This week's spoilers used for commentary are compliments of our friends over at SOAPTOWN USA

March 6, 2006

This is the week that Eye on Soaps asked its readers to contribute to its expense fund to help us to remain on the net. Clearly stated, without reader donations, we will no longer be able to bring you the best commentary on the net.  We all love doing what we do and depend on our readers to allow us to continue doing it.  I spent several months not being on the net as life took me in different directions and I don't EVER want to be away from you folks again!  As long as Eye on Soaps remains, so will I.  The vast majority of our readers do not contribute!  They come here several times a week, enjoy the work our staff has done for them and never give back!  Don't just be a taker!  Balance the scales and be a giver!  We offer all of EOS to be open to every person who surfs in. We do not have secret corners or special areas that are off limits to the people who cannot afford to donate that month.  We trust that when readers can contribute, they will.  Please don't make us wrong about that.  :-)

Donate to keep
Sage & EOS
on the net!
 

or click here for
other options
 

This week, my boss wrote a column about Zach Slater and it really got me thinking.  I've been a fan of Zach's since he first came on the scene, admittedly grandfathered in by an appreciation of Thorsten Kaye's previous work.  After reading her column, I found that she made some very valid points, but after reading the rebuttal that a reader wrote to her, I also realized how quickly I'd forgotten the lessons I'd learned in the past about passionate fans.

As a soap columnist, you can have a body of writing that spans back years, but you're only ever as good as your last column.  Every character has its passionate fans, I think, and if you say anything negative about the object of their affections, they will quickly write and decimate you.  Of course, if you only write benign columns that never put you out on a limb or give an opinion that some might find controversial, then you're seen as a sell out.  First and foremost, having a column that is commentary based means that you are obligated to put your opinions out there.  In doing so, you will never please everyone and someone is always going to bitch because you did not write what mirrors their own thoughts.  Far from simply writing "I disagree and here is why," it is rare that a reader offers comments contrary to what a columnist has said without stooping to personal insults and insisting on what the columnist should or should not have said (or evangelically attempting to convert the columnist to their "right" way of thinking).

I have never understood the need for people to attack those who espouse views different than their own.  Why is it exactly that if someone writes a column saying they do not like a character and gives good reasons for not liking them, the fans of that character feel a need to write and fervently try to convert the person who doesn't like them?  Why do they need to describe at length exactly why the columnist is "wrong" because they see the character from another angle?  Aren't there enough fan websites to speak at length about why the characters should be idolized?  Is a different opinion so threatening?  Is it right for a columnist to be condemned and called names for disagreeing on one point when there could be 100 points in previous columns with which the reader agreed? Do readers really expect that we, as columnists, will always reflect their own view exclusively? 

For that matter, is it really so horrible to simply not like a character and offer good reasons why?

Why is it that if you DON'T like one character it is automatically seen as an endorsement of another character?  In the past, if I wrote anything at all negative about Carly, then I was labeled an Alexis zealot.  If I said anything negative about Natalie, then I must be pro-Evangeline.  What if I just don't like any of the assholes, but in that moment, I happen to be discussing one asshole in particular?  Do I need to provide a scorecard of affiliations for every column I write denouncing one character's actions?  What's funny is that even when I firmly state (in reply) that I am NOT pro-so&so just because I made an anti-so&so comment, I am labeled a liar!

It's that kind of generalization and presumption and putting words into people's mouths that causes a writer who is stating an opinion in opposition to a column to immediately lose credibility.  I might be enjoying the debate until they start telling me how I really feel or the "underlying" thoughts I have.  As soon as a reader begins reading between my lines in their rebuttal letter or calling names or attacking me personally instead of sticking to the subject at hand (which is invariably the subjective opinion of FICTION), their credibility immediately goes out the window for me.  That tells me they do not have the intelligence or strength of personal character to discuss the issue directly rather than stooping to the denigration of an actual person (the columnist).

I actually "got" Katrina's column and I think some readers completely missed the point.  It was not about one event or one action in Zach's life.  It was about a series of behaviors in a character that she found disturbing.  I was honestly grateful to see another side to this character I enjoy and to have a more rounded impression of him as a result.  I find it fun and interesting to read direct opinions about characters and couples and situations. 

As Katrina pointed out, character development is an art form that is created on the canvas of a movie, a TV show or a book.  As with any art, each person will interpret it differently.  That does not mean one person is wrong and needs to be converted over to the Saint [Insert Your Favorite Character's Name Here] Church of Blind Dedication.  It just means that they see things from another viewpoint and believe me, there is plenty of room for everyone's impressions.

It's good to feel passionate and excited about a character, but when that leads to attacking those who do not share your opinion, you've taken a dive into the crazy fan pool.

I'd like to thank Katrina for writing a column that gave me something to think about and broadened my impression of a favorite character.  She did so without once berating those who actually enjoy Zach and merely presented her own observations and conclusions, which I found riveting.  Even as a fan of Zach's, I would stand by my boss' column even if she was not my boss.

Basically, if you need others (or everyone) to validate your own opinions, you must not be very firm in your beliefs to start with.  Mob mentality doesn't make anyone right.  It just makes them loud about being a mob.  You really can love a character and not fall apart when someone else doesn't and says so outright.  I promise.  It can be done. 

Rant off.

[After weeks of enjoying it, I did not like AMC this week, so I am going to give it a week to settle before I comment on the show itself.]