"There's a good deal in common between the mind's eye and the TV screen, and though the TV set has all too often been the boobtube, it could be, it can be, the box of dreams."--- Ursula K. Le Guin (1929 - ) American Author

"Writers like teeth are divided into incisors and grinders." --- Walter Bagehot (1826-1877) British Economist, Critic

General Hospital fans are the Rodney Dangerfields of Daytime viewers - we get absolutely no respect. Continuity, coherent plot lines and character development are nearly extinct and have no visible place in the convoluted (and often implausible) vignettes that play out day after day. The overall quality of the writing quite frankly - stinks. Taking dramatic license and tweaking past events is one thing. But rampant revisionism is quite another and sadly is now the norm. The steady deconstruction (and in some cases) devolution in terms of character behavior and development - have made some long-standing characters virtually unrecognizable. And sadly for some - nothing more than caricatures of their former "selves". Complete disregard of storyline history, patent disrespect of veteran actors and clear disdain for the intelligence of the Daytime audience is the name of the sorry game. This toxic combination is I believe, the most likely reason ABC loses more and increasingly more Daytime viewers year after year. The network doesn't care - and it shows. And nowhere is that message clearer than on General Hospital.

While other soaps can manage to scribe creditable and evolving storyline arcs that build faithfully upon past history - the Head Writers of General Hospital(Robert Guza/Charles Pratt) clearly have neither use (nor apparently any knack), for this type of cohesive, complex and expansive storytelling. Guza and Pratt are reigning Kings of Cliff Notes Storytelling. This disastrous duo are masters of "hit and run" of storytelling. Regurgitated, spastic and hastily thrown together narratives filled with half-baked plot contrivances or totally backward scenarios from out of nowhere. The duo's threadbare premises sputter out drunkenly in a storyline vacuum, where past history has neither connection, nor relevance. In Guza's and Pratt's emotionally barren and increasingly shrill world - pyrotechnics and non-stop histrionics replace intriguing dialogue and multi-leveled characterizations. In place of emotionally relevant or moving stories filled with cogent plotlines and continuity, we get shortsighted, overwrought melodramatics that usually strangle on their own implausibility. Or become hopelessly mired in its own clubfooted inconsistencies. It's doubtful that either could recognize (much less write) - a well-thought out, multi-layered and tightly woven story. Even if one strolled up and smacked them upside their talentless heads.

Unfortunately and regrettably for the viewers, Guza and Pratt aren't the only wastes of space ABC loves to hire. Just the most recent. Because instead of hiring new blood to infuse life into their Daytime programming, ABC will keep recycling clueless wonders of the Guza/Pratt ilk. Hiring, firing - then rehiring them over and over again. Continuously shifting dead weight from one Daytime program to another (as if the network was playing some backward game of musical chairs only executives can understand). For example, ABC recently rehired Megan McTavish as Head Writer for All My Children - even though the network removed her as Head Writer for General Hospital McTavish and Jill Farren Phelps nearly brought General Hospital to its knees. So what did ABC do? Left Phelps on at GH to reap even further damage, then handed McTavish her next kill on a silver platter. If the network is trying to tank their entire lineup - they're going about it the right way. It's abundantly clear that ABC believes that besides having an IQ somewhere around negative two, Daytime fans have the attention span of a gnat on crack. And that's only on a good day.

GH storylines histories get the "Bobby Ewing treatment" as the general rule ("it was all a dream, Pam" ), instead of the rare exception. Warping dramatic history, questionable - even extreme deviations in behavior are regularly written for well-established characters with long histories. No matter how bizarre, ill conceived the plot or how badly this new behavior flies in the face of everything that went on before, the writers will just myopically forge ahead. Gutting characters of all credibility and logic doesn't seem to bother the writers in the least. So if the Head Writers can't logically puzzle out storyline stumbling blocks or detest what their predecessor wrote - so what? Just destroy it or ignore it. Storyline plausibility and character integrity be damned. Just make like McDonald's and have it your way. No matter what's history's butchered in the process or how huge a mess you leave in your wake. Daytime audiences are either too stupid to notice or too complacent to care - right? I've often wondered if the writers are even aware of, or are remotely concerned with the history of the characters they're attempting to bring to life? Shouldn't that be a prerequisite?

