the-ghh-digest

The Story

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:20:00 +0100

As written by GHH member mom200608

One thing that’s been driven home for me by the amazing 50th anniversary episode this week, and probably all of the 50th hoopla, is that General Hospital is a show that has woven together 50 years’ worth of rich stories about fictional characters in a fictional town in Upstate New York. It’s not about whether Amber Tamblyn or Natalia Livingston was the Emily that returned from the afterlife in the anniversary episode, just like it’s not about who portrayed Edward over the years… or Carly… or Lucky… or Maxie… or yes, my Lante-loving friends, even who portrays Lulu. It’s about the amazing (and sometimes not so amazing I admit!) stories that blend them all together.

I’m enjoying all of it right now, but just like everyone, I have my favorites. While I’m looking forward to the Nurses’ Ball, I’m most excited at the moment about Luke and Laura’s confrontations with Helena (is she really dead?) and the Spencer/Cassadine curse revisit. I want to know what Helena did to Dante… and where she’s hiding Lulu (assuming she is). I want to see Dante rescue his wife and where the story goes from there. No, it doesn’t matter to me that said wife will have a different face. I love Julie Marie Berman and will miss her and wish her all the best, but I’m focused on the story, the Lante love story that I’ve always enjoyed so much, and I’m anxious to see more… babies, angst, whatever. I just love the story.

And I know other people are looking forward to different things… like the fallout with Sonny and Carly from the announcement about Brenda and Jax… or who ends up running ELQ… will Patrick ever find out that Robin is alive… and on and on. We all have our favorite characters and stories… and stories is what it’s all about.

Years ago when I was little I remember playing quietly by myself for a half hour every day so my mom could watch her ‘story,’ as she called it. As I got older and into the smart-alecky age, I’d say, “Mom, it’s not a story; it’s just a TV show.” She told me that a soap isn’t just a TV show. It really is a story about a lot of people and families in a town (whatever town… because she watched a different soap, and I don’t remember which one, but I know it wasn’t GH), and all about the ups and downs of their lives… lives that may be much more dramatic than yours and mine, yet ones that we spend a little time with every day to find out what's going on.

And those wise words of my mother a long time ago reminded me that that really is what this should be all about… the story. And thinking about that and traveling down memory lane with all the GH 50th anniversary publicity has made me realize that now more than ever. So I’m looking forward to all of the above and everything else.

It’s been a great 50 years, General Hospital… here’s to 50 more!!

History, Memory, and the Disappearing Woman: General Hospital’s Rape Problem

Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:52:55 +0100

As written by GHH member TVAcademic

I admit that, as a feminist soap opera viewer (okay, I only watch General Hospital), I balance a delicate paradox: I am often both within and without the narrative, appreciating the long-ranging story and its feminine applications/implications while at the same time balking at its often reactionary views of gender, class, and race/ethnicity. But I’m not particularly comfortable with binaries in general, so I live inside this paradox, comfortably vacillating — often multiple times in a single viewing — between a concentration on story structure, theoretical concerns, and raw entertainment.

In many years of watching this soap, I have witnessed a rape or two. A rape attempt or two. A rape threat or two. Rape is noted by most feminist scholars to be the most effective form of male hegemonic dominance: it penetrates a woman’s being physically and emotionally, and it creates a sense of fear and uncertainty. The reality of rape and its threat as a reality of women’s daily lives is further problemetized by the existence of rape narratives — fictions that often attend to the harsh realities of rape but that also can create and reinforce the myths that surround it. Soaps, a form that is viewed largely by women, are drawn to the rape narrative because it provides a forum for dramatizing the very real fear that women live with/experience first hand, but it is not nearly as clear why soap operas so ubiquitously participate in the perpetuation of rape myths.

First, let’s back up a bit. I am operating from a basic assumption: rape is unequivocally different from other forms of violence against women, even, often, murder. This is for two reasons: rape is an act of power and violence that is about survival as much as about victimization (rape and murder, when both are employed, are always mentioned as a pair and indicate not only wholesale violence against a woman but erasure of the witness); rape is about naming and proving a particular reality in a world where men’s voices are — still today — louder than women’s. Rape on General Hospital deals with these two issues explicitly.

