Perkie that is not what I took from that at all - that ron doesnt care about telling good story. I dont follow twitter so that bit and a recap of the twitter feeds was shared with me by someone else, but my understanding is that ronc was getting hammered by lizffs that all of this was just throwing liz under the bus and that he was writing her ooc and his response to that claim, after trying and trying to give answers was finally essentially to say that liz wasnt some saint and that you have to have characters make mistakes in order to move story. I just think this tweet in particular really doesnt fit in with the narrative that ron admitted that liz has done something that has nothing to do with that character's history and current story and ergo that means that its ooc. I too took that to show that yes, he is well aware of her history because some suggested that he doesnt know enough about the character to write her correctly. I think he just as easily could have rattled off a bunch of her other misdeeds but the fake breakdown was one of the more recent issues. I would also add that I think by saying the bit about soap characters making mistakes is too essentially say that in his mind ANY character COULD be written as doing something like this - whether its liz or oltls marty or whoever. I sort of agree and sort of disagree with that - I could see ANY character doing this if the right context was given to it.

Liason, since we dont know what the jason exits or aj enters (because perhaps they need to rough liz up a little to make it make sense if they pair those two together) we dont really know if this choice fits in with any of that yet. If ron is using this aspect of the story to facilitate the exit or entrance i think it puts that comment in a totally different light. We sort of have to see it play out first I think.

Vet - sam felt her child is alive, but jason, dr. kelly, her mother and every other person who has talked to her have all expressed to her that her child was in fact that baby that was buried. I think its interesting that when liz says not to look for the child because theres no way that the baby could have been any other child shes being realistic and justifiable in her reactions, but when sam accepts that exact same premise under a less likely scenario (meaning liz had someone standing in front of her laying out how it might have happened where sam hasnt had anyone even remotely suggest that her child could be a live) then shes a mother who knows her kid is out there but doesnt care enough to hunt him down. I guess we have to blame sam for not looking and praise tea for her great mothering skills so as to excuse the fact that liz hurt danny by keeping his mother and father from him.

See that ain't at all what I meant. My meaning is that the writers have Sam sitting on the sidelines while Jason does all the work. She is supposed to be a P.I. And they are supposed to. E some great team. You yourself have brought up the two looking for Michael together. Yet, here is Jason not confiding in her. Here she is just accepting this story. Why isn't she involved? Wouldn't that also be an example of these writers writing someone out of character?

I do expect that Sam will get baby Jason back and the child will not be seen until it's next kidnapping or when he opens the front door and gets hit by a car.

Well, then here's where Ron and I diverge. I have no problem with needing to move story and what not, but I do have a problem with the attitude that any character can do anything mentality. That's just an excuse for lazy writing.Because then we end up with a bunch of scummy people that have no rooting value.

Todd, Sonny, Connie are characters that can and likely would do anything. They've been shown as such, so if one of them was to suddenly kick a puppy, no one would blink an eye.

But other characters have that invisible moral line and making them cross that line for the explosive factor, to me, cheapens the story.

None of the stupid stuff that LIz has done in her past makes me think that she would withold this kind of information about a baby, even Sam's baby, considering her loss of Jake and the paternity issues around Aiden.

Now, if she had withheld the part where Jason is the father instead of Franco, maybe, I can see that. It would be her stupidly thinking she can still have him if he's not the baby's father. But withholding the baby itself, no, dont' buy it.

EET, With SBu leaving the show it's very obvious that RC had to change his story from Liason and McBam back to JaSam, but that does not mean Liz has to suddenly go all cray cray wanting to be with Jason. Heck, Liz did not go bonkers when she and Jason split up at the end of 2008 and now it's just stupid to have her messing with a DNA test when she knows how it feels to lose a child.

Liz showed no romantic interest in Jason until the 180 done to facilitate SBu leaving the show. If Liz thought the baby was Jason, she would tell him since she still feels guilty that he lost out on raising Jake.

Perkie see i guess where you and i disagree is that I believe what she and ric did to zander (and to nik, letting him be accused) was absolutely horrid. I thought withholding info on ric's abduction of courtney too was beyond the pale esp. as jason stood in front of her a practically begged for her help, explaining to her that courtneys life was on the line. And then the bit where she thought she nearly killed sam and then asked lucky to risk his entire career to cover things up (and playing the mom card to maneuver him) all while again nik struggled with his own driving impairment issues/potential guilt was also terrible. Im not talking about the stupid stuff like using aiden to manipulate nik or leaving jake in the hospital to go boink her fiances brother - but those three things with zander, courtney and sam were serious lapses in judgement. What i find problematic with this story is i dont get why suddenly liz loves jason so much shes willing to do all this (or maybe shes grieving jake so much she cant stand to see another mother get her happy ending.) I think rons problem isnt that liz is being written ooc but rather that they arent providing us with the framework behind her actions.

