whom and what the volume of that attention was or is (and even if so, I don't think it belongs on this page because this is a page about a specific fan and not about the activities of other fans). I suggest removing that line or rewording it to say that the event was later mentioned on fandom wank. I don't think there is anything we can do about the fact that there is more than one person on the net with the name Melody Clark. --Doro 13:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed the link and the characterization of what impact the fandom wank discussion may have had. As it now reads (in its bare bones state) the sentence helps support the point that the the ongoing fandom response to the story remains problematic without repeating the criticisms and response to criticisms - which have already been documented above. --Morgandawn 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think including this testimonial re Melody's contribution to the Paul McCartney fan mailing list in the late-1990s might serve to broaden the scope of the article. --Morgandawn 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
See my email regarding the above removed link.--Melodyclark 06:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Melody, I sent the email up to the Fanlore Wiki committee since I am not in a position to address the questions you raised.--Morgandawn 00:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This link isn't just general information. In fact, Cathy (who runs the thing) didn't even know the page existed on her server any longer. This all has a "personal attack" feeling to it that is really perplexing. I have no enemies in fandom. I'm hardly controversial. I have some jealous trolls who bother me, but who doesn't who has been online as long as I have? I left the macca-l situation with good feelings to and from all parties. It also was 15 frigging years ago. What on earth could that kind of personal information serve to do other than feed nasty, mean-spirited gossip to snickering trolls with some weird personal vendetta? This ALL has malice aforethought written all over it. I don't want to be a bitch. I don't want to be some bipolar wacko (although I'm bipolar, as the link goes onto reveal), but I will protect my own name legally.Melodyclark 04:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I should also add that my "contribution" to the McCartney mailing list was that I ran and owned it. --Melodyclark 05:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm logging onto add that, after talking things over with my husband, I'm just letting this matter ride. This will be my last visit to this site. I want to be out of fandom, including contact with this kind of negativity. Whomever it is that's doing this has more problems than I do. And that's saying something. If the trolls involved needs to make a giant out of a windmill, by all means do so. I'm sick of dealing with this -- for over a year now. Most of you guys are good people. Hi to Doro and others who've been very fair to me. I know you're doing what you see as a service to fandom. Good for you. The person tilting at me, well, they can stuff it. lol So long.--Melodyclark 09:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pen Names

I was going to let all this go, but since when do we out people's pen names? I couldn't believe that -- and if you're going to out them, get them right.

I write under my own name and nothing else. I just published a menage vampire romance with m/m sex in it. I put my own name on everything.

Incidentally, I forgot to sign the above --

--Melodyclark 02:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't out you. I just followed your link here. ADDED: If that's not how the fiction page is set up, then I apologize. --Mrs. Potato Head 02:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Mrs PotatoHead, if you did it, then I have no problem. You've been very fair before.
No, that is just how the page is set-up. The link was intended to say "the fan fiction I host." I also host Lyn and Annie's fan fic archive and a couple of others. I intend to link to those also.
Thanks for the update.
--Melodyclark 03:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Issue regarding Macca-L

I'd like to call your attention to a thread that was dug up by a friend of mine. In it, various participants clearly outline their wish to relate my "flounces" out of fandom. This is the purpose for the comments about Macca-L, etc -- someone has clearly researched my background (to the point of stalking) for no other reason than to cast me in a bad light. They also tried to pry into information regarding a professional situation that has nothing to do with fandom. This IS cyberstalking, and it's a crime.

I've sensed there was a definite negative edge to the comments about me. As Morgan has said many times, "it's open season on big name fans." I had to leave fandom entirely because of the attitudes of other writers. I have several friends who've had to do similarly. Jealous, nasty people have a problem with me for whatever reason, and it comes to this.

Fanlore is being used to carry out these individuals' vendetta against me. They ARE stalkers, and they're using you as a reporting center. Here is their thread - as you can tell, their attitude is decidedly partisan.