I’m not going to go back and discuss the characters Luke and Laura and redemptive rape and all of that except to say that, in addition to a few contemporary rapists and accused rapists running around, General Hospital currently provides cover to two redeemed rapists: Luke and Todd Manning (previously of One Life to Live). I really like both of these characters, but they serve as a reminder of where rape myths can become excruciatingly problematic: both of these men are not merely forgiven for their rapes, but they are reminded semi-regularly that those crimes were committed by “a different man” — that they have, over time, somehow let go of their crimes through their other actions, and that, despite their persistently murky ethics, their brand of bad is no longer “rape” bad — it’s coded as rakish, not predatorial. While this is not insignificant, these are also characters whose redemption occurred during a different historical moment. Part of the awesome/horrible reality of soap stories that take place over the span of decades is that the storytellers have to live with the choices of their predecessors and find ways to ameliorate the impact of more troubling messages from earlier moments of cultural and social understanding (though, admittedly, both of these redemptive rapes stories were lambasted by feminist media scholars when they aired).

I am interested, instead, in the implied or presumed rapes of the characters Sam and, in particular, Kate. Their experiences are wrapped in unknowing, which ties both women to a lengthy history of rape: the role of memory and rapist identification in the overall conversation of rape. To be sure, there are many women who cannot properly identify their rapists, who may take care to conceal themselves. But the problem of “accurate memory” is more about questioning both the victim’s ability to know what she experienced and her motives for knowing what she knows, and there is a long history of questioning the victim around this meme: how can you be sure you were raped if you do not remember it? Or, even more insidiously, how can we (the Royal We) be sure you were raped when your judgement is somehow subject to question? Kahlor and Eastin (2011) provide concise insight into the perpetuated myths about rape: “Rape myths refer to false but persistent beliefs and stereotypes regarding forced sexual intercourse and the victims and perpetrators of such acts. Rape myths suggest women fabricate rape when they regret consensual sex after the fact, and that women who claim rape are promiscuous, have bad reputations, and dress provocatively.” Because of these long-embedded beliefs, the perpetuation of rape myths on soap operas carry additional weight.

Secondly, I am also very interested in the fan reaction to these rape narratives. In particular, I drawn to (and somewhat astounded by) the role of the viewer in the re-imagining of the rape narrative and the cultivation of the rape myth. And I do not wish to tip-toe around this: I do believe that, with the problematic “maybe” rapes of both Sam and Kate and the fan response to both the women and their rapists, we, as a participatory group, are perpetuating rape myths about women’s lack of objective agency, problematic memory, and the re-victimization of women through their de-victimization. I find this to be particularly troubling not because rape stories shouldn’t be told — they should — but because the way they are told carries on a narrative history that is as much about the language of male hegemony and the subjectification of women as it is about mere storytelling in the traditional sense. While I am a huge fan of complex stories in which paradoxes are explored and binaries break down (see re: I like soap operas), I do not see the “did it or didn’t it happen” exploration of rape as one of these gray areas. In fact, such stories are part of a very black and white history, one that persistently and continuously devalues women’s agency by questioning the validity of both their memory and their (sexualized) bodies-as-victimizable.

In short, these stories participate in a sort of re-raping of the woman, attacking her both mentally and physically; however, this narrative re-rape is far more insidious for its pretense of being mere character exploration. Perhaps it could be that in isolation; however, hundreds of years of rape myth history make such stories impossible, even irresponsible to tell because they participate in an historical blindness that presumes gender relations, rape narratives, and patriarchal hegemonies exist in some sort of narrative vacuum, and that each story can somehow be created anew. It can’t.

Sam and the problem of the asympathetic victim

Sam’s rape problem is unique because the question is not who she was raped by — it’s whether she was raped by him. There is no argument over whether or not Franco was/is (dead?) a complete psychopath. That much is known. What remains murky is the question of whether he raped her at all, as the entire act/performance sustained a mind game Franco had been playing with Jason. There are two layers of rape mythologizing going on here: one is that Sam was unconscious for the event (a mere receptacle), leading to the invariable question of whether it actually happened; the second is the implication that the rape of Sam was not an act of violence against Sam at all — she was merely the object, but Jason was the real victim, given that Franco’s game pre- and post-dates the rape/non-rape event.

This trope doubly strips Sam of her agency — she can neither rely on memory nor be the sole recipient of the act that was presumably committed against her. She and Jason are portrayed as equal victims, when Sam’s victimization is portrayed at all. [Watch the “rape” scene here. Who is the victim in these scenes? Who suffers?]. Taking cues from decades of soap opera rape myths, Sam’s past plays at least some role in her rape narrative. She’s never been prudish about her sexuality or sexual desires. Sam’s history (created as backstory at some point, and it’s not really clear why) is familiar: she married men for their money and then robbed them blind. Her past actions complicate her victimhood in startling ways, adding to the problematic trope of the women who are raped who, on some level, have put themselves in the position to be raped, consciously or subconsciously.