Liason im not disagreeing with you pov nor am i agreeing. I want to see if this is merely a plot point or if it actually plays in to whatever story they are going to tell.

Thank you Perkie! Your post (#33) said it all more eloquently than I could because I was too busy spitting nails about how Liz is being character assassinated again! As far as Ron Carvialti, he is not a great writer and drives plot over character as we are witnessing on GH and witnessed on OLTL. OLTL greatly benefited from the work of Scott Sickles who was credited with many of the great pieces of dialogue as OLTL neared it's finale, including Viki's speech during the penultimate episode. Why on Earth would RC reference the poor writing of previous regimes who did not show regard for the character of Elizabeth Webber because they were busy driving plot over character! Why not reference the works of Claire Labine, Richard & Carolyn Culliton?

soapbaby - Why wouldn't RC reference the work of previous regimes who have all won Emmys for their writing? We may think their writing stinks but clearly those in the industry do not.

Well, I thought the bacherlette party was a hoot no matter who showed up, Magic Milo made me laugh and cringe in a good way, Ms. Sullivan was a riot as Niki Smith...I mean, Connie, and Liz going all Sami Have DNA Results Will Travel Brady is great soap operatic fun.

Ron Carlivati @carlivatiron
I'm getting tired of the phrase "under the bus." Can we try something else? How about "over the van"? E.g. I didn't throw her over the van.

5h Thea Rairdan @TheaElaine
@carlivatiron Liz has never in 14 years on the show ever done something like this. So yes that does seem OOC/thrown under a bus.

5h Ron Carlivati @carlivatiron @TheaElaine So when she cheated on her husband with his brother and then faked a mental breakdown to try to hold onto him, was that OOC too?

All I'm saying is that soap characters sometimes make mistakes and do bad things, just like real people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liz wasnt married to Lucky so this is actually an example which shows RC's lack of knowledge re GH's history.
And yes the affair was out of character because it ruined one of the best friendships on the show.
RC is notoriously thin skinned and this snippet is a perfect example.

Some people think Ron is too thin-skinned. Some people think Liz fans are too nitpicky.

Maxsmom thats really splitting hairs since lucky was at one point her husband and they were engaged again. I actually went and looked at the comments in their entirety from the last day and half this afternoon. I was amazed at how decent and civil he was to the fans when some of them were being downright snotty. He said in a bunch of different ways that he didnt feel this was ooc for liz given some of her history - oh and then they said the history he sited was ooc as well lol - and even when he tried to be humorous and lighten the load they told him he was disrespectful for joking around. He even said he loved all the characters and some said that was bs and wished for him to LOSE HIS JOB and for the show to end (which is ironic in that when becky was fired, people that hated the character were told anything less than full support was hoping for her family to starve and that wishing for anyone to be out of work was TERRIBLE). They even yelled at him about having her confess, saying that if she was going to take the hit for having done this then she should never tell. Then at one point jillian bowe commented something to the effect that people have to lighten up a little they went off on her.

^^ I asked why reference the work that discarded character-driven motivations in favor of plot points? I also mentioned previous writers (Labine & The Cullitons) who could be referenced who wrote for characters when soaps were still revered.

And why should Liz be made hateful to the point of keeping apart a mother and child when she has NEVER been written to be capable of such a thing AND she has lost three children (two from miscarriages & one as victim of drunk-driving) AND watching Emma live without her mother. Even to contemplate such a thing to another mother over a man is not the character I have known over the past 15 years. Same thing happened to Marty Saybrooke on OLTL under Ron Carvialti. Marty completely snapped over losing a man she barely dated when she had survived lupus, a gang-rape, near death-experiences, amnesia, held hostage, miscarriages and raped AGAIN by her one of her original rapists, watching him go free for that crime. But we the audience were asked to accept that she snapped over a man she barely dated when she had survived so much worse. There was no regard for the character's history and she became an obstacle to the reunion of John McBain & Natalie Buchanan, a heavily propped couple...similar to JaSam...

