I find my self in a bit of a dilemma regarding recent events on General Hospital.
First of all, let me start by saying that I despise the character of Michael Corinthos III with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns. Historically speaking, I have rarely been so incensed with a child’s character that I have wished harm to befall them.
Anyone remember Kirsten Dunst’s character from Interview with a Vampire? I did want to back-hand that little brat. But aside from her (the character), I am usually much more accepting of trouble-making tykes on television. I understand that obnoxious teens and pre-teens are important for the drama of television, and therefore I tolerate them.
Michael Corinthos III has been an exception. His mere presence grates on my nerves and causes my TMJ to flare up. Several months ago, I would have said that anything was worth getting that (almost) life-size Chuckie-doll out of Port Charles. Now, I am forced to admit that anything might have been a poor word choice.
But, to be fair, how could any right-minded sane adult think that splattering a child’s brains all over the warehouse floor, was even an option? I’d like to know what ideas the writers discarded before settling on this piece of genius. Was rectal alien probe already taken? Does Sunset Beach still have a patent on that turkey-baster?
Who in the blazes thought shooting the child in the head (or anywhere else, really) was a good and logical solution to the problem at hand? (That was a rhetorical question, I know who, and there is a voodoo doll in my closet with his name on it).
What happened to the time-honored tradition of sending the little monster to prep-school (or boot-camp in Michael’s case) only to have him return six months later as a troublesome teen?
I do not feel the need to delve any deeper into this gratuitous and insane storyline decision as the ladies at Serial Drama have already expressed my outrage far better than I ever could myself.
Just add a "ditto" to everything Mallory said.
Shooting 12 year old Michael Corinthos = dumb, dumb, dumb.
Having said all that, let me now get to the crux of my dilemma. The last week on General Hospital has been unbearable and depressing and yet, I have seen some things that caused my cold, black heart to soar.
I saw Bobbie and Mike on my screen (in more than one scene!) last week. I think Bobbie might have even mentioned BJ. I saw Robin, Liz and Carly share a room without verbal violence. I saw grown-ups behaving like grown-ups for once!!
I know this is fleeting, Carly will be back to a shrieking harpy next week, but for right now, I am enjoying the new-found self-awareness she is displaying.
Am I going crazy or did the words "I did what was good for me, and then I justified it by saying it was good for him [Michael]" come out of Carly’s mouth? I thought I was having an aneurysm.
Carly’s dressing-down of Sonny and subsequent confession about her own culpability to Jason were fabulous, and right on the money.
I still don’t understand why rational characters like Alexis feel the need to absolve Carly of her guilt (after all she IS responsible), but I will take what I can get in terms of sanity this week, and Carly talking about her own selfishness ranks right up there with my all time favorite "lightbulb!" moments.
This brilliance and insight is a double-edged sword however, because it makes me wonder - - if this sort of dialogue is possible from the current writing regime, why did it take a child being maimed to accomplish it? Couldn’t the viewers get this on a more consistent basis? Why is this sentiment the rare (albeit welcome) exception rather than the rule on General Hospital?
No really, I'm asking - why?