Look, I stand up for some hated writers, like McTavish. But I do think McTavish for all her nightmarish stuff has done some brilliant soap. I have seen less of that from RC, though I think he's done some very *watchable* soap (and in the last five years that's rated fairly highly compared to most soaps.) But I think he deserves to be on a worst list as much as "McTrash"--so it does irk me when you read people like Nellie, at least back in the day, call Carlivati the new marland and then in the same article go on about how awful she is.

McTavish had good structure and good form. While her stories and characterizations were extremely polarizing (and arguably uber dark during her last stint) and I personally resented certain techniques she used (like being told who to root for and who to hate, or being told that something big and important is happening, rather than being allowed to come to my own conclusions), there was still structure and form to her storytelling. As it should've been. She came up during the days of the old guard and any writer worth their pen should've taken notes from the likes of Nixon.

Carlivati, on the other hand, lacks any structure and form. He writes something and then gets bored with it. Then picks it back up when the new toy he's playing with suddenly gets boring as well. He ignores character beats because it gets in the way of the plot.

The point you made R Sinclair about the structure and form of McTavish makes sense. For the most part, even if I couldn't take her plots and felt the characterizations would be awful, the plots did have a logical flow.

Carlivati is better at character beats compared to some others (see certain later P&G headwriters), but the pacing is awful.

This board being objective towards Cartini is akin to calling Channing Tatum the Gene Kelly of this generation.

This board being objective towards Cartini is akin to calling Channing Tatum the Gene Kelly of this generation.

Compared to other boards and sites, bar TWOP, I'd say it's objective. Michael Fairman, Serial Drama, Daytime Confidential, etc. give me the impression they would bathe his feet in their tears of gratitude.

For the most part, I still like Cartini because they do use history extremely well compared to other writers; they utilize the vets, and somewhat listen to fan feedback; however, I do roll eyes at some of the material they put out there. I enjoyed them on OLTL and currently enjoying their work on GH, but (again) I do get frustrated with some of the mess they put out. For instance:

- Creating newbies that they shove down our throats (i.e. The Fords & Ugly Betty 2.0) & the having the town prop them up constantly

- D.I.D stories. I feel like they don't do mental illness stories justice at all. Connie/Kate & Jess/Tess/Wes/Mess were garbage. Those stories leave a sour taste in my mouth and typically want the character to leave and never be heard from again (thank gosh that's happening on OLTL 2.0, no Jess)

- Paternity stories. I know this is a soap staple and it typically does not bother me, but Cartini wears this trope out. Hated it the MANY times they did it on One Life. Hate it with the Maxie mess going on now on GH.

- Amnesia stories. If this Lulu story pans out to be stupid like Gigi's was, and ER's Lulu turns out to be a pawn, I'll be too through.

See Brandon...

I don't agree that the 2 headed hack uses history well at all. Bringing in vets and using them as smoke screens [with well-timed flashbacks] is not the same as good use of history. There is not one return to rave about. The vets "stories" are drive by at best while we get every beat of Todd, Starr, John and Connie's "stories". Their stuff goes on for months, and in Connie's case, 18 months.

I'm simply not fooled, and yeah, I'm a proud Cartini "hater! I loathe them in this profession!

See Brandon...

I don't agree that the 2 headed hack uses history well at all. Bringing in vets and using them as smoke screens [with well-timed flashbacks] is not the same as good use of history. There is not one return to rave about. The vets "stories" are drive by at best while we get every beat of Todd, Starr, John and Connie's "stories". Their stuff goes on for months, and in Connie's case, 18 months.

I'm simply not fooled, and yeah, I'm a proud Cartini "hater! I loathe them in this profession!

You don't? I think they're fine. Not perfect but fine with history, which is something I could not say for Passanatate/Goutman, Wheeler/Kreizman, MAB/whomever is producing, Higley/and whomever is brave enough to be paired with her. . . I realize that the vets are going to cost more so their time onscreen is going to be lessened, but I do think that they showcase them well. I think they did that on both OLTL & GH.

I think my main issue with their stories is that they beat the hell out of them (and us) for so long--in a way they're trying to be masterful like Bill Bell was but can't b/c we all know Bill could churn out a story that could last for 3 years and we'd love every single second of it.

