In The Zone Radio: Season 2

[Sylph]

I think she's superrrrb too and as I said I hope Pratt brings her back.

Yes, this so makes sense... How come I didn't see it? Then again, that what I have you for.

[Y&RWorldTurner]

Sylph and I never mentioned that we thought less of her scriptwriting abilities after the interview, we just had problems with some of Patrick's reasoning. To say the un-abortion did its job by getting the ratings up and doing something that hasn't been done before is ludicrous, without taking into account how it forever impaired AMC's history and the original groundbreaking storyline.

I personally felt offended when she said soap fans don't look at soaps for medical facts or from a technological view (or something to that effect). Soaps are in part supposed to be a reflection of everyday life, and Agnes Nixon knew better than anyone that facts are important whenever you're telling a major storyline. I think by some expecting us to sit down, suspend all of our his belief, and watch these ridiculous plots happen on a show like AMC, which had a long history of being the most "human" soap on the air is degrading. Maybe Patrick didn't mean it in that way, but I didn't like how she defended the un-abortion by essentially saying people want to see ridiculous plotting.

And as Sylph and I mention, how do you defend and talk highly of McTavish, Pratt, and Guza, and forget about Lorraine Broderick and Wisner Washman to an extent? Three of those four Emmy's she has at home comes from Broderick's HW tenure. It left me shocked that someone could speak so highly of McTavish, Pratt, and Guza and basically forget all about Broderick and Washman (arguably Agnes Nixon's most senior proteges).

[brimike]

I totally agree on all of these points. I guess because I read your comments first, before I heard the interview, I wasn't surprised, and instead listened to see if I could hear "the words behind the words". Which isn't necessarily how I *SHOULD* have listened to it. I should have listened to the interview with no warning of what she said, and I'd probably feel the same way. Does that make sense?

(Probably not. I'm not making much sense at the moment. LOL!)

[brimike]

I'd probably feel the same AS YOU AND SYLPH, I should amend.

[Ryan]

Don't worry, when Michelle in on again in a few weeks, we'll address these issues (and I promise we'll have more questions).

Alvin, you can definitely send in more questions. I have to work out a date for her to come back on.

[Sylph]

And yes, I forgot: I completely agree that Ryan handled the interview very, very well.

[R Sinclair]

She never directly worked with Nixon, Broderick or Washam the way she did with McTavish, Pratt and Guza. She was a script writer under the NBW tenure, and was an associate head/breakdown writer working with McTavish, Pratt and Guza. She most likely had a closer professional relationship with the latter three than she did with the former three. Just like I am employee under my regional and district manager -- but I don't report directly to or have a close professional relationship with them as I do my store manager. They give directives to my store manager, the manager tells us, his direct employees, and we carry out the task. The higher up the ranks you go, the closer you are to the members of upper echelon. With Michelle Patrick, she wasn't in the story meetings and layout meetings and bouncing ideas off of Nixon, Broderick and Washam. The others were -- she just got the outline and wrote the script. With McTavish and GAP, she was in there, getting their ideas and seeing how they did things first hand, so of course she would bring them up as to what it is she learned from them.

Moving on...

I JUST HEARD THE INTERVIEW IN FULL -- OMG! I can NOT believe Michelle Patrick gave me a shout out! :wub:

I can skip to bed a happy, happy, happy wannabe writer!

Oh, and also be able to say I'm SO special, and the rest of you are cut glass!

Anyway, I'm so sorry I was held up last night and didn't come to the party until like 15 minutes before it ended. I totally would've called in just to converse and banter because the woman seems soooo affable and witty. Good news is that my schedules and priorities are changing so hopefully, if there is a next time, I'll be able to.

Now... gushing--> over.

On to the stuff talked about. First of all, I enjoyed listening to her speak. I felt as if I had pulled up a chair and was just listening to some tell a story. I was about to sit Indian style in front of my computer and drink chocolate milk. Awesome. Secondly, she covered a lot, in my opinion, just by her freely reminiscing and sharing her experiences. Third of all, it's a little too bad I hadn't been able to call in... The Magnificent Ambersons? Got that movie in my DVD collection. Janet dumping Natalie in the well? Been there, saw that unfold every day. It's how Dimitri and Wildwind was introduced, with him falling in love with "Natalia." But, yeah...

Anyway, I understood the Jonathan Lavery stuff. It made sense. I still think McTavish poorly executed the whole thing, but it's over. Jonathan's disappeared, Edmund's still dead -- nothing to be done about it.

