mmepeacock

Gia's "gosh I'm proud of you" statement to her mom couldn't have been more rehearsed. The words came one after the other with almost no affect. Also telling was how she got out of the car, quickly, not looking at Teresa, no hug or kiss or smile or "I love you, Mommy" or anything else that indicated she was feeling a strong connection or pride in her mom. Wouldn't be surprised if some of Teresa's brilliant legal counsel wrote it up for her to garner some sympathy for her mom and her terrific parenting, in hopes of some sentencing leniency. Gia always looks so sad and tense, moreso in that scene. Plus, there are some--few--moments when Teresa does seem full of emotion--often when talking to/about her brother. This just seemed self-congratulatory and smug--see my Gia thinks I'm great, so I'm clearly a great parent and good citizen. My guess? Despite her protestations of hands-on parenting, Teresa NEVER handles the girls in the morning. The open cup of coffee, lack of seatbelts, general chaos and screaming, and of course, the total absence of Juicy. There's a huge gap between Teresa's godawful wakeup call (which I also call suspect: Milania's bed looked very neat and she was above the covers w/ a blanket) and when the girls are ready in the car. I'm guessing a staff of helpers, or at least relatives, put those girls together for school everyday. I mean, you only need to get in your car with an open cup of coffee ONCE to never, ever, ever do that to yourself again. No one tries that twice. So I'm guessing Teresa took a couple slow turns around the block rather than any actual commuting or taking the girls to school. Finally: Milania. The girl knows she gets attention by being a rude, mouthy brat, with no consequences. She is just a child, but between having her own thread on forums to the numerous nicknames for her, she knows she's distinguished herself from the other kids. At this age, she'll keep doing whatever brings her the attention and feeling of specialness. I predict dire things for Joe and Teresa from a teenage Milania--unless Milania somehow finds other role models and a different way of making herself feel special. Then again, kids often turn themselves around. Not too much of a chance here, but she's got time.

How unPC is it to note that Jac looks like a cariacature of an Asian-American, circa 1950's? Chris--I love ya, but in addition to skipping mortgage payments to pay for Nicholas and his treatments, you clearly also used the money so that Jac could inject her weight in with fillers. I remember first season I thought Jac was pretty in her curvy, made-up way. Now she makes Teresa's Dorito-hued, leathery textured visage seem like the "natural look,"

I feel for the Guidice kids like I would any kids with lousy, selfish parents. But I resent like HELL that Bravo and Theresa and the rest of this cast showcases and spotlights those four girls to get sympathy for Juicy & Theresa. Bravo's soulless minions will point the camera where the story is, and a teary-eyed Gia is certainly that. But the parents? The most important thing a parent can do is provide a safe, consistent, and secure home environment for their child. First, I doubt it was that to begin with--there was always something shaky and chaotic underneath Theresa & Joe's glitzy facade. Then their privacy and home is invaded by cameras and Bravo and the rest of America. Then there's the bitter, pointless and vicious feuding with the Gorgas, also publicized from the kids' point of view, with tears and violence and a lot of instability--again, all onscreen.. Then the law comes and threatens to take away their house and parents-rightfully, bc the parents have committed crime after crime to keep up appearances. Now Gia is thrust forward as an adorable, pitiful reason the courts should let the Guidice's walk--spotlight, tears, big sad tears--all worse bc they're real. Is anyone wondering if she knows she's supposed to be garnering sympathy--and a lighter sentence--for her folks? What happens when she can't? These are the choices Theresa and Joe made and are making, with Bravo about their kids, So my reaction is pretty much opposite of the pity and sympathy that they're trying to generate. I think that the Guidice girls might be better off with relatives or anyone who won't use them to further their own publicity/agenda/court struggles. (Let's see if there are any relatives like that) Also...am I wrong or did Theresa list the house before the kids in her prayer? Freudian slip?

I'm not sure how to check bar results myself. I recall that those who passed are posted online, but I don't know if it stays posted for a long time. It's only really relevant to those who took it. I just assumed if TinyJim was lying, some snarker would've dug up the dirt about his failing the bar exam. Til I hear otherwise, I'll assume he passed because it's such a ridiculous thing to lie about. Passed, failed, whatever, though, it doesn't matter. He ain't a lawyer either way. He can't depose, he can't issue subpoenas, he can't sign off on any case, he can't make *anyone* his "bitch on the witness stand." The most he can do is what any of us can do--file a complaint against someone, and hire a real lawyer to take the case. In fact, he's wannabe litigious like every wannabe non-lawyer I've ever met. p.s. I get so much glee at the fact that his response to unfair editing that made him look like a pissy douche was to....become a pissy douche about it. BWAH! ;-) p.p.s There's NO way Jim was in-house counsel to the pharmaceutical company, or any company. In-house attorneys have usually racked up 4-6 years of relevant legal practice already before moving to (largely cushy) in-house jobs. NO inhouse counsel is an unlicensed lawyer. The term "counsel" implies "barred and practicing attorney." He *may* have worked in the legal department, but I think instead he was just a run-of-the-mill sales rep, participating in the same fraud that he later blew the whistle on.