The character of Michael "Sonny" Corinthos is the perfect and most often victimized example of revisionist writing. Once upon a time and in a galaxy far, far away (where talented Head Writers are said to have lived), Sonny was written true to character and with levels of overlapping complexity that were mesmerizing to behold. The battered and discarded boy whom transformed himself into the ultimate self "made man" - whose only real sense of personal safety and power comes from being a mobster. Neglected and abandoned by his parents, saddled with emotional baggage the size of steamer trunks - Sonny's total abhorrence of lies and intolerance of betrayals is so well known and long-standing it should be considered public domain. However, since the Guza-Pratt regime set up their writing tent in the vicinity of Alice's rabbit hole, that behavior barely raises one of Sonny's silken eyebrows. Sonny now swallow lies whole, regardless of their magnitude. That once surefire relationship deal breaker is now met with little, if any discomfort or anger, and without any real or lasting repercussions. When did lying and betrayal (which once sparked incendiary arguments and spectacularly painful breakups) - turn into an issue that barely registers on the Sonny Richter scale? Become an issue that rarely merits any intense reaction or fallout? How did Sonny go from A to Z in 60 seconds? Was he bitten by a radioactive spider injected with Mr. Rogers' DNA ? Exactly when - no - where in Sonny's storyline did this miraculous and evolutionary metamorphosis in total forgiveness occur? Did you see it?

And while we're under the header of "straight out of nowhere" - why exactly did Sonny flip his switch? Though masking bone deep vulnerability under a ruthless and seemingly unfeeling exterior is a Sonny trademark - emotionally unhinging at the drop of a dime is not. What, was Sonny injected with mega doses of Insta-Insanity? If Sonny's breakdown was supposed to be the end result of a massive accumulation of events which unfolded over many months by the process of meticulous storytelling - I sure as hell missed it. Funny, I don't seem to recall the writers word painting any indelible, believable or even visible scenes of a man sinking under the weight of his own personal demons. If it wasn't for the brilliance and verve of Maurice Benard - this manufactured meltdown would be utterly confusing and a total waste. Like Tony Geary and Genie Francis, Maurice Benard displays an innate ability for filling in massive narrative blanks with sheer talent and charismatic presence alone. Actors of the caliber of Benard, Geary and Francis can often serve up dramatic feasts out of the scraps of crummy scripts riddled with illogical leaps of reason or simple unadulterated stupidity. And like Geary and Francis, when Maurice is on the screen - everything else falls away. Lousy writing and sub-par acting partners included. You take a deep breath and somehow become cocooned or trapped under the Sonny's skin. Penned by the right hands and acting opposite actors of comparable skill, Sonny's "meltdown" would've had the impact and resonance of Stone Cates' AIDS storyline. Sadly, both the writing and direction has been by far - outmatched and outclassed by Maurice's heart wrenching tour de force.

Just imagine what inconsistent or disingenuous writing would have done to the emotional impact and integrity of the ending of The Godfather Part II. What if Michael Corleone instead of banishing his wife Kay for aborting their son and expanding his criminal empire - instead chose to forgive her on the spot; copped to his dastardly deeds; begged for forgiveness and vowed to change his wicked, lawbreaking ways? Why that would've been a real Hallmark moment, no doubt about it. But it most certainly wouldn't have been either faithful or true to character. Former General Hospital Head Writer Claire Labine (She Who Is Sorely Missed), laid down the foundation of an extraordinary blueprint called Michael Corinthos Jr. With rock solid talent and raw emotional power, Maurice Benard built upon and unforgettably brought to life the most mesmerizing figure in Daytime - ever. We can thank the literary gods Guza and Pratt never got their butcher's mitts on the character of Michael Corleone. Too bad the same can't be said of the character of Michael Corinthos Jr. Seeing the damage literary vandals like Guza and Pratt have done to Sonny angers me deeply. Both Maurice Benard and Claire Labine deserve better. We all do. Consistency and authenticity are never expendable qualities in storytelling - contrary to what Guza and Pratt think. Schizophrenia is perfectly viable as a character trait or plot device. As an acceptable form of storytelling however - it is not. Characters who aren't consistently believable or lack emotional and narrative integrity, will lose their originality. Become flat and one dimensional. And will eventually cause the audience to lose emotional connection to and interest in those characters. Literary versions of Mr. Potato Head are easily shrugged off by viewers. They may be fun to play with for writers, easy to create and take apart. But for this viewer - they're indistinct, inanimate and totally forgettable. And for a writer, I'd imagine that disinterest or derision from your audience is as deadly as kryptonite is to Superman.

" A great writer creates a world of his own and his readers are proud to live in it. A lesser writer may entice them in for a moment, but soon he will watch them filing out. " Cyril Connolly (1903-1974) British Critic

"I made a pact with myself a long time ago: Never watch anything stupider than you. It's helped me a lot. " Bette Midler - American Singer, Entertainer, Actress

  respond to this article