Totally don't agree with the rationalization of the Un-Abortion. It was just... WRONG! No matter what spin, no matter how much I adore Michelle Patrick and her writing, no matter how much soap fans don't watch soaps in general for technological accuracy... in 1973, when Erica Kane had daytime's first legal abortion, it wasn't about technology... it wasn't about fantasy... it was about addressing a very important woman's issue head-on on a show that's been based before and after on being honest in their telling of contemporary social issues. I mean, that's like saying we find out almost 40 years later that Ruth wasn't protesting the Vietnam war. She was actually ahead of her time and received intergalactic radio waves while she was sleeping and actually was protesting the war between planet Zarnoff and the galaxy of Jabberwalkies that's going to happen in 2390. I mean, come on! No matter what, McTavish took a very real, very serious, very monumental story that's been deeply woven into this show's historic fabric... and made a mockery out of it with her "Let's pretend that something that wasn't even possible 30 years ago happened!"

[Sylph]

Funny how people see things differently... Must be the shout-out you got.

If she were my favourite write and were to say what she said, she wouldn't be my favourite anymore. No matter how good her scripts are.

[MarkH]

But how can that be? Why judge her on anything but her writing?

[Sylph]

And P. S. I am so proud that another writer I like is a member of the academia. Love it! I love my academia writers!

OK, I want to know your thoughts as a relative outsider to the world of AMC writers.

[MarkH]

Less than a relative outsider. I can't give AMC more than 5 minutes of attention, and yes I have tried.

My point, of course, was that ultimately we can only judge a writer-as-writer based on their output. So, for a script writer, the ultimate point of evaluation point has to be the script.

Patrick may have loved the totalitarian Soviet Union. She may have adored 'Dumb and Dumber'. She may believe in taxation without representation. None of these things have any bearing on her as a writer. So, too, she may be a Scientologist (which some here hate) or she may praise McTavish and the un-abortion story....but that doesn't make her any more or less of a writer.

So, when these interviews shape someone's thoughts about the writer, I wonder if they are really shaping impressions about the idealized person behind the writer. Which makes sense. If we like how someone writes, then in the absence of further information we may also think the person themselves might be someone we would like. Then, they open their mouths, and show us we were wrong .

[R Sinclair]

Naturally. I am just that easy.

Seriously, what the hell did she say that was so awful? You did this with the Thom Racina interview, too. That man had me cracking up and I enjoyed his interview, and yet, somehow, he rubbed you the wrong way, too.

Well, whatever the case, nothing she said changed my opinion about her work. She's still one of my favorite writers, I immensely enjoyed her work and looked forward to an episode she had a hand in... especially her scripts. If she comes back to AMC, I will still look forward to it. Nothing about her comments -- which I honestly don't see what was so wrong with them -- has changed that for me.

[brimike]

Yup. I get that impression from a lot of post-ers after they hear someone they've always looked up to in terms of seeing their names on the credits say one or two things they might not agree with. It's like the rose-colored glasses are shattered. And I'm not talking about solely here on SON, but on other boards as well.

Yeah, but that's just Sylph, God love him. I'd be stunned if he DIDN'T think less of a writer after hearing their personal thoughts and opinions. I think Bibel's the only one who's managed to get out of that unscathed. He's an opinionated guy, and sets really high standards. Nothing wrong with that. We may not agree with it all the time, but it's just who he is. If you fight it too much, it'll just leave you really frustrated, and won't be any skin off his back.

[Sylph]

Haven't I put a ? That should mean something. I was joking, you know?

Thom Racina is the guy partially responsible for death of daytime. And his Y&R scripts are full of history dishonouring. I have no problems with you liking him. He probably has, like, 2% of the blame. Certainly, hadn't he written the Ice Princess and the Freezing of the World, someone else would have... But that doesn't excuse him.

And if after all my posts and Y&RWorldTurner's you don't know what's wrong with some of her attitudes (note the emphasis on some) - then I cannot help you.

And, yes, after brimike's, who's like a ping-pong ball, jumping from one point of view to the other. Make up your mind already, brimike!!!

I so misunderstood this. That is, maybe I didn't, but I found it offensive. Opinionated and having an opinion that I am ready to change when someone convinces me are two very distinct things.

[brimike]

I make up my mind. But I do like to see all different angles of a situation before I do. Think about why I would say the same things if I were ever in that person's shoes. Wonder what personal grounds they have on top of professional grounds. I've seen way too many people get way too worked up over a silly joke to just assume I know exactly what someone means on first assumption.

Oh, please don't be offended. It was meant with no malice, and was no underhanded insult, I swear. I never thought of "opinionated" as being a bad thing, ever. You have very strong opinions. Every post I read of yours is very boldly stated. That's SO not a bad thing, at all. But it can come across as curt sometimes (c'mon, even you can't deny that. Other people have said the same thing to you before). But once I realized not to take every post you ever wrote disagreeing with me as a personal affront, I found a new appreciation for you, my friend.

I can be wishy-washy (the back-and-forth on MP is a prime example, and I agree with you). You can be blunt and a little elitist (You use of popular literary foreign phrases, for example). It's the individual fatal flaws of our Internet-posting pseudonyms. I wouldn't have it any other way.