In continuing with my series of articles answering the question, “why are soaps on the decline,” I’d like to now turn my attention to the problem of the Newbie. It is an ever present problem that has only increased over time as many writing teams, instead of giving the existing character something new and inventive to do, much rather bring a newbie on to “spice” things up. Usually, this has led to disaster. Newbies are being used as band aids to the bleeding wounds that are caused by numerous plot points, dead end reveals, and unimaginative storylines.

In looking at the problems associated with too many newbies (or the overuse of a few newbies) I would like to focus on the Young and the Restless. Sure, many soaps do it, but Y&R in the last eight months has so declined in ratings and quality that they need some serious help. Newbies running amok isn’t its only problem (it has many) but it is a definite offender when it comes to the newbies at the moment. Y&R in the last eight months has been on a steady decline in the ratings and the storylines have left MUCH to be desired. They’ve also, at many times in the past eight months, left me pissed off, disillusioned, and overall- bored. So excuse me if my article comes off a bit bitter. I do apologize (read: not really).

As I said in my previous article on why soaps are in the crapper: Balance is key. The problem with many soaps, and it isn’t really a new problem, is the lack of it.
I don’t know about you, but I have found myself coming upon a soap I stopped watching for some time, (usually b/c they do something STUPID like kill off, or put into a coma one of my fav characters. You listening One Life to Live? Bring back Evangeline Williamson!…but I digress), and I am TOTALLY lost for a good half of the show. Not because I can’t follow the plots (I mean, it’s hardly rocket science) but because I have NO IDEA who is who on the show. They’ll be whole segments of a scene where some newbie is giving her sob story, or kissing on some character that I KNOW last time I watched was with someone the audience actually knew, and I’m sitting there like, “Why do I give a damn?” Oh that’s right- I don’t. And heaven forbid the newbie is pretty much related to NO ONE on the show of importance and the story is revolving around them. Then, I’m really sitting there wondering what is going on and why the characters are written to care. (Note: Being related to the help on the show who in their 20 something years haven’t had a real storyline- DOES NOT COUNT. Flame me if you want- but that doesn’t make them a “legacy” character and somehow validate why they are front and center all of a sudden.) Also, I’m even more confused when every other scene with other characters, who used to have their own storylines to talk about, has them talking about one of the newbies- for most of the conversation. In other words- pimping them.
This, my delusional reader, is when a newbie has run amok on my soap.
There are various degrees of overkill. Some are not as bad as others. There are even times when a newbie’s entrance is so subtle that before you know it, I don’t hate them b/c they’re a newbie taking up space, but I simply hate them b/c they’re a shitty character! (I’m looking at you Tyra).

Young and The Restless, with its slipping ratings and plot points galore, has fallen victim to this practice. It is not so much the number of newbies they have added on the show in the past year, but what each newbie they have added has meant or done to the show with their presence. For every newbie that is added and given significant screen time and storyline- there is a REAL LEGACY CHARACTER, (or simply a character people have come to know), that is not getting the same.

The newbie overkill virus is one of the symptoms of the sickness that has taken hold of Y&R. It seems that, instead of writing engaging story lines for the characters that are there (and have been there for years), they rather bring in a new character to “stir things up” or whatever they think they’re “creating” with these contrived plot points with long lost relatives, boyfriends, and the like. It is totally possible to have newbies on the show, but there are some things YOU MUST avoid, or they will run amok. These rules, Y&R seems to be breaking left and right.

The rules:

1. Don’t change history just so a newbie’s presence can make sense. Y&R did this with the Cane character (and we see how that worked out) and they seem to be doing it again with yet another newbie coming onto the canvas. (Spoiler: Seems like Kay’s long lost SON is coming into town with Nikki. Yeah, you read that right. I said SON. And all this time we thought it was a girl…oh wait- it WAS A GIRL. The writers just decided to give our brains a big – FUCK YOU, and switch it up.)

