Article: Daytime's Two Biggest Psychos Return

[R Sinclair]

Thank you for the serve, bellcurve.

I can't. I just... I can't. And I won't.

[Cheap21]

In context with when this article was written in 2003, her return to AMC was actually a good thing. I thought AMC was horrible before she came. I had to drop it bc it was so bad. When she returned in 2003, the show was on fire and had a good 2 years of pretty decent work. After the baby switch climax in 2005, it sort of fell apart and her quality of work went downhill

[Sindacco]

Corday should never have axed Cwikly/Brash.

[EastMA2]

I feel your pain. The Critical Condition column skewered actors and writers alike and now she is all high and mighty? Oh please.

[R Sinclair]

Not really. You just fell for her stunts. Her predictable, redundant stunts. Her tired, stale, overused stunts. Her contrived, dark, insulting, misogynistic stunts.

Not to mention her little diatribe didn't offer any reason why they shouldn't be viewed as psychos. Oh, wait. McTavish took the blood money she earned from ruining the shows she "wrote" for and has a big house in Connecticut.

[beebs]

Yea really, justifying bad, insulting, heartless writing with "oh but they have money now" is literally the most insulting excuse I've ever heard. It's so GREAT to know that people can make millions by ruining a woman's life work and dearest creation. Yea, that TOTALLY makes me see things McTavish's way now!

[Cheap21]

Her Cambias story in 2003 was better than the crap that was 2002

[RomeAt50]

I thought the stuff she did in her first year was pretty good. I think things starting going downhill mid way through the baby switch story.

[Adam]

She needed someplace to put all those hounds she breeds, or whatever they are.

[You're Soaking in it]

I take the "psycho" element of the article's headline as being tongue-in-cheek, and bait-and-switch (not in a bad way). It's intended as satire, so it being libelous, legally, might be a stretch. McTavish and Reilly would most likely fall under the "public figure" category, as well. But MarlenaDLC is entitled to her perception, because she probably has a different - and I would venture to say broader - perspective than you or I do. I think I've said before on this board that McTavish had a good reputation with the press, as far as how she treated them... but that she didn't necessarily win raves from her colleagues in the industry. I don't know if McTavish or Reilly was "friendly" with MarlenaDLC (she didn't say she was), but I do know that she rightly took them to task over their mistakes when she wrote Critical Condition in SPW, and that she didn't go easy on them, either.

By the way, someone posted here their objections to such critiques? The whole problem with the soap mags today is how watered down they've become... And honestly, people like Mimi Torchin and Marlena put their own jobs on the line (to the bitter end) to stand by journalistic integrity - so that their opinions and your opinions were not being controlled or dismissed by the soap PTB. Sometimes I feel as if the entirety of the soap press is vilified or treated as the enemy by some viewers. Most of the soap press, especially the "old-school" ones, really have passion for this medium. They're not your enemy, and if anything, there is actually a wealth of knowledge and perspective they can offer. We don't have to get confrontational or let things fall to the level of being a pissing match. We may not always agree with our opinions, but it would be weird if we always did.

I don't know enough about James E. Reilly, other than that I've heard he was a bit reclusive. I wasn't a big fan of his writing style. Anyone who has interacted with me here knows how strongly I feel about McTavish's style. I don't see her house, personally, as the definition of success. For her, it may be, and that's fine. I think that sort of success came with a lot of sacrifice (for viewers, I mean). I don't believe McTavish ever deliberately sets out to destroy anything; she really believes in her work, and I think if she adheres herself to the principles of whatever she writes for, she does very well. But what happened repeatedly is that she eventually loses sight of those principles and becomes "tunnel-visioned" into her own "bag of tricks" (gimmicks, plot devices) writing style. The reason she would lose sight is that she did have somewhat of an underlying arrogance about being "quintissential" as a soap writer, particularly with AMC... and she was overcompenstating some creative insecurity she had. What I mean is, I believe she genuinely wanted to be important to the fabric of the genre, and to AMC more than anything, but that deep down she knew that people like Wisner Washam and Lorraine Broderick are much closer to the vein of Agnes Nixon's AMC than she was... The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and yes, too often, she took us to Hell and back in Pine Valley.

I think the spirit of Marlena's comments is that McTavish and Reilly are real people, and don't deserve the characterization of being mentally unstable. I don't think they do, either. But I also don't think that's what the article's title really reflects. We can disagree on that, and I'm cool with it. From there, I'd actually be interested in hearing more of the perspectives of veteran journalists such as MarlenaDLC - even if I didn't always agree with them. We might be surprised at how much we can learn from them.

