The key difference is of course technology but also audience. (sorry if this is tangential.....)

Of course, this is what gets Lynn the most: Bellafante's knowledge of soaps and her repetition in bringing them up seems to overplay her hand. Despite her dismissals coming from that fallacy of bringing criteria from outside the soaps world to judge these texts and then dismissing them all accordingly, Bellafante may know more about soaps than she's letting on.

Any one of these references makes sense to me as using soaps as shorthand for "bad television." I reject the premise of that shorthand, but I understand it. I'm sure we all fall into that trap at some point or another, based on our own cultural biases or preferences, whether that be reality TV, opera, or hip-hop. But it's the constant downing of soaps that makes this something more...

Thanks for the links, Lynn. And, BTW, glad to see we're in agreement about the soaps scholarship point.

You may be interested in this related post about a New York Times reviewer and her constantly referring to soaps as an example of melodrama or poorly done acting. In the comments, Dave Feldman has a great example of theater critics referring to some performances as "sitcom-worthy," or some similar comment, as a put down. But, of course, this disconnect doesn't distinguish between sitcoms highly regarded by fans of that genre and sitcoms that are judged poorly, instead pretending all are the same. Further, these are theater critics writing disparagingly about another genre/medium altogether, partially because they are grading sitcom performances by what would make good theater.

If they were instead to say, "a performance that would have played well on sitcom but just didn't work in a comedy on stage," that would be a good cross-media reference. To dismiss it as "a stereotypical performance worthy of a Wednesday night sitcom" shows little regard for the other genre...

In short, people all too often value critical distance to the point that we end up with cultural commentators who know too little about the genre of art they are commenting on and who are completely disconnected to the communication that's been cultivated between the media producers and their audiences.

Because that's what Bellefante wants people to think, that she's just pulled some title out of the air. But, when you read what she writes, it's pretty clear, at least to me, that she didn't acquire the knowledge she displays about soaps by osmosis. I'm not sure that's as clear to those not familiar with soaps. But if she were to reference soaps in the nuanced way you suggest, then she has to come out of the closet about watching then. And then everyone would know her dirty little secret. And while I have my theories about why she doesn't just say, "I've been watching soaps for years," or whatever her reality is, she's the only one who can say for sure.

I also took exception to her vast oversimplification of soap scholarship here.

It is interesting to note that two of her New York Times colleagues, Alessandra Stanley and Virginia Heffernan, have both written about primetime soaps. Neither has referenced daytime soaps, but neither have they displayed Bellefante's condescending tone.

My reaction is: Which sitcom? I could only wish that there were comedies on the stage in New York superior to Curb Your Enthusiasm or The Office.

Even if 1 person posts something on the new group called that's 1 post NOT going on the crappy board ABC has.

Hopefully in time, more members will join and stray away from the GH board and than when they see the diminishing traffic, maybe they will provide DAYTIME with nice working boards.
boo197611

Again, thank you for the write up!

Mokey

Thank you SO much for recognizing and editorializing our plight! You have given us some recognition. Now if we could get the ABC people to notice that would be great! Thank you again!

-ghboardtrollssuck5

Her obituary is here, and you can sign the online guest book in her honor here.