Vee

Olivia Nuzzi, one of very few NYT writers presently defending the piece's publication, has a storied history some of you may not recall:

Meanwhile: 

Don't engage the troll.

The NYT is scum. And now, an article from the NYT.

Mattis is complicit too, but this is still remarkable.

The NYT still should never have printed it. Their eagerness to appease the right and crawl on their belly for conservative readers while still begging for "resistance warrior" status shines through regularly. They are scrambling to explain this article with their usual 'present both sides' crap, but it's not gonna work this time.

Laura does solid work with mostly dreck, but Sarah will always be the definitive Carly.

LW's best chemistry was with Sean Kanan and Ingo, and separating her from them is a blunder the character has never recovered from. LW created her own power base in the role paired with Jax; her Carly was evolved from Sarah's and gone full bougie but the grit and steel were still there, and she didn't need Sonny or Jason central in her life to have money or to flex. As bad as the stories got, when LW's Carly vowed vengeance on Lulu or Dante over some dumb shït you believed she could and would do it.

An entertaining thread.

I'm sorry but I died laughing when they kept the scene going as Victor limped over to the pencils, broke them and yelled again. It was fine til then but that was too much! 

4 minutes ago, KMan101 said:

Ron seemed to want to write for him in 2017/2018 but someone at the show doesn't seem to like Bryan/Lucas very much.

Gee, who could it be?!

Yep. When she married Victor, then he died. Viki and the town spent 20 years believing and later trying to prove Dorian killed him. When I started watching in '93 they were beginning that story and it blew my mind that it went back decades.

Viki and Dorian.

I talked about this privately and publicly a couple years back. I deeply hated the writing and really was infuriated by the deification of the character (and Natalie, who Dena Higley clearly hated, suffered as well in this era), but I always liked REG despite having major issues with Evangeline's development. And the fact is she was frontburner, and that was exceptional. And while things could and did turn around for a white lead like Natalie post-Higley, the fact is it would never happen for a woman who looked like Evangeline (or Layla) today on daytime, and that's crazy and unconscionable.

I'll repost some of what I said then:

Quote

Regardless of my feelings about the writing for Evangeline I always felt Renee Elise Goldsberry was a beautiful and talented woman poorly served by a badly written role, and I abhorred the racist attacks on REG. (Though I also didn't see all of them - I was not an active part of the Jolie fanbase, as I completely gave up on John in 2004 and grew to despise him; I wanted better for Natalie.)

 

What I didn't fully appreciate at that time with Evangeline - due to having naively taken for granted OLTL and ABC's then-slightly-better history with black characters up to that point in the mid-2000s - was just how revolutionary it was for a black female to be caught between several key leading men in frontburner story. I felt they could have better story and characters in those roles, but that isn't the takeaway today. The fact is a black female-led triangle is still a shocking image for American daytime, probably even more today sadly than in 2005. They didn't dare let Hillary on Y&R get between the white men; they killed her first. GH has next to no black canvas to speak of, and OLTL purged theirs a few years after unnecessarily killing Evangeline, which I always thought was a mistake.

 

For me what I take away from the ugly, awful fan wars over those men is more that shining moment in time - however badly written and characterized I felt it was. It was an accident of rewrites that made it happen, but it did happen. It has never come again on ABC or American network soaps, and it probably won't.

No, Donna, he absolutely did not.

Most of the "Biden hiding" stuff was loudly pushed back on on social media. The narrative did not play for the public and did not poll out. You can't automatically assume one will succeed whenever it appears. And outside of the occasional boneheaded NYT cover headline I am not seeing any of this supposedly hugely positive coverage for Trump. Politically, it's been a disaster.

I don't spend all my time in an echo chamber. I do see how stuff plays. But you can't simultaneously say social media won't matter vs. corporate narratives, while constantly worrying about what people are saying on relatively obscure pockets of social media. You can't do both.