just an fyi: lots and lots of people take the bar and don't go further to get admitted. It happens. Not all the time--once you've passed the bar, the rest of the stuff is pretty easy to do--but people have been taking the bar for years without any intent to be licensed or to practice as an attorney. I haven't seen anything to state that Jim failed the bar exam, which I'm sure would've come up by now. And which would make more sense than taking it, passing it and not getting licensed. But even so, people do pass the bar exam and don't take that final step. They're usually people with nothing to prove (i.e. not TinyJim) or people with something to hide (possibly TinyJim) Jim may NOT state that he is a lawyer or attorney or version of the above. Going to law school and passing the bar exam does NOT make you either. It's like saying "I completed med school so now you have to call me a doctor." As nominal, or cursory, as it may be, you need that license to call yourself a lawyer or an attorney. I would still like to know how he "manages" litigation--beyond an office manager or coordinator role, which requires little more than a college degree.

Re: TinyJim's legal qualifications: (this is my take, correct me if I'm wrong in the facts). I believe Mr. Marcheesy did in fact attend three years of law school at Seton Hall in New Jersey. It is NOT a cut-rate law school; it's legit, though by no means top-tier. He did take the New Jersey bar exam, and passed. All bar exams are hard, but New Jersey is not nearly as hard as New York or California. He would also have to take a professional responsibility exam, which is not hard at all. I think this is where Marcheesy stopped. He is NOT at this point, an attorney, nor is he licensed in ANY way. To be admitted to the bar (and therefore "be licensed" in New Jersey, he'd have to put together a package of references, past history and jobs, as well as pass a fairly thorough background check. He'd also need to be interviewed by another NJ bar member in good standing, and attend a swearing in ceremony. It can take anywhere from 2-6 months AFTER bar results are revealed. Then he has to take 22 hours of legal education every two years and pay to keep up his membership. As far as I can tell, he did not do any of this. It's possible he might have tried to be admitted and failed, but that isn't always public information. He clearly had no intent of practicing--maybe there was no job offer pending--so he went into pharmaceutical sales. But he's so hell-bent on showing off his lawyer chops--in a way a REAL lawyer usually doesn't bother with (and most of what he's threatened "legally" could also be construed as attorney malpractice). He's in love with the idea of being a lawyer, but for some reason, he couldn't pull it off. So he just talks like the lawyers he sees on tv, throws his degree around, and feels just like Perry Mason--without actually working as one. Sadly, he is still NOT an attorney. Can NOT give legal advice, represent clients, bring cases to court. Can do NONE of the things he's threatened, and I fail to see how he "manages" litigation when he's a mortgage broker or whatever.* There is NO way he had any control over the Bravo contract, let alone the chops to make any changes to it. A lawyer would've been able to read the contract, however. I don't know if Jim at his level really understood it. *(Like most professionals, lawyers do have office managers and project managers,as well as secretaries and paralegals, "managing" the files of the litigation. It's possible Marcheesy might have been one of those. NONE of those positions require the slightest bit of legal education or training)

I've seen this referenced and need to ask: when exactly did Carole trash Reid's career? I don't remember her doing this even as a hypothetical, but I do zone in and out of this stuff to preserve some brain cells.... In terms of reactions, I support Carole in all her feelings and most of her reactions. I do stand by my thoughts that it would have been much smarter to be cool about the situation and not give the storyline any strength. That goes for Carole and Heather. It was barely an insult. Aviva doesn't matter. But Carole was clearly too outraged to just roll her eyes and avoid Aviva as a non-well-wisher. And, of course, Carole the Real Housewife needed a storyline. She gets to play protagonist to Aviva's antagonist, so it's great for her to let Aviva loose and be cool. Her best move? Handing back the leg, carefully. Otherwise, that would have been another "moment" for Aviva--to get the leg back, limp around, make dramatic motions for sympathy-and Carole managed a moment of grace. (I don't discount it for saying Aviva needs help. Without knowing ANYTHING, I'd say a person who pulls their own EXPENSIVE artificial limb off, throws it on the table, then towards someone onto the floor, is BTSC or drunk) But the face-grab? Not cool in these circumstances, not cool in almost any circumstance (I might make an exception if someone spit on me, but then again, I might also be too busy beating them over the head with a fake leg) Back to my original point. Aviva engaged in malicious gossip. Has Carole done the same re: Aviva?