2. A.)Don’t throw established characters under the bus in an attempt to make a newbie more appealing. B.) Don’t use established characters to pimp and justify why a newbie is still taking up so much screen time.
Writers, we are smarter than that. We recognize when an established character that we’ve come to know is acting out of character for the sole purpose of the newbie to continue to look smart, interesting, or appealing. Case and point: Chloe.
Somehow, no one else was able to figure out the holes in her baby making story, until ANOTHER NEWBIE (in the form of an established character) Billy came onto the canvas and figured it out. Lily was made to give Cane the go ahead to marry the woman, hence keeping this storyline going. AND THEN, when she was finally found out for all the crap she pulled, JILL DID NOT kick her ass to the curb!! JILL??!! Am I not to believe that Jill, in all other circumstances would have made an attempt to pay Chloe off and tell her to leave town. I mean, she’s done it before to others for less. Why not Chloe?
To add insult to injury another established character (Mac) is thrown under the bus (becoming the MISTRESS to her first love Billy) in opposition to Chloe. AAAAANNND- Billy is being made to be TORN between Chloe and MAC…Billy’s MAC. This is NOT MAKING SENSE PEOPLE. There is no way Billy should be torn. AAAAANNNNND (keeps getting better) the legacy newbie in town (Chance) is being made to fall for Chloe.
Wow- all this to try to make us believe that this character deserves all the screen time she’s been given since she’s been on. Let’s not even talk about how Chloe is living in the mansion while Mac still doesn’t seem to even have an apartment. That “mobile home” (read:trailer) DOES NOT COUNT.

3. When storylines and or couples are no longer working don’t just throw a newbie in there to somehow “stir” things up. This is like putting a band-aid over a bleeding gash. If a couple or storyline is not working, adding someone the audience doesn’t know to the canvas will NOT HELP, but just further complicate matters.

Example 1: Cane and Lily: Until recently they have had no internal conflict between them. They were a fluffy couple. So what does TPTB do? They bring in Chloe. Then all the baby drama starts, yada, yada, etc. etc., and I’m STILL wondering why we went through all of that in the first place.

Example 2: Victoria and JT. Wow- this couple is really boring. Most of the audience wonders why they are still together. What do the writers do? They add the newbie Deacon (who I have to admit is hot and one of the few newbies I like) to the mix. Now Victoria is all of a sudden bonding with this guy out of NOWHERE. How about we establish that JT and Victoria had problems in the first place? That is b/c up until these recent events; all we saw was them being a happy couple. A LITTLE BUILD UP WOULD BE NICE!! It’s sloppy writing.

Example 3: Daniel and Amber. Now…I won’t let my personal bias get in the way, (maybe a little bit, b/c Daily- Daniel and Lily- was thrown under the bus so this one dimensional couple could be placed together) but this couple doesn’t have the connection to get enough people to care about them. Hence, why they are always placed in the Scooby Gang (them, Jana, and Kevin) with no real story of their own. So what does TPTB do to “spice” it up? They bring in Deacon! Now Deacon is manipulating Amber to do some really STUPID stuff, more naive than she normally is, and Daniel is standing around huffing and puffing. It’s contrived to be honest.

Soon to be Example 4: Y&R has recently put out a casting call for a young woman to come onto the canvas who is high school age. I’m pretty sure this is to nip in the bud the dismal young couple that is Eden and Noah. When in reality we don’t need a newbie to do that. Let the two of them break up, kill Eden off and send Noah’s spoiled ass to boarding school. Neither of these characters will be missed.

Example 5: Billy and Chloe (no words….no words…). Well, this couple clearly failed. But TPTB aren’t ready to throw in the towel. So what are they doing? Bringing in good wholesome boy Chance to try to win Chloe’s heart. So what is the result? Me sitting through scenes of two newbies (I don’t care if Chloe’s been on for a year, she’s still new to me) wondering why I should give a damn.

What it comes down to is balance. When there is some newbie that I don’t know on the canvas, as a regular audience member, I am already suspicious of them. This is yet another example of why Prime time shows fair better. When a new character is added they aren’t usually made front and center. There aren’t enough episodes in a season to be devoting whole hours to some newbie that the audience may or may not like. I get that soaps are on all year round, five days a week, but just because you think you have a lot of time on your hands, doesn’t mean you should throw quality to the wind. Y&R needs to realize that they have a huge amount of characters on this show they do not use enough (Colleen, Paul, Michael, Lauren, etc.) and the audience would like to see more of them.
Then again, maybe I’m just delusional.

I have watched Y&R on and off now for about 20 years, and after 20 years I’ll admit that my memories of plot twists and certain events are rather sketchy. Yet for better or worse — mainly worse– my first recollections of Nicole Reed (aka Nikki Newman) are etched firmly in my mind.