This is truly one of the most insidious forms of rape myth, and it is further problemetized by the trope that often follows: rape as a positive experience that “transforms an evil woman into a sympathetic one” (Dutta, 1999). Now, certainly Sam is not and has never been portrayed (at least consistently) as wholly evil or wholly good, and, of course, there seems to be no real indication in the narrative that her presumed rape will somehow change her in some profound way; however, it is interesting to note that, while Sam was once narratively deemed unready for motherhood, she now seems “prepared.” Not only is she prepared (because she will one day learn that her baby is alive and that Jason, not Franco, is the father), but she has somehow earned this role.

The fact remains that it is unclear whether Sam was raped, whether she can trust the holes that were filled in by Jason’s eyes and the implications of what he did not see. This lack of empirical evidence has led to a certain amount of freedom in the attacks leveled against her by fans. Since her rape is not verifiable — in the parlance of our times, “legitimate” — she is fair fodder for judgment. A number of viewers on fan boards have questioned why she didn’t visit the hospital directly following the event, even implying that her not-knowing status was somehow her own fault — she could have had closure had she merely “followed the rules.” What’s more, posters argue that she would have handled being raped “better” had she visited a therapist — again, had she followed the rules. This implies two equally problematic things: 1) there is an appropriate and inappropriate way of responding to being raped; and 2) Sam’s lifestyle as one who tends not to follow rules in general has somehow led to her current circumstances. Interestingly, Tamborini, et. al (2010), in their study of the way that consistent soap viewing has strong implications for the way an individual perceives morality vis-a-vis social convention, quote Zillmann’s (2000) study: “Zillmann states that viewers act as untiring moral monitors whose dispositions towards characters are influenced by the perceptions of the morality of character actions. In other words, the extent to which a character is judged as being virtuous or wicked will influence the perceptions of their subsequent behaviors as being moral and immoral, respectively.” Regardless of whether I agree with this sort of effects-style behavioral research (I generally do not), it is interesting that, in Sam’s case, some viewers use her past behavior as a basis for judgment of her supposed rape; furthermore, the fact that whether or not she was raped remains in question seems to embolden this response: it’s her own fault that she does not have that answer.

All of this results in one strange pattern: Sam’s rape is consistently subordinated by her pregnancy, her baby’s supposed death, and Jason’s handling of his newfound brother’s behavior (Franco and Jason are twins! This is not merely silly — the implications are not always well-executed, but the twist, at its best, works to draw attention to Jason’s role as mobster hit man and creates gray area around a single question: did a brain-damaging accident make Jason who he is, or is he simply who he is?). The fact that Sam was raped at all — or that, at the very least, she believes she was and therefore experiences the emotional trauma related to having been raped — is often relegated to a small piece of a larger pie with which she has less and less to do. The entire event of her rape has been subsumed by Jason, their male child, and the drama surrounding his birth; her agency both as a woman autonomous of her child and as a woman who has been traumatized by rape is stripped via the prioritization of matters that are implied to be more significant. The myth of Sam’s rape is in whether it occurred at all and whether her memory — or lack of memory — is reliable. Because it is not, she is not allowed agency, and her rape merely becomes an plot point in someone else’s tale.

Kate/Connie and the problem of ethnicity, memory, and mythologizing the tale

Kate’s rape story — or supposed rape, as it seems to be up for question in the minds of many viewers — has a number of possible outcomes, and only one of them seems capable of resisting a rape myth as part of its telling.

The one non-rape myth option is very simple: Kate was raped by Joe Scully Jr., as she remembers being, and he is held accountable for his crimes. Because let’s face it–the only viable outcomes for a proven rapist in 2012 are prison or death. I choose to believe (and I pray I’m right) that the days of the reformed rapist are behind us; the last three decades of feminist discussion of mainstream media seem to have brought this problematic trope into the light and burned it like a Vitamin D deprived vampire. This is the outcome I desire, clear justice that reinforces a few fundamental and salient points: women can trust their own memories and experiences; women who “cry rape” — knowingly or not — are an anomaly in the real world and should be anathema in popular culture given problematic contemporary attitudes that illustrate people question the validity of rape far more often than it actually occurs. To feed this misconception is to simply pedal misogynist porn.

