More Soap Opera Stuff

I am at the library--probably will be kicked out soon due to the computer room being almost full. Anyway, I "googled" Carolyn Hinsey's name just for the heck of it. A couple of references to her in this blog came up on the first page. That is scary and very unexpected. Either more people are reading this than I thought or this blog has way too many references to Carolyn Hinsey. I fear the latter is true.

Anyway, I found a reference to Hinsey's attitude about rape here. It appears that other soap fans think Hinsey needs to get a clue on the subject. Snark's comments are, well, a little snarky for my taste, but he makes some good points. I don't much like the purple background with the black print on the website. It is very difficult for Miss Myopic to read. But I think Snark--don't know what else to call him--would be a great person to start that soap opera 'zine I've been dreaming of. If only.

Suite 101 has a new soap critic. At least the person is new to me. P.K. Waddle was the last critic I was aware of at the site. The new critic is named Sarah Lee, I believe. Of course, that could be an internet persona, given its association with cheesecake and other processed delectables. Anyway, she has written some very interesting soap opera criticism and appears to be a more than worthy successor to Waddle. Check out her stuff here.

I was particularly impressed with her article regarding soaps being so much flash with little substance and little suspense. Not only do soaps reveal way too much to the mags, thus removing most suspense. But they also play storylines for exploitation with little follow-through. (I've a feeling I am mixing in stuff from more than one of her articles, but this will eventually make sense.) She used Bianca's rape on All My Children as an example of a story that started out good then went south when it was exploited to the nth degree by making Bianca pregnant, having her flirt with abortion, not using the term "abortion," then having her not do it. I am not really in favor of abortion, but to not even allow the show to use the term is ridiculous, no matter where one stands on the issue. What was the point of the rape? Was this really a dramatic story that would explore the relationships of Erica, Bianca, and Kendall? Or was it a way to exploit Bianca's sexual orientation and tease the audience with the suggestion of abortion?

I don't watch AMC, so cannot really comment on the story. But exploiting rape for plot purposes seems to be rampant on soaps these days. As The World Turns is at least as guilty as AMC. The Jessica/Marshall rape storyline started out with a bang. Then the show wimped out by having a mistrial instead of playing out the trickiness of the situation. Would a jury really buy Jessica's story? All rape trials are tricky, and this one would have been especially so, given that Jessica and Marshall had been lovers--however briefly. The audience never got the chance to find what the jury would decide. Then Marshall was inexplicably cleared of all his crimes. Now, Jessica appears to be having a delayed reaction to the rape and mistrial. She wants Marshall to be tried again because Bonnie is spending too much time with him. Huh? I can understand her not wanting to Bonnie to get close to Marshall. But Bonnie has been clear about her feelings toward Marshall--she cannot stand him. She is concerned only with Sarah's welfare. She didn't want Sarah anywhere near the man. Yet Jessica was the one who summoned up enough compassion to realize that Marshall deserved to know that his daughter was alive. So this return to anger toward Marshall seems a bit off. Her feelings are not unwarranted, but they are not consistent with her recent slightly softened attitude toward Marshall. Now Bonnie is being almost nice to Marshall. Is this changing of the mother's and daughter's feelings an interesting exploration of character or a mere plot device to hasten Marshall's exit from Oakdale?

I hate to say this, because I really do like ATWT. (It is the only soap I watch now that Port Charles is off the air.) But after taping the show for almost a year, I can see a glaring problem with the Goutman/Sheffer regime. Few of the stories have follow-through or resonance later. The whole Jack/Carly/Mike/Molly/Craig/Rosanna conundrum that dominated the show late last year and well into 2003 seems to have been forgotten. Carly and Jack are blissfully happy and barely seen. Mike has moved on to Katie and seems to care nary a bit about the goddaughter he had once thought was his biological child. Rosanna and Carly are the best of friends now. Craig and Rosanna's marriage is going to be blown apart again very soon, but that is only because he is lying to her (yet again, yawn) about the origins of their adopted baby, not because of the mess he made of things with Monte Carlo or his obsession with Carly. Molly is returning to her old ways a bit, mainly because she was the odd person out who didn't end up with the man she loved or with someone new. Now she's like a cat in heat around super stud Dusty. Sure, there has been the suggestion that she is still mourning Jake, but is that simply to justify her renewed interest in Dusty? Afterall, she didn't seem to be thinking too much about Jake during her romance with Mike. (Here's a really bad internet moniker for Dusty--Studly Do-Wrong.)

And what of the Dusty/Paul/Rose/Molly/Jennifer storyline? Rose was supposed to be so passionately in love with Dusty. He kept saying that Rose was the woman for him. Yet he had no problem kissing Jennifer and even sleeping with Molly. Rose was prepared to leave Dusty even before discovering him in flagrante delicto, because Paul decorated her beauty parlor and reminded her of how good they used to be together. Again, huh? Now she and Paul are about to run off to Paris so that they can live happily ever after. Of course that is not going to happen. But how did the show get there to begin with? Rose is now flighty and indecisive. I thought she was supposed to be a tough broad who knew what she wanted out of life and went after it. Would Rose really let Barbara run her out of town? Wouldn't she have her radar up about Paul? Wouldn't it occur to her that he might be setting her up? Sure, she had reason to dump Dusty. How about showing her fight for him? I'm not sure that he is worth it, but she could at least try. Dusty is a dog. But I thought that he was supposed to be changing. He was going to go legit, yet became involved with illegal gambling before he even got his "legitimate" business off the ground. Rose is the one for him unless Molly or Jennifer or some other hottie walks by. Couldn't he be a little contrite about sleeping with Molly? Could we have some consistency in this storyline, please?

And what about Paul and Rosanna's friendship? They did share some scenes recently, but their closeness has almost disappeared now that Paul has decided he is in love with Rose. I really liked Roger Howarth's interplay with both Cady McClain and Hunt Block. I'd like to see Paul around to help Rosanna when she discovers Craig's latest scam.

The serial killer story was pretty good. However, once again there was little follow-through. Rick Decker is off the show. Susan and Emily have been missing along with Bob and Kim. Bob's TIA's have disappeared along with him. The murder mystery, such as it was, was a nice summer story with almost no trace of it to be found now that the leaves are falling from the trees.

ATWT has exciting, dramatic episodes on a daily basis. The dialogue is superb. It is the show that won the Outstanding Drama category at this year's Daytime Emmys. But it is hollow at its core. It is being written as if it were a TV movie or mini series. That story is over. Time to move on to a new one. We'll keep the same characters, but have them change to suit the plot of the next big story. Dare I say that the emperor has no clothes? Well, maybe he is half-naked.