My very first memory of Nikki was watching her weep mournfully before Jack, her then husband, about her addiction to alcohol. I remember thinking, “am I supposed to feel sorry for this character?” If I was, I didn’t! I felt that Jack was much too good for her and could not understand why she was so completely obsessed with a man (one Victor Newman) who did not seem to genuinely love or respect her. But what did I know about “love” at 15? Clearly nothing! According to the Y&R “Bible,” Victor and Nikki are the loves of each other’s lives. They are soulmates; the representation, par excellence, of “real love” in Soapdom.

Sadly, after finding myself enjoying Nikki Newman as a character for the first time in almost 20 years — due to her honest and refreshing relationship with Paul Williams — this past week Y&R has, once again, inveterated why I generally dislike Nikki and loath her relationship with Victor.

On the eve of Nikki’s marriage to a kind, faithful, honest, strong, patient, loving and attractive man — a man that has brought out the best in her — Nikki has decided to throw her hat back into Victor’s ring. For some reason, unbeknownst to me, Victor Newman, a rich, powerful, manipulative, emotionally abusive, narcissistic, vindictive, cruel and disrespectful man, continues to be held up by Y&R’s head writers as the kind of man we women should want and desire. Really writers? Is this what you want to convey to your viewers?

Based on Nikki and Victor’s relationship over the last 20 years, this is what the writers of Y&R have taught me about love:

1) Real love is based purely on a person’s emotions. How a women is treated by a man bears no permanent impact on how she should feel about him. Accordingly, he can treat her with utter contempt, but she still loves him. And such feelings justify her making a fool of herself as she continually pursues this sadistic man regardless of what her brain tells her. The 25 year roller coaster of emotional abuse and turmoil simply means you are “star-crossed lovers,” fulfilling a fatalistic “calling” over which the pair have no control.

2) Real love is not meant to bring out the best qualities of character in a person. Rather a women who is truly “in love” becomes manipulative, desperate, pathetic, weak-willed and needy. In fact, poor character is a marker of the depth of her affections for said man. And in turn, this overly-emotional, vindictive, insecure, hypocritical, manipulative, petty, snide, and selfish women is held up as the kind of women who is “interesting,” “loveable,” and “strong.”

3) Real love is essentially an obsession. As such, if a women has had a child with a man he becomes the “love of her life,” regardless of how many children he reproduces with other women. And she will pass over a “good man” for her true obsession, I mean, love. As for the man in this equation, he is permanently torn between these women, loving them all. Consequently, the children become a tool to manipulate this man, especially if he is straying from the relationship.

4) Real love permits a women to be an interloper in every new relationship the “love of your life” might enter. The home he now shares with his new partner, will still be your home and he will forever be your husband. Moreover, your adult children will always be his legitimate children and family. His other children should always come second, regardless of how much like their father they are!

5) Real love is not about respect or friendship. Instead, a man who treats a women with respect can only be that women’s “best friend forever.” For a man to truly be “in love” he must not respect the women he is with and she must not be his partner or equal. His “true love” is a women who is sexually desirable, but lacking substance. She is a women he can manipulate for “her best interests” and “his own reasons.” Furthermore traditional views of marriage and love, that is, marriage based on partnership, friendship, respect, fidelity, and honesty, are merely notions of nostalgia, and as such, are “boring” and “asexual.”

To be sure, these 5 points merely scratch the surface, but it scares me to think how many women — and young women, at that — are getting their cues about love from this set of values. There is something truly misogynistic occurring in soap writing: a deep hatred of women. I suppose this was to be expected 30 years ago. But nothing has really changed, has it? In fact, I propose that it’s gotten worse!

I have to wonder if the reason for this is that soaps, for the most part, continue to be written by men (gay or straight) for straight women. Their musings, as men, of what a women should be becomes the dominant image presented to a mostly female viewing audience. While there are female writers and producers, these women are still in the minority; that is, this industry is still a “man’s world.” Maria Arena Bell may be the head writer and co-executive producer of Y&R, but it would seem to me that she is not writing for women. Rather she is simply putting forward the kind of poppycock the men she is surrounded by will approve. And for the first time in soap history, women are rejecting this male perspective, whether it is written by a women or a man.

