j swift

Chanel/Johnny, Paulina/Abe, and Kayla/Steve are all happy. In fact, standard summer procedure would have been for Chanel and Johnny to have a romantic interlude this week to help distract from the trial. But, we get so few love scenes, that the best we got was Johnny and Chanel having lunch with her mother.

Must we specify which Paige; either by actress, or sudden character turn? The character changed motives more often than she changed faces. 🙄

What in the name of 80s drop-waisted satin monstrosity is this? ⬅️Leann Hunley looked amazing in Nolan Miller on Dynasty. The DAYS social media team posted this pic for Anna's return and her wedding outfit was a 1980s fashion crime. A cocktail hat, and a veil, and a heavy neckline, and a gathered drop-waist? The woman was stunning, but even she could not wear all of those variables at once. And she was only 30, styled like she was 60. I swear Alice Horton got more flattering gowns than this one on poor Anna. (I mean, we know the wedding night with Tony was nothing special, at least she could've looked cute).

Darlene Vogel, aka Dr. Melanie McIver, Lindsay Rappaort's sister and ex-wife of Colin McIver, has gotten a fair share of bad press recently over her controversial, viral, remarks at a recent Santa Monica City Council Meeting. She was opposing the construction of a government-assisted public housing project being built in Santa Monica. Part of her argument was that when she worked on OLTL, she didn't make enough salary to live in Manhattan, and could only afford a rat-infested apartment in Queens. BUT, she proudly tells the council, that she never asked for government assistance while under contract at One Life to Live. 🙄 Understandably, Ms. Vogel's tone-deaf remarks have gotten some push back (and most of those people didn't even have to sit through the whole McIver family mishagoss on OLTL)

Great post, @AbcNbc247 as always. I especially agree about how much stronger Belle is when the show lets her operate in lawyer mode rather than just orbiting Marlena or EJ. And yes, Johnny does wear a suit well, credit where it’s due. That said, this was another episode where I found myself quietly amused by the show’s understanding of real-world legal processes. Two things stood out to me: First, the Freedom of Information Act doesn’t work that way. It’s a federal law that applies to government agencies, not private corporations. DiMera and Titan are not public entities—unless they’ve secretly merged with the U.S. Postal Service, Steve wouldn’t be FOIA-ing their merger filings. Meanwhile, he somehow gets Alex Kiriakis’s dismissed college arrest record, but not a basic corporate disclosure? Classic Salem logic: private records are easy to get, public ones are shrouded in mystery. But I get what they were going for: Steve uncovering secrets with a paper trail that will lead back to him. Second, the Fifth Amendment. Johnny was called by the prosecution to testify against his own interest in a trial where he’s still a plausible suspect. That’s just not how court works. EJ is sleeping with the prosecutor, defending his own son, and calling her out for a conflict of interest—while he’s the victim. The show’s not even pretending this trial follows legal rules. But again, if the goal was to get emotional fireworks on the stand, it worked. You also mentioned Marlena, and I think you’re onto something. My guess is she becomes central later in the trial, especially once Rachel is called to testify. That's her granddaughter, and there's no way they don’t give Marlena some kind of protective or emotional reaction beat when that happens. As for Chanel, I’m guessing the writers kept her out of court so, in the near future, they can show the video while preserving her ignorance of it. Dramaturgically (a word I intend to use more frequently, just because I like saying it), they need her not to know it’s been doctored, because once she sees it, she’ll realize that her threat to EJ came after the shooting, not before. Also, she a perfect expo dump character for Johnny to recap the trial for the audience who went to get a snack. It’s a lot of narrative puzzle pieces, but to their credit, the show seems to be laying track pretty deliberately this time. We’ll see where it goes. One thing is for sure, no matter who’s writing, someone will find a reason to tell a story about Alex Kiriakis getting naked in public.

That's the only record that I wished to correct. AW production fired the actress, but they didn't disrespect the character, or run Pat out of town in disgrace (like they did to Aussie Iris).