[R Sinclair]

But Cambias wasn't even her! From her material's first airdate on July 1 to Michael Cambias being found on the meathook on September 19, she did very little, if anything original with the character. He became Will Cortlandt: The Next Millenium. Complete with rape, smugly getting off the charges, going around town tormenting his victim and ending in murder with an entire town playing vigilante. It had been done... more than once... on more than one show... by McTavish.

I will, however, agree that the overall storytelling (from a strictly technical standpoint) improved. I've never discredited her for that. But the actual stories she was telling were gross and depressing.

[bellcurve]

That perception does NOT, however, entitle her to talk down to and belittle fans and other critics as though, "Oh you don't KNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW them. I do" or that their opinion is invalid. People, regardless of if they've ever met someone in person, are still entitled to their opinions as well. Almost every single post I've seen of hers where she contributes something had to do with some star/writer/producer she met that either a) was so warm, so nice, so whatever(for reasons she refuses to tell us, likely because of her "journalistic integrity" or someone she couldn't stand to save her life(likely because one of the stars who kissed her behind or vice-versa couldn't stand them i.e. Gottlieb).

With all due respect, that's not what I see here with Marlena. Maybe that's the way she used to be, but her posts on her blog lack the viewing experience necessary to execute what I believe are interesting points. She should only cover shows she watches on a regular basis or that she has an extensive knowledge of if she doesn't want to feel the heat. At least then, she can clearly and effectively state her points. And her posts on this board are completely and utterly devoid of objectivity or respect for fans, the exact same bill of goods she proceeds to sell under her pen name Marlena De La Croix.

But your opinion doesn't matter and it's slander to suggest that you do. After all, you don't KNOW them.

There are plenty of other people, in and out of daytime in the public eye, who don't deserve the characterizations people give them. Look at what happened this week, Farah Fath doesn't think she deserves to be called a bad actress for her inability to emote or a bitch for putting her middle finger out at the fans she aims to please. But there are primetime/film/music/mogul/political figures and celebrities who have much harsher critiques and don't have the convenience of an overprotective daytime press who will cover up all their TMZ-worthy indiscretions, flippant attitude to their fans, and their racist/homophobic/closed-minded comments(which has ALWAYS been the case, since the moment I started reading Digest in 1995). Where's the journalistic integrity in THAT?!

I get your point, YurSoakinginit, but I don't think these veteran soap journalists or any of these people in daytime respect soap fans and those who stick with it day in and day out with their shows. The condescending interviews these people give or conduct, the way these shows are written, it's like they're laughing at the audience. And instead of Marlena illustrating why she disagrees with us with clear, concise examples from interviews she's conducted, she proceeds to get on her throne and tell us all how we're bad and say that we should not call these writers "psychos" because they were poor kids who made tons of money.

Big flippin' deal!

[Cheap21]

the umbrella story with the murder investigation and trial was all her. I didnt catch the Cambias business stuff from before, only bits and pieces, but I was wround for all of the murder and I thought that was a good story

[You're Soaking in it]

I was only referring to what she posted here, Bellcurve. Honestly, I haven't ever come across anything else she has posted on SON. But I didn't necessarily think she was talking down to viewers in this case. You mentioned her blog as well, and please know I'm not considering what she posts on her blog, either... just what transpired here.

Well, I can tell you that at least at that point in time, Digest and Weekly were apples and oranges in terms of how they reported the news. Weekly was much more news-oriented. Digest actually took cues from Weekly, and tailored itself to be more like it - well, without sacrificing the fluff. Torchin's and Marlena's candor about the soaps actually caused a few of the EP's to play hardball against them. Eventually, Marlena's column went to someone who was far softer. I'm not sure if it was her choice to leave, or Primedia's. Mimi was most certainly forced out, and the magazine suffered bigtime because of the creative changes Primedia tried to impose on the remaining editorial staff (more fluff, reality shows being covered as "soaps"). I know exactly what you're saying about the media covering up the reality of actors' behaviors.

And understand that I'm not trying to single you out personally, Bellcurve, or say that what you or anyone said here is wrong. It's just that I have had the opportunity to learn from and work with some of the people we're talking about (though I do not know MarlenaDLC), and I know there are several who can offer invaluable insight. The other side of that coin is that there are also those who are butt-kissers to the stars, journalists who are trying to be "stars" themselves, ones who are covering soaps but totaly detest them, etc. ( I could go on with the list these of so-called journalists who irritate me)... It's just that THOSE sort of things have never, to my knowledge, really been part of Marlena's rep. I mean, honestly, I hope she'll come back and explain where she was coming from... and I really believe she does have insight that would be enlightening. I try to avoid laying it all out on the table, but I've learned an incredible amount from other people like her.

[soapfan770]

Who took over Marlena's column in SOW? Was it P.K. Waddle?