These people do not know the circumstances of anything they're talking about.

http://ithiliana.livejournal.com/1212333.html?thread=1#t10261421

This is the reason the Macca-L issue was brought up, along with other matters.

I've started an anti-fanhistory LJ for others having problems with fan history sites. To think I used to be in favor of them.

Three LJ posts of mine related to the situation.

http://melodyclark.livejournal.com/415851.html

http://melodyclark.livejournal.com/416157.html

http://melodyclark.livejournal.com/414975.html

This is crossing over into my professional life now. It's harassment and it IS going to stop.

Melody, the thread you link to is from January 2010. I'm sorry people made fun of you on the internet nearly two years ago, but the two people commenting there don't seem to have edited this page, certainly not recently - in fact as far as I can tell, no-one has made any signficant edits to the page for months. This page as it stands now is not negative. It is not gossipy. It is balanced to the point of being extremely bland. It contains nothing except a brief overview of your time in fandom, a list of zines, and a brief explanation of the controversy that caused you to leave fandom, fully half of which is a direct quote from you. . --MegR 15:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
[Content Redacted]
[Content Redacted]
Melody, I regret that it has come to this. You are creating a climate of fear in order to silence other opinions and discourage people from editing. This is in direct violation of our PPOV policy. After numerous warnings, numerous talks, and far too many edits later, we, The Wiki Committee, have decided that in light of your persistent spamming of links that have nothing to do with your contribution to fandom, such as it is, and your hostile intent towards Fanlore and this page in particular, it is best if we revoke your privileges as a user of this site, and protect this page indefinitely.
Your links to the various 'issues' you speak of will be removed, as will your hostile reaction to another fan's understanding of the page. You may get in contact with the wiki committee at [email protected], though this decision is non-negotiable.
- Amy [The Wiki Committee]

Content to add if this page ever becomes unlocked

Something that can be added to Melody's page someday: Melody Clark, along with Beth Klapper, was co-director of Grayson's Official Fan Club. (Dark Shadows). --Mrs. Potato Head 15:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also this 2005 statement: "All of my print fanzines are now officially public domain where print publishing is concerned. Anyone with a first-generation master may print publish them. This master has to come directly from me, so that known zine pirates won't be spreading crappy copies. However, I do not profit from fan fiction in any way and I never have. I believe absolutely in the non-profit spirit of fandom. I will not okay anyone from a zine-for-profit enterprise. My zines sell about .25 copies a year, so it's no loss to anyone, but I need to do what makes me feel comfortable. I want to thank Mysti Frank, Judith Proctor and Kathy Resch for publishing my stuff for many years. They've always been aboveboard and honest to and with me. This decision is irreversible." FYI About my fanzines, December 4, 2011 --MPH (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

May I add the two things above to the Melody C page? --MPH (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

May I add this to the page? http://melodyclark.livejournal.com/167334.html?thread=596646, a post where Melody talks about her fiction writing? --MPH (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add this to Melody's page: a dumb thing, a fun thing and a dangerous thing, post by Melody C, December 27, 2008 --MPH (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Some Archived Links

archived June 6, 2016 --MPH (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to have this page unlocked

If folks pay extra attention to the edits, can we have this page unlocked? --MPH (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

how I edited the now-unlocked page

  • a direct link to the Dark Shadows fan club page
  • some minor grammatical corrections, light editing of language, some wikilinks
  • three quotes by Melody regarding her own writing
  • Melody's disclaimer about the availability of her fiction
  • clarification of dates regarding MACCA-L

--MPH (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked and leaving this article

I've edited the page by adding new links to some of your profiles and websites -- which don't seem to be available anymore --, correcting references and footnotes, as well as making the page look as clear as possible for the readers. But it scares me, shocks and worries the entire editing history of the main page and page talk.

Because of this I already make it clear if Melody appears with any complaint that I linked only links that were already in your Fanlore page.

I've noticed that this page can lead to outbursts of concern from editors so I'll be refraining from editing it and moving on to other edits on the site -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melody_C.&oldid=2383928"