The alternative outcomes for this story have more insidious implications. There seem to be two alternatives to the Joe-raped-Kate scenario. One is that somehow she mis-remembers what happened to her and that Joe has been somehow incorrectly implicated. (Watch Kate’s visceral and violent memory of being raped around minute 4:40 — she knows absolutely that the assailant is Joe) The other is that Connie, Kate’s alter personality (she suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder), had sex with Joe willingly and Kate’s personality “appeared” during the event and believed she was being raped. A third possibility is that Kate has yet another personality, but, as the implications of this are pretty much the same as scenario two, I will let that lie.

Let’s remind ourselves what the most popular rape myths have historically been that women “fabricate rape when they regret consensual sex after the fact,” or “that women who claim rape are promiscuous, have bad reputations, and dress provocatively.” The first scenario fits squarely into the historical problem of women’s inability to rely on their own memories and perceptions and/or that women regret their actions after the fact (Kate became pregnant from her rape) and then consciously or subconsciously create a sort of rape fantasy. This version of the story would implicate the viewer as having an unreliable memory, as well, as we watched Kate relive the brutality of the event in her memory. Should her interpretation of the event somehow come into question, we will be asked not only to forget what she remembers but in fact what we saw. The second scenario is even more complex and requires some deeper investigation of Connie.

Since the appearance of Connie, I’ve felt that tugging on my internal paradox. On the one hand, the actor who plays Kate/Connie, Kelly Sullivan, has made a delicious meal of the Dissociative Identity Disorder story, which is a delightful soap staple, to be sure; however, Connie is immediately recognizable as fitting into a very popular and nefarious stereotype: that of the brash and base Ethnic (Italian, in this case), a woman who dresses in tacky and provocative clothes, cannot control her mouth, is over-sexualized, and manipulates men. This portrayal is in stark contrast to Kate, who is coded as “assimilated” in many ways: she dresses like a Junior Leaguer — pearls and appropriate necklines. She has an Ivy League education, speaks with the mark of the “educated,” in contrast to Connie’s Brooklyn accent.

Prior to the appearance of Connie, the alter, the insinuation was that Kate was the real Connie, the true identity of an Italian-American girl who wanted a bigger life in the world outside Bensonhurst. The appearance of Connie as an alter separates Kate and Connie into two distinct identities. Rather than being a girl-out-of water in her world, Kate’s previous self is revealed to have been profoundly different from her, and it draws into question who the real Kate/Connie is. The show certainly insinuates that Connie is the alter; however, revisionist observations from characters who knew “the real” Connie before she changed her name to Kate now reveal that she was brash and combative, if not promiscuous.

If “the alter” Connie is not ultimately the product of Kate’s rape as viewers have heretofore been led to believe, the über-sexualized Connie complicates the rape myth potential surrounding Kate’s story. While Kate remembers being raped, the possible outcome here, according to some fans, is that a pre-existing Connie slept with Joe willingly, and Kate was simply an unwilling passenger. This is doubly problematic because this story has already been done — Connie slept with Johnny and Kate was led to believe she had been raped. Playing this story a second time, particularly given that the union created a child and was traumatic enough for Kate to bury for over two decades, calls into question Kate’s overall understanding of reality. It fractions her into multiple parts — none is whole, none is reliable. She becomes mere object — she literally has no agency beyond her sexuality, and that is owned by Connie, who represents an insatiable sexual being — unleashed Italian Heat. The ethnic and misogynist implications here hardly need to be explored. Joe was not a character who even existed prior to the conjuring of Kate’s rape narrative, which begs the question of why he needs to exist at all unless he is a plot point on the way to developing Kate’s character (rather than the far worse option — that her rape narrative is a tool to bring him onto the canvas long-term and will be set aside once he is fully ensconced).

Because the truth is, and here’s the crux of it: viewers seem to like the actor who plays Joe, and so they imagine ways (ways I’m sure those behind the show have imagined, too) to keep him on their screens. But actors come and go on soaps; stories, characters, and their implications are forever. The tapestry woven by soap operas is so long and complex that stories drive experience over time. It wouldn’t matter if Joe was played by Brad Pitt. He has to go because this story simply has only one outcome that provides Kate with any level of agency. In a genre where women make up the bulk of viewers and one that has such incredible power to persuade and impact the way we as viewers experience narrative because of the longevity of both story and character, the rape narratives told on soaps need not reify untenable rape myths. There’s enough media out there doing that.