I’ve always felt that interpretation of Pat’s exit was too limited. She didn’t like Jamie’s book, and she didn’t want to stick around for the movie adaptation. But the scenes of her leaving weren’t framed as shameful. If anything, she seemed triumphant about moving on to this new position. Jamie, on the other hand, came off as a bit of a jerk for not being more sensitive about protecting Pat’s identity. That was part of his shift into a less sympathetic character; one whose past behavior got quietly cleaned up later on. So I never saw it as Pat being “run out of town.” That framing only started to take hold for me when I read summaries much later. At the time, when those episodes aired, I didn’t experience it that way at all. It is important to remember that Pat didn't tell her friends and colleagues that she was leaving because of the book. In fact, she left to avoid being associated with the book. She made the choice, applied for the promotion, and left. Everyone cried, she got a nice closeup. But, it wasn't embarrassing or shameful. Liz wasn't ringing that bell from Game of Thrones, while Cecile branded her with a scarlet letter. I understand why that version of the story has stuck over the years, but I’d argue it’s a subjective interpretation, and there were other ways to understand those scenes.

I’ve never been a fan of bringing back a character who was given a complete and satisfying exit. So if one writing team ends a character’s arc in a way that feels resolved—like Pat leaving to pursue her career in publishing after years of domestic struggle—it’s hard for me to get on board when another team brings them back just to create new conflict. It usually ends up feeling like a step backward. Like when Stacy was brought back single, with her husband and child written out, just to stir tension. Or when Iris returned from Texas without the independent wealth or experience she’d earned there. Those kinds of returns often flatten the character instead of building on what came before. Someone like Sharlene, though, didn’t get that kind of exit. So there’s still something to play. Her unresolved tension between domesticity and autonomy, and how that shaped Josie. That’s where I see space for return. It’s also a natural setup for a Matt and Josie story that was a classic Romeo and Juliet setup of the kids of antagonistic families falling in love. Of course, I don’t know who gets to decide whether an ending was truly satisfying or not. But I would’ve liked to be on that committee. 🧑🏼‍⚖️⚖️

I’m still fully on board with the meshuggah brilliance of EJ acting as Johnny’s defense attorney. It’s a rich dramatic opportunity, and it’s been a pleasure to watch him take center stage in these cross-examinations. EJ seems cool, composed, and absolutely in his element. That said, the trial has been tilted entirely in EJ’s favor. During the presentation of the prosecution, he’s dismantled every witness: Chad, Jada, Roman, Paulina, and Gabi. The dynamic has been so lopsided that Belle looks completely incompetent. But, gird your loins. Structurally, this all seems intentional. We all know EJ is going to mess this up. The show is creating a sense that Johnny’s acquittal is inevitable. Which is why Rachel’s testimony is going to land as the first real disruption. Even if she didn’t see the shooting, Rachel saying she saw Johnny with the gun is enough to shift the tone of the trial. It finally gives Belle a day in court that feels like a win. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the moment EJ turns on Chanel, especially since he sent Belle the anonymous, doctored video of Chanel threatening to kill him—after he had already recovered from the shooting. I think he’s going to accuse Belle of withholding evidence just to force her to bring that video into the trial. If things start to go badly for Johnny, EJ’s going to make his next move.

Sorry, I didn’t add context in my original post. Yes, I agree with you, and I should’ve noted that by 1985, Penberthy had publicly said she wasn’t looking to return either. Although we have idea how she felt at the time of the anniversary week shows years later. Additionally, as someone who watched Pat, I think her arc toward liberation felt narratively complete by that point. Reintroducing her in the late '80s—as part of another family or in a triangle—would’ve undercut the impact of that growth.

Lynda Hirsh, Feb 1985

This post got me wondering if there had been any movement in Arianne Zucker’s case since that wave of coverage last summer. From what I could find, the last public development came in August 2024, when a Los Angeles judge ruled Zucker could proceed with her request for injunctive relief under California business code §17200. That portion of her suit sought to prohibit Albert Alarr from engaging in similar workplace behavior in the future. The court agreed there was enough alleged pattern to justify that claim moving forward. That ruling, in effect, bars Alarr from ever executive producing another daytime show. It was a major win. Reading between the lines, the judge agreed that there was enough evidence collected to determine a pattern of abuse by Alaar, which indicates Zucker had a strong case. Alaar's attorney even tried to argue that the injunction should be dismissed because he wasn't working, nor did he foresee any future employment opportunities (one hopes not 😎). But, the judge ruled they didn't want even the possibility to be left open that Alaar would ever be offered a similar opportunity. The court scheduled a follow-up hearing for October 2024. But there’s been no public record, media reporting, or legal filing visible after that date. Although I trust @carolineg never presumes. It’s tempting to assume the case was settled out of court, but I’d caution against jumping to that conclusion. Here’s why: In California civil cases, especially when injunctive relief is involved, settlements usually appear in the public docket, even if the terms are sealed. Most often, the case would be dismissed “with prejudice,” and that would be noted. Injunctions like the one Zucker is seeking are generally harder to resolve quietly. Because they implicate future behavior, judges typically want some form of formal agreement or court order, even if the rest of the case is resolved privately. So while the absence of new filings is notable, it doesn’t necessarily mean the matter has been settled. It could also indicate procedural delays, continued negotiations, or that the October hearing occurred but wasn’t covered.