Currently, there are numerous shows in primetime that portray women as strong, capable, smart, accomplished, ambitious, sexually aware, attractive, stable and interesting. These are the characters to whom I relate and enjoy watching. In front of these female characters, Nicole Reed Newman Abbot Newman Chow Newman is defunct! I barely like her, let alone want to be like her. Some may argue that because this is just a story, it is not a corollary to real life. But why tell stories at all if this is the case? Stories provide us with a vision of who we are, what we believe, and who we want to be. Consequently, is it any wonder that enlightened female viewers are turning off soaps in droves? Why would we watch a television show that fails to represent us? The simple answer is: we shouldn’t and we won’t!

This past week, news of Chris Engen’s sudden departure from Y&R, during one of his best performances and storylines, left me reeling in a way that surprised me. I haven’t been a fan of the actor or his “Adumb” character as I like to call him, but when several in the soap press rushed with few facts or statements from principals in the case, to implicitly and explicitly label Chris Engen a “homophobe,” given the light speed of hiring of his replacement, I was left ambivalent about the role of the modern “soap press” and their long term impact on the genre.

Historically, Breaking the fourth wall, was a reference to an actor breaking character, passing through the invisible fourth wall that exists between the theatre stage, and the audience. Today, it is used more liberally to refer to action that breaks the boundary between fiction and reality, compromising the audience’s ability to suspend disbelief. My observation, is that the fourth wall is a boundary more sacred in the soap genre than any other acting genre, because of the numerous impressions that serial drama stars make in the same character, and the increased necessity to suspend disbelief with soaps. The new cyber soap press with inside information, provides more opportunities for those in this genre to break the fourth wall, both willingly, and increasingly against their will.

The bottom line for me as a soap fan however, is whether this inside information is compromising my ability to enjoy soaps and the characters I love. I find myself wanting less and less to know spoilers, or inside information. The following tidbits had me really wishing I could put the genie back in the bottle as a soap fan:

1) Chris Engen labeled as a homophobe, for walking off set, supposedly after being asked to kiss a man, even though all accounts point to a pattern of dissatisfaction, and the instantaneous hiring of his replacement makes this allegation even more questionable.
2) Christel Khalil labeled as a hair model who doesn’t identify as black, but plays black (or not black enough according to some) on tv.
3) Contract wars with Melody Scott Thomas, Jess Walton, Joshua Morrow
4) Maria Arena Bell as the card carrying Republican, who writes the weakest women in soaps, touted as “Auntie Maria” and the Barack Obama of soaps, by gay men of color.
5) Lynne Marie Latham as the tree-hugging, new age, destroyer of soaps.
6) Michelle Stafford spitting on Victoria Rowell
7) Every Victoria Rowell Interview about Y&R since she left Y&R.

With increasing penetration of soap fans on the internet, behind the scenes information on soaps has never been more pervasive or readily available. Where the 80s and 90s saw soap magazines as the primary soap press, the new millennium has ushered in the next generation “soap press” with real time reporting capability, all in a hybrid blogger/journalist style (Daytime Confidential/Suds Report). This hybrid style allows bloggers to trade on their journalistic credentials, while simultaneously absolving them of journalistic codes of ethics, because after all, it’s just a blog.

It’s a formula that works, after all, just look at the success of Perez Hilton, who’s damaged the brands of countless actors, and is loathe to credit photographers for the pictures he uses, with nary a retraction, or a profit share, because what he does is a blog, and is not required to meet the standards of ethics that journalists must. Perez, while admittedly not a trained journalist, keeps his pimp hand strong, and his lawyers on retainer, to ensure he gets the scoop, but never has to meet the standards of a journalist, even if he plays one in cyberspace.

What further puzzles me, is that soap industry executives, and actors, legitimize these pseudo-journalists, by giving them inside information, or exclusive interviews. As popular as Perez Hilton is, Hillary Clinton might have thanked him for his endorsement, but I don’t see her condescending to break news on his website. In contrast, Soap executives writers, and actors regularly give exclusives and inside information to these press outlets, which appears to have legitimized them as journalists in the soap world.

I am expressly not a journalist, and I write only as a soap fan who makes no profit from my contributions, however, when I see “journalists” who wave their degrees in journalism as credentials, but then write in pseudo journalistic styles, with no vetting process; who pass their opinions and political stances off as a breaking news, and show a propensity towards unwavering loyalty or disdain towards executives, writers and actors, who’s work they need to objectively critique, that does ring false for me.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I think the Nelson Branco and Daytime Confidential websites absolutely have value in the soap world. I do however, think given the extreme bias displayed in their coverage of soaps, they should provide more disclosure about the nature of their soap commentary and reporting, and I must admit I find any bravado about their credentials in journalism while blogging, somewhat disingenuous.