I definitely think Carole could've handled it better if she wanted to kill the non-story of did she use a ghostwriter. For whatever reason--to have a storyline, hubris, outrage, guilt--she didn't. No one would be discussing whether she had a ghostwriter or not if she wasn't On This Show. It's just not that interesting a piece of gossip. Tell me Philip Roth, or Martin Amis had his books ghostwritten and then it rises to a piece of literary gossip. With that said: Carole's reaction of "who are you?" made perfect sense to me. As a ghostwriter, I have never failed to be astonished at how quickly someone with passable spelling, poor grammar and no sense of storytelling suddenly calls himself an "author" bc of the words I've written --entirely-- under his name. Aviva is NOT a professional writer. She's an author, and she took a detour (celebrity) to get there. Carole might have gotten a big boost from her connections with celebrity, but What Remains and her journalism pre-dates her transformation into a Housewife. Publishing is her industry, and her people. Aviva is not her equal. If some one-off wannabe no-experience "it-takes-a-village" author started talking down to me or attempted some "Sisterhood of the Pen" shit with me, either in book publishing or a writer, I'd laugh in her face. SAHM, lawyer, whatever, as well, she got thrown into the deep end with water wings. She can't tell everyone she's a swimmer. I'd say congratulations and wait and see if she keeps writing or not, to earn the right to bitch at my level. Makes me an arrogant fuck? Yeah, I guess. But short-cutters like Aviva burn my chaps. No one is a professional writer for fun or money, it's hard work, passion and not much else. Yet everyone seems to think they could do it if they had time/money/friend in publishing. Guess what? Almost no professional writer has those things to start out.

I've been a magazine/web journalist, book author, book ghostwriter, legal writer, marketing writer, copy editor, developmental editor, writing coach and literary critic. These are just the hats I wore on different gigs, and different gigs interpret them differently. A public figure is almost always assigned some "extra eyes" to watch a first-time memoir. The label changes. Carole says editor, Aviva says ghostwriter. Only someone who was with the project from first draft to final proof knows for sure how much of the book stayed true to the original, and what was changed. Only really influential authors are immune from sweeping changes that the publisher wants. The whole process, particularly with a memoir, is tricky and uncomfortable. Carole's reaction could just be memories of being babysat by assigned editors when she didn't think she needed it. Or changes she had to agree to. Or someone she was forced to work with. It doesn't necessarily mean ghostwriter, but it could be what some people thought. It's just gossip, and largely unravel-able, since smart people are going to stay very silent, and publishing a book does indeed take a village. If the memoir sounds like what Carole writes in her blog, then she probably did author most of it. Or she got the same writer for her blog. Who can tell?

Excellent point! And literary feuds are lucrative to boot. HOWEVER. Don't they have to be literary? By even mentioning Aviva's name or opinion, Carole is elevating her to the status of professional writer, someone whose opinions matter more than a layman. Norman Mailer hated Truman Capote, Capote hated/loved Vidal....but they put themselves in the ring with someone with some literary weight. They didn't answer back to random accusation from haters or wannabes. They answered peers This isn't really a writer feud at all, is it? This is a Real Housewives feud. Carole's not in the ring with Margaret Atwood. The more I think about it, the more I think that Carole's career as a professional writer and Carole's gig as a Real Housewife are going to require opposing commitments/choices. One might feed the other, but probably not as she anticipates.

Poking Aviva would be Carole doing her job (as a Real Housewife) well.. It unfortunately runs counter to doing her other job (professional writer) well. From the professional writer/publishing perspective, answering back to your critics--particularly the really personally motivated, credential-less or just BTSC critics--looks bad. A writer's work, in theory, should speak for itself. A writer who defends himself against criticism doesn't trust his own writing. The only person who could give Bookgate any relevancy is a person who claims to have actually ghostwritten (not merely edited) huge chunks of What Remains. Beyond that, it's Aviva's uninformed (and gossip is not a credible source) opinion, and worth exactly that. Bookgate is useless and a waste of time for Carole the writer. It is, unfortunately, juicy shit for Carole the Real Housewife, as it makes her the protagonist (for whatever lame reason) against the most easily hateable housewife in recent history. She gets a good edit just by going against Aviva. It'll be tough for her to relinquish that position. It'll be interesting to see which she chooses.