The writing feels sympathetic toward Tate’s desire to reconnect with his son, but I hate the (perhaps unintentional) political undertones. Paul, Chloe, and Lani all grew up without knowing their biological fathers. In each case, the eventual reunion worked because it happened when they were adults, seeking answers on their own terms—not because someone forced the door open during early childhood. And in the more heightened, even absurd corners of the show’s history, we’ve seen this dynamic play out with characters like Stefano DiMera, whose children consistently emerged in adulthood—Peter, Kristen, EJ, Chad, and even Megan. Days may exaggerate the reveal, but it still respects the underlying logic: these connections come with time, and usually only after the child has an identity of their own. If the show wanted to honor that legacy, someone like Paul could easily voice it: “That baby has parents. Let them do the job. If a connection is meant to come, it’ll come when he’s ready, not when you are.” That would shift the story from romanticized redemption to something more emotionally mature: not a dramatic gesture, but a respectful decision not to interfere.

In the early 70s, Pat fit a character type I’ve always had a soft spot for. Those anxious, upper-middle-class blondes like Anne Tyler on AMC or Amanda Howard on DAYS. But where those characters tended to disappear once their first act was done, Pat kept going. After her divorce from John, she didn’t fade into the background. She ran Brava. She held her own with Cecile. She had a younger lover, and the show didn’t treat it like a joke. It all tracked. That’s really the issue for me. You don’t take a character whose arc was about becoming a liberated woman and then place her in the middle of a show that, at that point, was more interested in feather boas, European ex-husbands, and jewel thieves. By the time the focus had shifted to characters like Donna and Felicia, AW was playing in a different emotional register. Pat’s growth had been about independence, not reinvention through wealth or fantasy. Trying to put her in that kind of storyline would’ve meant ignoring what the show had already done well with her. It’s not that those stories didn’t work. They just weren’t built for a character like Pat. Still, I think @Tisy-Lish had the right idea about timing. Once the Frames were back and the show started focusing more on class and community, Pat would have made sense again. Not because she was a legacy character, but because she'd already shown she could adapt to the moment. You just couldn’t style her into something she wasn’t. Putting Pat into John and Sharlene’s orbit would’ve given us a triangle with some actual weight. Instead of being the one who got cheated on, Pat could’ve been the one who disrupted someone else’s story for a change. Although, I loved Sharlene's scenes when she gets to confront Felecia for having an affair with John. And, I don't know who I would've rooted for if it was a triangle with Pat and Sharlene.

@MLH If you're looking for another source on the storylines, I recommend the anniversary books. They’re an enjoyable collection—accessible, well-priced, and full of nostalgic charm. https://a.co/d/bNO4moO https://a.co/d/2GylZNb Personally, I prefer Schemering’s writing style. It feels more engaging to me, though I can’t say which author dives deeper into the research. Errors are inevitable, given the limited access to primary source materials. Still, both books offer a fun and entertaining recap with photos.

I agree that Pat and Mac developed a close bond at Cory Publishing, especially during Pat’s tenure as editor of Brava Magazine. That said, wasn’t there some tension when Mac promoted Cecile over Pat? I don’t recall it being explicitly stated that their friendship soured afterward, and Pat did remain at Cory Publishing until she left Bay City. Still, it was Mac who ultimately elevated Cecile. If memory serves, Cecile manipulated the situation—voicing concerns about Pat’s capability to lead Brava in what felt distinctly All About Eve-coded. So, Mac’s decision wasn’t necessarily a betrayal of Pat, but rather a consequence of Cecile’s calculated interference. As for their deeper connection, I can’t say for certain, but it’s possible that Mac confided in Pat about his sterility—especially considering she believed herself to be infertile before unexpectedly conceiving twins. That kind of shared vulnerability might have deepened their friendship in ways that would've freaked Rachel out.