I admit to my ambivalence on this issue. With recent news I’m pretty outraged, but I’m open to changing my mind, and would love to hear how other soap fans feel about this issue. All comers are welcome.

So, at a very tender age, I became an ABC soap fan, until breaking the habit in college. After accepting a job in charming, if not exciting suburban Indiana, I came back to soaps, but converted to CBS when I realized none of my friends watched my beloved General hospital! So I acquired a taste for the slower, but more character driven Young and the Restless.

I didn’t really have to add that extra hour to my TV schedule, but I think of soaps a little like a Quentin Tarantino movie…although I love Pulp Fiction, I liked talking about it, a lot more than I liked watching it. So the best part of the soaps for me, has always been after the episode ends.

If only message boards existed back then; I could have stayed with GH and I never would have come to the realization, that I too, a decades long soap fan, just like so many writers, whom I have grown to despise, (the type who long to do more “relevant” work for Indie films or HBO or primetime drama, while treating soap fans with disdain)…hate soaps.

Ironically, it was an argument about one of my favorite Y&R soap writers, Lynne Marie Latham, that triggered this awareness. So as a soap watcher who got hooked watching Y&R during it’s “dark period”, I couldn’t really understand why veteran viewers seemed to hate her, and I often found myself in cyber wars of words with them (http://daytimeconfidential.com/2009/04/review-tom-casiellos-first-episode-of-yr).

Soaps remain the most exhaustive character exploration we see in visual media. Viewers have come to expect the character’s motivations and actions to maintain a consistency that speaks to the character defined. While I know this intellectually, I admit, I loved it when Lynne Marie Latham broke up everyone’s favorite couples, changed the narrative thread and ethnicity of key characters, and killed off or decimated legacy families. I thought that was great story, and I still do. Don’t laugh. Unfortunately, I’ve come to realize, it was not great “soap”, and for me to cheer on a writer who pretty much broke every rule in soaps, while claiming to love the genre, rings a bit false.

So a very balanced analysis of ratings (http://markhsoap.blogspot.com/2009/04/y-ra…eadwriters.html), showed me how an unfettered LML without legacy writing teams, did lose significant viewers for Y&R, and how the current writer, Maria Arena Bell, has actually grown Y&R in a declining soap market.

Unfortunately, for newer viewers like me, this traditional writing style means adjusting to much slower pacing in story telling, with a short-lived, but significant pay-off. Watching Y&R now is a bit like watching an M. Night Shyamalan movie. A very long drawn out crescendo, with a payoff that’s great, but you’re not really sure if it was worth the time it took to get there.

Through my caustic and unrelenting criticism of Maria Arena Bell, and simultaneous praise for Lynne Marie Latham, I have always felt that the talents of both writers, presented a compelling way forward for soaps; character driven stories, with faster pacing and modern sensibilities, and writers/executives who embrace fans and harness their passion to grow the genre. The analysis of ratings, proved this to be true. The “worst soap writer in history,” actually grew Y&R with her legacy writing teams, but lost viewers when she remained unchecked. I believe what started as an argument, became an invaluable lesson for me to always seek first to understand something, before you criticize it, which I didn’t.

Nonetheless, I think the fact that “the worst soap writer ever” was able to grow soaps for a time, after a precipitous decline in years prior, also serves as a valuable lesson for the future…Growth will not come from maintaining the status quo, and even short term failure, may net positive lessons on how to grow and save this genre, which I think all soap fans (and I count myself as one) both new and old want. ]]> http://delusionaltruth.com/2009/04/29/what-i-learned-from-loving-soaps-worst-writer/feed/ 4 http://delusionaltruth.com/2009/04/28/diversity-campaign-what-diversity-campaign/ http://delusionaltruth.com/2009/04/28/diversity-campaign-what-diversity-campaign/#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:22:00 +0000 CKR http://delusionaltruth.com/2009/04/28/diversity-campaign-what-diversity-campaign/ “Diversity Campaign? What Diversity Campaign?”

This was going to start out as a very straightforward and simple explanation of why I think soaps are on the decline.

This is easier said than done.

In going over what I wanted my points to cover I realized that the ratings decline of soaps can not be attributed to one particular thing. The fact that soaps are declining is due to an all encompassing happening that the soap world has, for some years now, struggled to keep up with.