My comparison here is Robin’s long-running HIV story. Imagine if General Hospital had misrepresented the reality of HIV, perhaps magically “curing” Robin via, I don’t know, goats’ blood. In real world terms, this outcome likely is far closer in statistical probability to the story version that has a woman with DID consenting to sex as one identity but experiencing rape as the other than either story is to anything that would ever actually happen. Pure fantasy is fine, even fun, but the implications are certainly different when dealing with topics that already carry with them a good deal of misapprehensions and misunderstandings. While I do not think that soaps have a moral obligation to take overt stands on significant issues, I do think they have a unique opportunity not to perpetuate misinformation given the unfettered daily access they have to people’s experience. And telling the rape myth version of Kate’s narrative certainly would not make it more unique. In fact, it makes it more pathetically ordinary.

Closing Thoughts (or “Hey, girl, stop talking about rape”)

Rape myths carry real world implications. The political discussion over “legitimate rape” in the past few months is disheartening because it presumes that rape in itself can be categorized and re-categorized until it somehow becomes not-rape. Rape is not like murder. One could say the phrase “legitimate murder,” and the hearer may conjure a number of experiences in which some of us might find murder to be morally justifiable: in cases like the protection of a child or clear cases of self-defense, we see murder as not only legitimate but morally imperative. Rape is never so justified. There is no such thing as illegitimate rape. There is rape and not-rape, and that is it. By questioning a woman’s ability to know her own experiences, by robbing her of her agency, we de-legitimize rape as something that is a real, whole experience. We give power to rapists by providing them with the language of doubt, and we further ghettoize women based on their actions (promiscuity, ethical mutability, clothing choices) rather than blaming the perpetrator of the violent act. In short, we ally ourselves with the frightening idea that women have fewer and fewer ways to experience rape: if they do not follow the cultural codes and rules, they become mere objects, and we become less and less willing to allow them to experience the full range of emotions and experiences with which women who have been raped invariably struggle. We dictate what rape is and is not, and we allow myths to perpetuate rather than creating a wealth of rape narratives that help to anthologize, rather than mythologize, women’s experiences.

NOTE: This article was cross-posted, with permission, from the author's blog. Please visit it at Club Sauce!

YESTERDAY WAS THE DAY...APPARENTLY

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:41:43 +0100

As written by GHH member TVAcademic

So I gather yesterday was the day that ABC tossed aside decades of soap history and replaced it with a rag-tag crew of people talking about things that 20 other shows are already talking about. Of course, it's about the money, not the conversation, and ABC will save tons of it even if this foray into boredom is a relative failure.

But I hope it's a complete failure--the kind that makes the suits (mostly men) reevaluate their choices.

Soaps ain't Shakespeare. We all are well aware. Even at their best, they're not the best thing on TV (GH will never be Mad Men). But their narratives allow viewers and creators alike a unique opportunity to expand the reach of lived stories over time. Even The Simpsons can't compete with the longevity of a single soap. Perhaps most significantly, soap opera is a genre aimed specifically at women. There's been a load of discussion about whether this is a good or bad thing throughout the years; however, it is nonetheless the case. In a media landscape where women are treated as a second-class audience (we've discussed the realities of this before and do not need to rehash), soaps add a for-better-or-worse alternative to perpetually pandering to men.

Now, of course, we can go back and forth re: whether soaps are simply a ghetto for "women's stories" filtered through the male gaze--and I think that's a pretty valid argument. But we cannot dismiss that they play a significant role in the history of ecriture feminine...whatever that means. Furthermore, we cannot deny that the stories and families and truly valid discussions of topics like HIV/AIDS, sexuality (GH has lagged behind the likes of AMC on this front), and rape (GH bungled this one in the 70's but came back like a champ in the late 90's). What's more, these stories create a framework over time--a way to consider how these discussions change.

While a ripped-from-the-headlines episode of a show like Law and Order seems ridiculously outdated within six months of its original airdate, soap stories build over time, revisiting and re-imagining their own histories in order to change with the times. Characters and narratives evolve. Of course, an argument can be made that, where women's issues are concerned, soaps can be downright reactionary, but the discussion is happening in more or less real time. We can reject the soap approach to women--that aforementioned male gaze--but we cannot negate the movement of this discussion through time and space. Soaps provide a benchmark with which to measure progress, even if they lag behind in progressing.