And while I'm nitpicking... Why is it that soap characters always appear in their family's living room mere moments after a transatlantic flight—as if customs, jet lag, and the concept of personal hygiene don’t exist? Now, before the "literal police" barge in, yes, I know Alison Sweeney was only on for a day and nobody wanted to waste precious airtime with dull logistics. But still—can we talk about how poorly they justified Sami flying from Italy to Salem for what amounts to a glorified cameo? Especially since she called Marlena last week to say she was coming. Couldn’t Marlena have at least tracked her flight on an app like every other mom since 2014? The acting and writing were genuinely strong. But honestly, Sami could’ve said all of that over the phone—preferably while sipping wine and hugging a photo of John in her Italian palazzo. Or better yet, she could’ve invited Marlena to the palazzo itself and skipped the dramatic detour. I kept getting distracted by the convoluted logic explaining why Sami was visiting Marlena and Johnny but wasn’t attending the trial. It all felt like narrative gymnastics. I couldn’t help but wonder why these scenes weren’t edited into earlier episodes, where they might have landed with more emotional punch. Or, say that it was a Sunday. Court wasn't in session. And elevator repair guy was off duty. To be clear, I’m not interested in why the writers made these choices. I just found the execution too awkward to let the scene’s intended emotions fully resonate. Also, why don't soaps take place narratively on a weekend? Meanwhile, if I’d just flown in from Rome, I wouldn’t be sneaking into my grieving mother’s penthouse. I’d be looking for a restroom, a glass of water, and some time to scroll my phone. Soap logic says surprise airport arrivals are a dramatic necessity. I say they’re right up there with returning from the store clutching hat boxes, and maybe it’s time we let those tropes rest in peace.

Seeing Susan and EJ share a scene as mother and son will never not be funny. In today’s episode, EJ looked like he should be calling Susan “mom” in air quotes—and Johnny’s youthful glow only amplified the absurdity, making Susan look like she’d been chugging down some kind of anti-aging elixir brewed in Dr. Rolf's lab. Honestly, even the world’s most questionable wig department—yes, DAYS hair and makeup, I’m looking at you—could toss in a silver streak or two to remind us we’re witnessing intergenerational drama, not a metaphysical prank.

I suppose Melissa’s influence would be diminished if Sarah took thirteen years to finish her degree. 🤔 Honestly, that's less academic persistence and more a tragic misallocation of student loans. And sure, Melissa’s brief stint as a candy striper at University Hospital might've sparked something in both Sarah and Nathan, but I shouldn't romanticize it too much. Between the two of them, they've made some ethically dubious choices with medical test results that make me seriously question their moral compass.

I thought about Sarah's early years with Micky and Maggie, but it's Melissa who shaped her through the pivotal seasons—high school, and likely college. Even if their bond didn’t resemble a traditional mother-daughter relationship, Melissa’s presence was formative. Raising two children who both graduated from medical school is no small feat; it speaks volumes about her steadiness and influence. To me, Sarah’s academic discipline feels like Melissa’s legacy. The moral ambiguity? That, I chalk up to Neil. And Sarah's odd fashion styling, purely Maggie.😎

I enjoy Sarah's paternal callbacks, but what about Melissa? She raised Sarah and Nathan. They both became doctors. Yet, she rarely gets the props she deserves, and Neil gets all the credit for Sarah's career choices.

Julie’s at risk of slipping into parody again. I’m all for Julie being Chad’s fierce defender—she’s his grand-aunt-in-law, helps raise his kids, and they’ve shared some great scenes together. Their little caper last summer, snooping into Cat’s past while she was still missing, was the right tone: nosy, loyal, oddly fun. But this week’s outburst in front of Felicity felt like a step back. We’ve seen Julie evolve past her more reactive, conservative, finger-wagging phase after the time jump. This felt like a regression to a pre-time-jump version of her that we thought had grown. If she wants to warn Chad about Cat, fine. But I wish she’d do it as a friend who sees red flags, not as a shrieking shrew trying to freeze him in Abigail’s memory. That doesn’t serve anyone. And speaking of red flags: I still think Chad and Abigail’s relationship was romanticized past the point of truth. There were signs that their love came with a cost, especially to Abigail’s mental health. Julie insisting that no one will ever match that kind of “eternal love” isn’t just unhelpful, it’s slightly unkind.

In retrospect, Lee Ann was like a first draft of Southern Blair. In the second draft, they corrected the errors by giving Blair and Max some chemistry. Blair being a Cramer Woman was ten times better that Lee Ann and Du Ann. And, somehow, even though both characters made awful choices, Blair seems more sympathetic than Lee Ann, to me.

ALT Title : Unemployed actor open to work after not booking a job for a year. 😎