That, my delusional reader, is CHANGE, and their inability to deal with it in a balanced way.

What kind of change you say?

Take your pick.

I would pick the change of the times, the change of the viewer, and the change of television overall to name a few.

To try and write an article dealing with all these topics would be too long. And well, with the new age of media and gadgets- my attention span is too short. And I bet- so is yours. So let’s take it piece by piece shall we?

First up- The Diversity Campaign or Lack Thereof

I know jokes are made here on Delusional Truth about it, but that’s mainly because this “diversity campaign” is just that.

A joke.

Why is it that, in the year 2009, a majority of Americans can vote for a person of color to be leader of the free friggin’ world YET television executives of a genre that caters to only about ten million viewers don’t seem to think blacks, Latinos, and Asians are all that great for “who’s the daddy” storylines?

Is it because the powers that be (TPTB) are blatantly RACIST??

Not so much, (okay maybe a few), at the end of the day money talks- and the only color that matters to those higher ups is GREEN.

They go with what they think is bankable.

And to them color DON’T MAKE BANK.

How do they process what makes bank? Well it’s pretty simple in television. The sponsors write the check. The sponsors are those people that pay thousands of dollars to have their thirty to sixty second ad showed during a commercial break of the show you watch.

The more viewers a show brings in the more money the sponsors are willing to pay.

Sounds easy right?

You’re probably asking what that has to do with the lack of diversity.

Well, sponsors want to buy airtime to particular shows with good ratings BUT each sponsor also has a particular audience that it would like to sell to. They’re not just putting the ad out for their health- they want people to see it who they think have the money to buy.

Ahhhh- there’s the rub.

Who has the money?

What viewers do TPTB think they need to keep watching (or bring in) in order to have the sponsors willing to pay for slots?

Middle America.

Thing is, TPTB aren’t quite convinced, (despite those pesky statistics that say otherwise), that Middle America have a significant amount of people of color in it. They also aren’t very convinced that those who are white in Middle America care to see anyone who doesn’t look like them in an engaging storyline.

So what a majority of you voted for a black President, TPTB still KNOW you won’t DARE have the fictional character Dwayne be the fictional character Susan’s baby daddy.

No. No. THAT’S going TOO FAR. (:Insert sarcasm here:)

Of course this thinking is outdated and hardly applicable to this day and age. Yet, it seems that despite giving lip service to it, TPTB have yet to make good on their campaign.

Sure, we get the solo black heroine every so often. For Young and the Restless it was Drusilla (she went over a cliff) and now Lily (forever stuck in Fluff vision). For One Life to Live it was Evangeline Williamson (she’s in a coma). For General Hospital it was…was it ever anyone?

You even get an ethnic family every so often. Young and the Restless have the ever so isolated Winters (I don’t think they go out.). One Life to Live has the ever shrinking Vegas (I think only Antonio and Christian are left. I hear Antonio is supposed to be killed soon though…oh well). General Hospital has the now non-existent Ward family (I STILL don’t know where Keesha went? She left on a business trip and NEVER CAME BACK).

But I digress.

The question is, are these token characters and families enough?

No.

Does this lack of diversity affect the soap genre?

Yes.

It affects their ability to keep viewers who are tired of the same ol’ same ol’. Especially faithful viewers of color who are a bit tired of the way characters of color are lacking or getting the short end of the stick. Despite what they try to tell you- a large amount of soap viewers are black middle aged women.

It also affects soaps ability to get new viewers as well. The new generation that is coming along, (black, white, Latino, etc), KNOW it’s unrealistic and unnecessary when a show lacks people of color or diversity overall.

Don’t let “Gossip Girl” fool you. Not everyone is drinking the kool-aid. That show wouldn’t survive on a network where it had to bring in the numbers those diverse shows like “Lost” and “Grey’s Anatomy” does.

I mean, soaps isn’t the only genre that needs some help, (CW crappy teen shows I’m looking at y’all), but for a genre that has been around for decades with the breadth of history it has- to not be on top of this, seems a bit lazy.

Do yourself a favor TPTB- ADD SOME BLACK PEOPLE.

And not just Tyrone the orderly or Lashanda the one line intern.

And while you’re at it, add some other races as well in significant storylines.

Last time I checked Asians, Indians, Latinos, and others did exist.

But don’t mind me- it’s only my delusion.

Next Time: When Newbies run AMOCK!!