I for one want to see General Hospital pull through this low period for soaps. I can't imagine its end. If and when the end does come, I think--on the balance--the media landscape for women viewers will be a less interesting place.

THE MAGIC OF MIX AND MATCH

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:22:05 +0100

As written by GHH Member TVAcademic

One change that [new headwriter] Garin Wolfe has made to GH (perhaps "change back" is more accurate) is a conscious effort to throw the characters into a different mix. Sometimes, this can merely yield a passing phase; other times, it's alchemy.

I'm not sure what came first--chicken or egg. Did GW plan to draw out a friendship between Matt and Elizabeth from a story standpoint, or did he throw them on screen together a few times and find that they had chemistry? Whatever the answer, I'm surprised to be enjoying this turn of events. And now, because of this mix-and-match of characters who were previously pent up like veal (imagine the Elizabeth of a year ago, standing around the nurses' desk, waiting for slaughter; or Matt, less visible than the Invisible Man) are now contributing a fun mix of both levity and depth. This expansion of the canvas also helps muddy the waters of our expectations: whereas we once assumed the inevitability of a Liz/Lucky reunion, we now may pause. Perhaps this Matt thing could derail that (not forever, I'm sure, but in the short term) and take these characters in new and unexpected directions.

And this is just one example of this trend--there are others--and I'm sure there are more to come. Complexity of character, as I've said before, is fundamental to weaving compelling stories, and at the core of finding complexity lies a willingness to play. I'm glad that GW is game.

WELCOME BACK, GH

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:50:30 +0100

As written by GHH member, genhos63

It has been a few weeks with a new head writer and I decided it was time to comment from an agenda-free point of view. I don't root for any couple in particular.

First, Alan Q looked fabulous, healthier and younger, Obviously, Stuart Damon has taken some time to concentrate on himself and his family, I wish he could come back full time.

I was thinking that one of the reasons couples have come and gone so quickly in the past few years was because stories were plot driven and things happened too fast. I remember Luke and Laura spent three or four months on the run chasing down the left handed boy and the consummation of their relationship took that long as well. I would like more romance between couples not necessarily sex scenes, although some skin is nice to see from time to time.

Right now we have Jason and Sam's wedding as well as Jason in the hospital and Kristina as well. This makes for a nice combination of characters, conversations and interactions in the hospital. We get to see Sam and her family, Molly and her sisters, Alexis and her daughters, Michael with Kristina and with Jason. It flows well and although I am not a big fan of JaSam, I can appreciate that they are heading for a long-awaited wedding. All this talk of Jason coming back as a different person makes me hope that a change will be coming in his future. The fantasies were very soapy to me and gave us insights we wouldn't otherwise have had.

Michael finding his place in Sonny's world and working at the warehouse is an interesting turn of events. Abby and Michael have some good moments, although I think they are better friends than lovers. Abby and Johnny have potential and their friendship is a nice touch it might go somewhere.tio

Anthony is great running around town and I like that Tracy has a story even with Luke out of town. As a long-time viewer I have often wondered about her ties to organized crime, and I am glad that we are seeing more about that. Anthony is good as a foil to Sonny's children and he does provoke reactions.

Skye's return this time has been well written even though Garin had to make her penniless again and negate the previous return, which was so poorly handled. Skye has interacted with Ethan, Johnny, Tracy and Edward so she is well connected and her story is moving other stories along.

Sonny losing his mind and not taking his meds is good only if we see some change in his life, Carly and Alexis have been good reacting to the events of Jax's disappearance. Maurice is a great actor but he can't keep going off the deep end and finding another love of his life, I am hoping that in a character driven environment we might begin to see Sonny take responsibility for his actions.

I know some think that things are going too slowly, and being a long time viewer I know soaps use to spend one week on one day pretty regularly then they would jump ahead, I don't have a problem with that. I like to see situations from different angles and enjoy the conversations that make us see the characters motivations.

So I know I have not addressed all of the characters or stories that are ongoing now. For example Matt and Liz and Maxie, and Dante and Lulu, good stuff, and Spinelli, terrific. We are seeing more people on GH and understanding them better. I think that couples will stay together if they are given something to do as couples. Robin and Patrick can be married and work at the hospital, there is plenty of conflict there for any couple. Egos and ambition create conflict.

This is too long, but I for one am enjoying GH looking forward to the next few months and expect great things in the new year. Welcome back GH, we've missed you.