McTavish had good structure and good form. While her stories and characterizations were extremely polarizing (and arguably uber dark during her last stint) and I personally resented certain techniques she used (like being told who to root for and who to hate, or being told that something big and important is happening, rather than being allowed to come to my own conclusions), there was still structure and form to her storytelling. As it should've been. She came up during the days of the old guard and any writer worth their pen should've taken notes from the likes of Nixon.

Carlivati, on the other hand, lacks any structure and form. He writes something and then gets bored with it. Then picks it back up when the new toy he's playing with suddenly gets boring as well. He ignores character beats because it gets in the way of the plot.

Well put! And I think that's my main gripe. Even RC's stories that I find just eye rolling--EVEN some I find offensive, I feel like I would be willing to cut them more slack if I could trust the story structure and pacing--but by now I simply know and expect I can't. It's a danger on a soap when you feel it's not worth your time getting invested, or even giving them the benefit and investing in something you don't really like because you simply know the story will really amount to nothing.

I think my main issue with their stories is that they beat the hell out of them (and us) for so long--in a way they're trying to be masterful like Bill Bell was but can't b/c we all know Bill could churn out a story that could last for 3 years and we'd love every single second of it.

The irony is I do think they do this--and they also DON'T do this, and the way they handle both drives me crazy. That may sound contradictary, but for every story that has NO forward plot momentum and goes on and on (I suppose Connie is the main current example of this) we have these stories that are dealt with in it seems a matter of weeks and then tied up quickly and forgotten. Maybe these are connected though--because their long term storylines tend to go NOWHERE for months and months and then in 3 episodes get tied up and forgotten.

The irony is I do think they do this--and they also DON'T do this, and the way they handle both drives me crazy. That may sound contradictary, but for every story that has NO forward plot momentum and goes on and on (I suppose Connie is the main current example of this) we have these stories that are dealt with in it seems a matter of weeks and then tied up quickly and forgotten. Maybe these are connected though--because their long term storylines tend to go NOWHERE for months and months and then in 3 episodes get tied up and forgotten.

I totally get what you're saying and agree.

This board being objective towards Cartini is akin to calling Channing Tatum the Gene Kelly of this generation.

Actually, he is. Gene Kelly couldn't act for [!@#$%^&*] either. (Lovely dancer, though!)

Any writer who doesn't remember a woman's dead child fails at history in my mind.

Actually, he is. Gene Kelly couldn't act for [!@#$%^&*] either. (Lovely dancer, though!)

Well and he knew that, hence the films he chose to make. To compare Tatum's dancing in Step Up and, ummm Magic Mike I guess (dancing?) to Gene Kelly--the mind boggles Anyway...

It does boggle, Eric. No doubt about that.

You don't? I think they're fine. Not perfect but fine with history, which is something I could not say for Passanatate/Goutman, Wheeler/Kreizman, MAB/whomever is producing, Higley/and whomever is brave enough to be paired with her. . . I realize that the vets are going to cost more so their time onscreen is going to be lessened, but I do think that they showcase them well. I think they did that on both OLTL & GH.

I think my main issue with their stories is that they beat the hell out of them (and us) for so long--in a way they're trying to be masterful like Bill Bell was but can't b/c we all know Bill could churn out a story that could last for 3 years and we'd love every single second of it.

Honestly, I think pitting Passanante up against Carlivati in regards to use of history and veterans is like comparing quality to quantity. Carlivati can give us a scene full of vets, but if all they're doing is hurling insults at each other and awkwardly (and, honestly, embarrassingly) bringing up random storylines from 1983, then I'd rather watch something else. Passanante (or Goutman, whoever was steering that ship) sucked balls at putting vets on-screen, but whenever they were on the show, they were used way more effectively and in a way more respectful-to-history way than anything Ronald did at OLTL. I imagine with Ronald at the pen for ATWT, we would have had Bob cheating on Kim with Susan again, Luke revealed to be Holden's biological son (leading to Damian declaring a cartoonish revenge plot), Nancy doing something completely ridiculous and out-of-character (not that JP was innocent of this...), a poor imitation of Tom and Margo's wedding, etc. Full of vets, but nothing I'd be interested in seeing.