Marlena talks about Carolyn Hinsey. This is a MUST READ.

[Sylph]

[baller]

Not surprised buy this at all, I've seen (and experienced first had) "soap journalists" do this for years, and rather rude.

I give Connie props for putting her name with it. I may not agree with what she is saying (the love of Mimi Torchin, who in my experience is no better or worse than Carolyn) but she put her name by it and I know she'll stand her telling of the experience.

[truefan]

Connie I applaud you for standing up for yourself.

[MarkH]

Ah, but the walls are crumbling. The line between fans, production people (certain currently unaffiliated writers), and soap press/bloggers is highly porous.

I wonder, in the long run, if this is a good thing. For example, in this thread, Ms. Delacroix's self-defense will undeniably have a chilling effect on open criticism in this forum. Maybe that is a good thing (i.e., people have to be more mindful of what they write)...or maybe that some how "de-democratizes" this open forum. I don't know...but it is just a new world for all of us here, that we're learning to negotiate.

[R Sinclair]

This "jinx" person expressed their opinion -- no matter how tacky it might have been, and Connie stood up for herself. That's kind of an every day thing around these parts -- no? I mean, are we supposed to change all because of someone with a "name" in the industry posts here once in a blue moon?

Just asking.

[Toups]

Great column, Marlena!

SOW was such an amazing magazine under Mimi Torchin and I always enjoyed your "Critical Condition" columns. SOW went downhill once Carolyn Hinsey took over.

[MarkH]

Well, I think it just involves a paradigm shift.

This board is very good (partly due to strong rules), but the internet is replete with fans -- um -- not being so charitable about cast and crew.

This is often done because there is an assumption that the persons being critiqued are not reading.

If Amanda Beall were on SON, would you be so direct about her? Maybe you would...'cause you strike me as a direct type .

But many would alter their posting behavior...if for no other reason, the charity of trying to spare Ms. Beall's feelings.

I have NO PROBLEM with Ms. Passalacqua (sp?) posting here...I welcome it, and I have read her with pleasure for a long time. When she first started reappearing at that other site (forgot the name now), I instantly sent her a fan letter. I doubt I have missed a column since.

It seems to me, though, that this will alter the way in which Ms. P is talked about.

On another soap board, Nelson Branco posts regularly. And it is my observation that there is much less critical rhetoric about him than I have seen at most soap boards. He has been welcomed as a member of that community, and that correspondingly alters the way in which people talk about him as a member of the industry. That is not good or bad...it just happens.

So, the one difference in what happened here is that Ms. P wasn't such a regular poster here. So, just flying in like that created a sense of a more stealthy lurkdom...which again, alters poster behavior.

[Sylph]

I think in one thread some time ago she didn't express "love" for Mimi Torchin.

Now she adores her...

I probably misunderstood...

[Cat]

I'm so sleepy that I clicked on this thread expecting an exclusive interview with Deidre Hall!

[brimike]

I'm really of two minds about this. Part of me does wonder along with Mark what effect (if any) insiders posting under their real names would have. The example about Nelson-at-another-board is a PERFECT example of where people alter what they say based on the regularity of someone posting.

But at the same time, you have to know (if you're in the biz) that once you're publicly known, there are people who won't agree with you, will think the least of you, assume the worst in everything you write, and won't like you in the slightest, for whatever reason. I don't know if there's ANYBODY who's one hundred percent liked on the Internet, ESPECIALLY people involved in soaps, whom some fans really paint into black or white circles (and no, I'm not talking about race here).

So part of me really appreciates those-in-the-know posting, but I definitely think if they do, they need to be prepared that some people are going to say really awful things about them. And they can't take it personally. I mean, if they can deal with editors and network notes, why can't they deal with a measly fan saying they don't like them or don't agree with them?

I'm really torn on this one. I can definitely see both sides.

[baller]

add me to that train...

Mark, I think you're right--both on the attitude towards "insiders" when someone does post on a board, and to remember what can and will be said about your work. IMO I think the fact that a lot of soap journalists are bigger fans is a hindrance, because it colors what you are saying...

[jinx_avery]

I truly hope that no other posters would couch their opinions simply because the Professor took umbrage to what this Thinking Fan thought. To my mind, there's something very disingenuous about someone who is constantly patting themselves on the back for creating the field of soap criticism to have such a vehement reaction towards getting a little of their own.

I stand behind my opinion that some Hedda Hopper wannabes grinding their axes against some Louella Parson wannabe, who may or may not have stolen their lunch or looked at them crosseyed in the SOW copy room a decade ago, does anything to enhance their reputations. I also feel the "TRUTH" is a mighty small shield to hide behind, considering the puff pieces and network approved innuendo which passed for journalism before, during and, most likely, after the Digest Dames. It's the nature of the beast, and the cynic in me believes that they all have a vested interest in not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

That said, this squabble isn't much more than a footnote in the history of soaps or journalism and no different than the petty office politics that takes place in thousands of workplaces everyday. It's just that soaps attract fans of drama, and they find it, or invent it, where they can.

[Sylph]

OK,

1. jinx's opinion is tacky?

2. Since when do you call Marlena Connie?

[Contessa Donatella]

Not the person you're asking but I call her both.

[miajere]

I think this whole issue stands to strip away another layer of the soap genre's escapism. The outings, the lack of "true" journalism is for the lingering soap fans to realize- the people in the industry don't even believe in what they are selling. The lingering soap fans aren't watching for the stories anymore- they are watching to get what they want, watch someone get fired, see who does a bad performance, a good performance, and who isn't getting what they deserve. Who's watching for the stories anymore?

And I loved the drama that took place recently- it was better than anything happening in the soaps. A modern day "Swimming with Sharks".