I forgot that, thanks. My point is the same. A journalist is not automatically a book writer; a nonfiction writer is not automatically a fiction writer. She might have had multiple editors for that; anyone one of them could be mislabeled/identified as a ghostwriter. I do agree it's a lot worse to be accused of needing a ghostwriter for a memoir rather than fiction. There's no meat to an accusation Carole used a ghostwriter. It's like Aviva is saying "I don't think you're a good writer." Who cares? The blame for bookgate is on Aviva, but Carole definitely fanned the flames--she couldn't let go of her outrage and was clearly upset this was playing out on tv. Interestingly, Aviva's "what's the big deal" approach at the reunion is mine--except Aviva doesn't get to start a forest fire and then complain it wasn't put out fast enough.. The more Aviva pursues this (or Carole) the more damage she does to herself. The less Carole does, the better she looks. Just keep writing well, and the accusations will seem nonsensical.

To split some hairs here re: #bookgate (why are we hashtagging it again?) It is common if not standard for a new author, particularly a celebrity author, to use a ghostwriter. In many cases it is required by the publisher. The celebrity author has a public persona which must be advanced by the book. The book must be in harmony with the expectations of the celebrity's fans. Exceptions include celebrity writers, often comedians (Mindy Kaling, for example). But a celebrity book still often has multiple editors. There is the editor who acquired the book from the publishing house, the traditional editor. There can be a developmental editor who strategizes and pieces the book together, as well as a separate editors for structure, grammar, whatever. There is a lot more at stake and a lot more people involved in the content than meets the eye. So many writers might also hire a freelance editor to go over her drafts before they are sent to the publishing house. Some freelance editors just read and respond. Others do a lot of line-by-line editing or even a fair amount of writing, often ghostwriting big chunks. The line is fuzzy. Carole could have a freelance editor hired by the house and one hired for herself. Anyone who reads the book and gets paid for a professional publishing opinion is an editor. Also, Carole might well have been assigned a ghostwriter, or a *very* hands-on editor. This was her first fiction book, which is a whole new ballgame. She can be great as a journalist and nonfiction writer, and suck at fiction. Many people do. She might be embarassed about that. But all these ghostwriters, freelance editors and other professionals sign contracts that have big confidentiality clauses. They are not to divulge what they did, how much, or how often, and get paid to keep their mouth shut. I have no opinion of Carole as a writer since I haven't read her books, but I think she can be considered a professional writer, since that is how she makes a living. In which case, the accusation of ghostwriting isn't an ethical one, but one of competence. A professional writer might have many editors, even a couple writing contributors, but saying you had a ghostwriter--either by choice or bc the publishing house decided you needed one--is accusing you of not being good enough at your job. I understand Carole's reaction in that light. However, her reaction is what spurred Heather (to investigate) and Aviva (to continue to disparage Carole's competence as a professional writer) Furthermore, being accused of having a ghostwriter, while insulting to the professional, is NOT the same as being accused of plagiarism or falsifying, which are true career-enders. Carole is innocent til proven guilty. Meaning-- if she says she wrote the damn book, she doesn't have to produce a single person to back her up...until Aviva produces an actual ghostwriter, or some other proof, that Carole is lying. And that ain't gonna happen. Aviva's accusation is just noise; So Carole should have reined it in, particularly at Aviva's house, because she painting a bullseye on her forehead. The only real story here was Carole's outrage, and Aviva's ability to play on it.

I think if Carole had said "I know people who said Aviva's been diagnosed with Munchausen's Syndrome," it would be on par with Aviva's statement that she knows people who say that Carole used a ghostwriter. Carole's statement of "I think she's got Munchausen's syndrome" is not an accusation or mudslinging, but an opinion. It disparages but does not damage perceptions of Aviva's mental health. Carole is not a doctor. One layperson's casual remark about another's mental illness is insulting, but it does NOT put it "out in the ether" for Aviva to live with forever. Aviva's statement disparages and damages perceptions of Carole's writing. Aviva's is not an opinion, but stated as a fact, with evidence to back this fact up (names she's been dropping), publicly, based on her knowledge and interaction with NY publishing industry types (Carole's peers/employers). It's far from a casual snark, nasty remark or individual opinion.

Watching Ramona reacting to Andy's questions on her marriage again, I think I can see what went wrong for her. Her strategy was a bright-eyed, plasticly grinning, politely unyielding brick wall--she wasn't going to talk about anything regarding her marriage for Avery's sake, and that was that. But the reality was different--she presented the brick wall, but far more important to her--that she emphasized repeatedly--was that everyone knew that she and Mario were "fine" "together," etc. That her friends hadn't been supportive during this difficult time....because there WAS no difficult time ("my friends are always supportive no matter what's going on"). Her need to deny that anything was wrong won over her need to present a calm, neutrall request for privacy and support. And I think this need to insist marriage was perfect (rather than just gracefully defect attention from the topic altogether) was what really launched the tabloids (and possibly Mario) into action. I suppose it's fair: Ramona's done a lot of damage with her mouth--why shouldn't she hurt herself the most?