THE TRUTH IS TIMELESS

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:42:05 +0100

"Soap operas... are folk tales that tug at the soul of a nation of strangers for whom television itself is a bond."
--Time Magazine, 1976

Read MORE.

DESIRE vs DNA

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:53:52 +0100

As written by GHH member, frosta

Brenda literally went from blowing out her birthday candles, knowing she'd wished for the impossible, to someone walking up and handing her that very impossible dream. As infuriating as the whole situation is she can't avoid her strong desire to embrace the impossible. It's the magic fix for a nightmare that has haunted her for years.

While, as a viewer, I want to absolutely scream at the idea of a DNA test not being done, if I try and "put myself in her shoes" I can see the more irrational and emotionally driven desire to hide from the truth. This is especially so when you start to look at Brenda's nature. It's already been stated that she "hides her head in the sand" in regard to the mob business, so it doesn't seem that surprising that she would want to in other situations.

I want the DNA test done because I want to know what's really going on (we've only been waiting 8 months!) so I'm sure I'm going to lose it when she unloads on Sonny for suggesting it, but I still get why such a fragile woman would want to cling to her fantasy, even if that means avoiding the the truth. (I am going to try to avoid the rant about how disturbing and depressing it is to me to describe Brenda as a "fragile woman.")

What's actually more mystifying to me than Brenda refusing the test is Sonny not going behind her back to get it done himself. Can't he just pull a hair from each of their hands and ship them off for comparison?? I know the story hasn't reached a point that would justify that, yet, but it seems like an obvious solution - at least until his theory is proven correct and he gets to not only tell her Lucian isn't hers but that he went behind her back to prove it. (Those would be some fun fireworks, lol!)

Perhaps that idea is more tied to me wanting to know who the kid really is rather than any kind of logic.

BOB GUZA. REALLY?

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 04:57:10 +0100

As written by GHH member, mariainnc

Re: This is written partly in response to the head writer's recent interview with TVGuide and his joint video interview with Steve Burton on the GHH News page, along with previous comments he has made.

I have a lot of feelings about Guza but sympathy isn't one of them. Nor do I think he writes for the fans. If he did Alan, Emily and Georgie would still be alive. Monica and Edward would grace our screens once again. The man is either delusional or a liar or maybe both. On one hand, he kills off the Quartermaines either by death or neglect. Then on the other, he makes insane comments about it being hard to write GH without the Q's. In his own words, “Every time we drift away from the family, even though we’ve diluted them a bit over the years, it just feels wrong. So we’re looking to build them up again.” That was when Robin Christopher was returning to her role as Skye and Maya (remember her) was introduced.. Great rebuild there Bob. Why was Skye brought back? I really don't remember.

Let's face it, if he's not writing for Sonny, Jason and Carly little Bobby gets bored. Yet he has reassured us that they don't glorify the mob. He believes his own delusions that we don't want to see the end of the mob...."I don't think people want to see that. By putting them in these situations, we have the highest stakes possible of life and death. They have to make incredibly-difficult moral choices all the time. What I will defend to my last breath is that we do not glorify it!". The head writer continues, "Sonny is the most haunted character on the show. Jason is turning into one of them. If they just merely shot people and weren't haunted by it, then yes, I think we would be open to the criticism. But they're not. It is never taken lightly. I guarantee you that."

Who's haunted Bob....Jason and Sonny?? Are you kidding me?...I don't think so. We may see 5 minutes of them bemoaning their life but nothing ever changes nor is there any growth achieved. While I don't mind the mob element in Port Charles, I don't want every major storyline to be about them. A little balance, more character interactions and less block taping would improve this show and keep the disgruntled fans happy. As far as Guza doing his best, I don't agree. His best stuff is in the past. I find that all the stories he touches turns into epic failures, Including the Jake/Joss storyline, which failed on so many levels. I'd like to see a new head writer at the helm of this show. I've been watching General Hospital since before Luke and Laura. I don't want to see it canceled. But I'm tired of having the focus of every story arc start and end with the mob. So I'll just hope for the best but expect the worst.

Just an observation: To those that hope that one day Jason Morgan may return to being Jason Quartermaine. Be careful what you wish for. If he's a Quartermaine again, old Bob may have to kill him off....just saying....

JAKE/JOSS: TOO RUSHED

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 05:20:12 +0100

As written by GHH member, lcarey20

I agree with everyone who feels that this storyline is rushed (because it is!). There just isn't the impact for us to be involved in Joss' illness. It looks like it's going to be over in a blink of an eye, her "cure" is there in the form of poor little Jake's kidney.