I didn't see this addressed in the Obs or comments, but was there some significance to them showing that Max had the Dead Man's Hand in the poker game and then folding saying he had nothing. Thought it was weird that they showed a close up to that twice. Anyone else notice that?

Soapbaby marty didnt snap over john per se she snapped because it was the last straw. but even there, she nearly KILLED someone. had she wanted to stay with the show or the show been going to continue she might well have been redeemed by saying she couldnt take her late term miscarriage, her sons incarceration and all the other things that she'd be through.

The other thing - not to defend ron here again, but he didnt say hey guzas the greatest writer in the world, he said how can you say this is ooc when she JUST faked a breakdown to keep lucky and cheated on him with his brother, suggesting that a woman capable of the latter would also be capable of the current actions. Now if someone asked him what do you think is the most compelling story thats been told WITH/for liz and he said liz sleeping with luckys brother, i would say yeah why wouldnt he go back to the rape story/falling in love with lucky stuff since that was way better storytelling and labine had a greater use and love for the character but THAT wasnt the question. Moreover, yes guza did run out of steam in the end and some of it was plot points for sake of plot points, but i dont see much of that with ron to be fair and not all of guzas stuff was that way. He DID win emmys as sassy pointed out multiple times.

Elizabeth is a horrible little imp

So did Jon Cryer, but even he couldn't believe it. I love the Emmy's but they ain't the Nobel Prize, if you know what I'm sayin'.

Personally, I don't think they're one and the same and I think it's silly of Ron (or anyone else) to try and sell me that. Because, by that token, anybody is capable of anything. Anna is just as capable as Todd of switching a dead baby for a live one and letting the grieving mother beleive her baby is dead. Patrick is capable of shooting out his father's tires, causing an accident that kills two people and keeping quiet about it. Lulu is capable of drugging someone with LSD. I could go on, but Does anyone beleive that?

But i would imagine that just like sam said she thought maureen was not a threat, liz is going to say i didnt think the baby was in danger. We know he is and obviously whether or not tea or heather or maureen were dangers it doesnt make it okay, it then becomes a paternity switch and we do know she is capable of that.

would anna switch the babies? You know anna is my fave but if she thought robin was suicidal and switching would save robin? yeah under the right circumstances she might - this is a woman who was a double agent. Where you would lose me is if her motivations werent well detailed or werent reasonable - ie she would ONLY do that for Robin and there is no other situation i would buy that in. Would patrick kill his dad and keep quiet about it....what if noah operated on robin drunk and killed her? And now when he goes to tell the truth maxie says emma needs him. if someone told you matt would kill someone you would say oh that is totally ooc but didnt you buy that he did once they gave you the drinking, the forgetting, and all the other crap lisa did that night. Even sam - i think the issue is that it came out of nowhere and went against what we had always seen instinctively - but then you add in the other crazy, erratic behavior then yeah in the midst of a breakdown anyone could do anything. Would lulu give someone lsd? what if lulu got the dose from heather instead of olivia might she then? what if she got a brain tumor.

As for guza are you honestly saying that ALL he wrote was plot point after plot point and none of his stories had value? And even that aside, are you suggesting that if you preferred labines writing then one should pretend that anything guza wrote didnt actually show up on our screens? when aj returns are we suppose to pretend aj didnt kidnap michael and kristina because guza wrote that? or is it better to say that aj snapped after all the degradation at sonnys hands and did what he did and edward knowing that he was going to go to jail wasnt going to let sonny win that way so he faked his death? Should ron ignore it or use the history in a compelling way.

Honestly again I believe characters on soaps are capable of anything given the right motivation. I think Liz has the motivation if she did do it. I love me some Sam- but really what obligation does Liz have to Sam anyways. She doesn't know the baby is Jasons so in her mind she is just maybe keeping the baby from Sam to keep Jason to herself. Why should she care? She is hardly a Saint.

there is a huge difference between being in a marriage and trying and failing to reconnect to your first love and reluctantly accepting an engagement and I expect the headwriter to know that even if the varying fanbases dont

Here is my problem with that comparison. She didn't just wake up one morning and decide to fake a breakdown. This was after the loss of Jake. There had already been dialouge that she still needed some help dealing with the loss and moving on. This was after Lucky had his own confusion about whether he wanted Liz or not. This was after her issues with Siobhan (and hadn't Siobhan died already)? I guess from my perspective, although I didn't like the fact that she did it at time, it was reasonable given the build up. Further....he points to a situation showing that she can be manipulative, but ignores the recent death of her child which would be reason why she wouldn't keep a mother away from her child?

That's what gets me. I don't see how a woman that just lost a child would be okay with letting another woman believe that her child is dead. Even in the soap world, I need some build up to that drastic action....rather than a retcon after it was over.

The last thing I need is for them to go back and say that while she was on screen saying one thing, she was going home and talking to a picture of Jason about how wonderful their life will be...

TheCourt I completely agree with you about build up before vs. retcon after and Ive said that now a few times. I also get your point about the fact that Shadybrooke happened around the time jake died, but at the same time ron could have used a multiple list of things to point to Liz's ability to lie, he just chose the last one. The cheating with nik happened before jake. The courtney thing was not a teen response and it happened before jake. Lying about the hit and run and asking lucky to steal the evidence, using the mother card to try and get him to risk his career (im a mother, i CANT go to jail) happened before jake. The reality is that liz's fault has ALWAYS been the fact that shes a liar when she wants something badly enough, just like carly at her worst is a schemer (and I LOVE carly) Heres the thing, you need to read the twitter feed. folks were basically saying he didnt know history so he threw out a nugget to prove he did. If he threw out that whole laundry list of things, the nutty lizFF (and they arent all nutty, im just saying the ones that were harassing ron endlessly) would have sent him a gazillion tweets about how guza sucked, how frons had an agenda, how all those stories were ooc, how she had reasons to do all the things she did in each of those instances etc.

My gut tells me that we are going to hear liz say something after the fact that she didnt think the woman who wasnt treating jasons right (since IMHO shes been taking his side from the jump in all things jasam) and the woman who allowed jake to be kidnapped didnt deserve her happy ending. We DID see some of that when she twice mentioned putting a "dead" child back in a mothers arms. I wish we had seen more of that BEFORE she did what she did, but I thought the storytelling so far has been pretty interesting.

I see your point, but here is where I am lost in this whole discussion. I am not someone invested in this Sam v Liz debacle. I understand that Liz has a past and that past wasn't perfect. I don't have a problem with that. I have never heard any viewer say that Liz was perfect (and really mean it).

I started watching the show when Liz was pregnant with Aiden. At that time, I saw a woman that had done many things in her life, but was now facing life without Lucky, and with his brother. It wasn't what she wanted, but it was what she got for what she did. I saw hints of snark along the way. I saw claws come out with Brook over Nik. I saw claws come out with Siobhan. So yes, I see a certain level of manipulation before Jake.

But the death of a child is a LIFE changing event...so much so that regardless of what she did before she lost Jake, it would keep her from allowing another mother to think her child is dead.

Further, solely speaking from my perspective, Liz spent a lot of my viewing time off screen. The time that she has been on (again, speaking from my viewership only), she hasn't been heartless. So to me, this is way out of left field.

If this is about whatever Sam did years ago that is rarely mentioned on screen today? I will scream. That is kinda what I meant by Liz talking to a picture off screen to explain what she was thinking...

The court i agree. The whole Jake dying thing has been a debacle because you are right. I guess I dont feel as tied to the idea jakes death was this life changing event because it didnt happen on screen. Lucky ran from port charles so in whatever way it changed him we didnt see it past the fact that lucky went from gvs committed father to jjs i cant be bothered fatherhood - not really a change for the better. Jason looked at his box of pain for a bit and then said to sam if you want surgery and a child im all for it. They didnt have one convo about how they would really deal with the danger or have any discussion about how jason would deal if he lost another child. I dont see how jakes death really changed him at all. Liz folded clothes, let steve hang out and then she went to Shadybrook. The next we saw much of her she was manipulating nik and snarking at siobhan and brooke. To that end, lizs actions to me might be opening the door to revisiting just what the loss of jake meant for her because making this more about him than wanting jason would be telling story.

Please let us not have any character speaking to photos or mirrors. Kate is enough. The show's problem is that they secregate characters. Liz should be chatting up Patrick or Steve. I wouldn't mind if she sat with Felicia, Mac, or Anna. Hell, at ghis point, give her Luke. He owes her. She needs a friend, a perspective, and some screentime.

Just saw the bachelorette party episode and it was SO GOOD!! It was a total HOOT! I was actually waiting for even more trashy and tacky from Connie - all things considered she was mild LOL.

God how I love Kelly Sullivan's portrayal of Connie! (not Kate) It's like he knows every beat by heart and looks, and acts just right, like some people I know irl. KSu was made for this kind of part - I wish they would have just kept her as Connie or brought her in as a different trashy character altogether.