I thought Rebecca Herbst was phenomenal on Friday and today. She looked to me like a mother who was shattered and desperately trying to hold on to hope that her little boy was going to make it. A mother who was wracked with guilt although she did nothing wrong. Her face today broke my heart (I cried most of the show). She looked drained, exhausted, broken, lost and just unspeakably sad. I thought her portrayal was spot on and I can only imagine what kind of acting we will get from Rebecca once the anger kicks in. Right now, Liz is lost in pain and the images of her little boy who only hours ago was playing with his cars.

Jonathan Jackson was spectacular. That man had me sobbing with him!! I would like Liz and Lucky back together at some point but I don't hate Siobhan either. I'm glad Lucky had someone who he could lose it with.

I wish they would have had Lulu stay though. I thought Lulu was very believable as a concerned sister. Just because she doesn't care for Jake's mother doesn't mean she didn't love her nephew. When bad things happen, family comes together. I would have been disappointed if they didn't have Lulu and even Nikolas show up for Lucky. Her conversations with Luke and Tracy were very real to me as well. It seemed like they were suffering from shock, disbelief. Which is how many react in a horrible situation such as the one being played on our screen.

I thought that Sam leaving the hospital was strange. I understand there was complicated history but jeez, how could she leave him like that? I get that she was trying to do what she could to help in a way she thought she could. But it seemed out of character to me for her to not be by Jason's side. Plus, it seemed like with recent scenes they were showing Sam's true acceptance of Jake as Jason's son and the weirdness and bitterness and all of that was in the past at least they were portraying that in Jason, Sam and Liz's actions. She did have tears in her eyes when she first saw Jason. I felt like it was kind of a plot point to have Jason alone when Carly came to him.

I love Carly and I know where she was coming from in her concern for her daughter. And I'm sure the urgency she felt was that Lucky and Liz were already talking to Patrick about organ donation so she doesn't want Josslyn to be passed over. But I blame the writers for the way they had Carly handle that. I so wanted Carly to just hug Jason before she said anything. Laura Wright is a fantastic actress and I could see the pain and disbelief on her face that she has to ask her best friend such a tragic question in a horrific situation. But they had her jump right in. Couldn't they have given us a minute to process?

Jake's accident and Josslyn's illness are two powerful hospital stories that involve much of the canvas. I would have liked them to have had their own individual time and attention before being thrown together. Instead, we had two days of two potentially awesome stories showcasing wonderful actors and actresses that were rushed through to get to the "Who hit Jake?" part. This story had so much potential and so many things that could have been explored. I'll end with what I started with. You guys are right, it was too rushed.

TOO MUCH OF A BAD THING......can be a bad thing.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 04:18:39 +0100

As written by GHH Member, TVacademic

I actually think--as horrid and heart wrenching as it is--that the Jake story that's playing out represents the power of soaps at their best. These three parents are so much a part of our daily lives that we ache with and for them, and these actors, who get so little respect in the greater world of television, are knocking it out of the park. In fact, Rebecca Herbst is doing such a superb job injecting reality into the high melodrama of a soap that her performance reminds me that the other people in the scene with her are mere actors. And that's not saying they're bringing less than their best; she was just that great today.

But the secret to a fantastically horrible and messy story is that there's a mess to deal with. That life is unpredictable and sometimes unbearable. We don't ask for this often in our soaps--we use it as a getaway; however, it's the job of a good team of producers and writers (and occasionally directors--the Cinderellas of TV) to remind us that our connection to the people on the screen is a little deeper than mere entertainment: they are part of our lives.

So this clean set up of "Joss needs kidney/Jake has kidney" is a really hard pill to swallow. It not only fits too neatly--it steals power from two other characters: Carly and Jax. Every time the scene cuts to them and their plight, I feel a little less horrible than I did a moment before, when Elizabeth and Lucky and Jason were losing their son. In short--the Joss story adds too much melodrama into a rare and heartbreaking moment of verisimilitude.

I don't often want to forget I'm watching a soap when I'm watching GH--it's genre is a large reason why I watch. But today I wanted to just wallow with these characters that I spend my days with. I wanted theirs to be an asymmetric world where things happen without reason because the actors were telling me that's what they wanted to portray. The perfect circle of Joss and Jake doesn't really feel like terrible irony to me right now--it feels like the thing trying to make me think that the emotions I'm feeling are a little ridiculous.

And I don't really feeling like confronting that right now.