j swift

I guess nobody is immune to errors or mistakes, after all facts are facts

Forgive the brief tangent, but just to prove that SOD is trash when it comes to reporting, in the same issue Tony Geary is quoted about his relief at coming back to GH in 1991 as Bill because playing Luke as an "icon of anti-heroism" had become "taxing". However, SOD didn't ask Glory Monty for a quote to contrast Tony's opinion, unlike what SOD did to Maureen Garrett, which I thought was both very disrespectful and undermined their own scoop that she had trouble with the writing. Thus, not only do the Calhoun quotes not age well, but they were unnecessary at the time.

SOD 2/19/91 - I always forget that SOD was writing about stuff that occurred weeks before the publication date at that time - the Calhoun remarks do not age well.

Yes, it was Tomlin (NYT 2/23/1986) A flood will engulf the fictitious Middle Western town of Henderson; subsequent days will bring the remaining characters and plotlines all into a single apartment house. ''We wanted to get everyone together so they could interact more easily and so we could concentrate more on domestic issues,'' said the show's head writer, Gary Tomlin, of the change in television's longest-running soap opera. FYI - I've been trying annotate my sources as to avoid the harsh wit of Mr. Jones

I don't think Esme was ever the hook, but they'll have to account for who was hooking early on while Heather was still in the more restrictive mental health facility. She has easily snuck in and out of this place, but hasn't it been determined to be less restrictive that where she was when she first reappeared? The Hook started hooking when she attacked Ava on August 26th and Heather didn't reappear until October 28th. I've crossed the Lt Mayor off of the list, as she's involved in the Anna haunting story, and I think that will be her exit plot. And I think Rory was just a classic red herring and Esme is obviously who we are supposed to think is the killer. I still think the key is the clue that the poison was from a South Seas reptile, and only a few people would have access to that...

My thoughts were in response to watching Nicole at the Dimera mansion. Now, I don't know why Nicole can't get her own place, except that there seems to be a housing crisis in Salem. But, it seems like she used her physical charms to find a way out of Rafe's place and into the mansion. I agree with most of your points about the character in terms of her business savvy and big heart. I feel like her self-awareness of her insecurities wavers according to the different script writers. But, I'd certainly like it better if she was the one figuring out that Stefan was drugging EJ, rather than leaving it up to lil' Johnny to solve, like in today's episode. I know she's had a million jobs, but wasn't she in PR when she lived in LA? It might also be fun to have her mentor Stephanie on how to write a press release in less than a day. Overall I just long for some shuffling of interactions between characters, I'd love to see some new scene partners. With regard to @Soapsuds response to Gabi, I disagree that she's totally one dimensional. Kidnapping Stefan and having Rolf deprogram him was nutty. But I thought the Valentine's episodes with Li explained the motivation behind her desperation. However, I am questioning why Stefan has chosen to medicate EJ as form of mind control. Although, I think it's amusing that his method keeps failing. There's got to be a better way. Maybe he should align with Gabi to collaborate on a plan?

I feel like we just reviewed Pam Long's departure from GL in October, but here's the SOD story (it is never specified if she quit, was fired, or if it was mutual). Officially she left as she was getting married, unofficially there was network interference around three topics, Reva's return as an X-mas angel, Harley's romance with a Jewish retail entrepreneur, and Holly & Roger's discussion of her rape (see the 80s SOD news tumblr discussion thread for more details). Months after she left GL aired the scenes in Acapulco when Holly & Roger were trapped in a hotel due to the weather, but from the reporting it sounds like that plot was pitched prior to Long's departure. Maureen Garrett was quoted in SOD that Pam Long promised her that Holly would not come out looking like a victim. But, Maureen was dissatisfied with the way the scenes were eventually written because of Roger's lack of culpability for also raping Rita and his violent treatment of women. I was shocked reading GL's producer Robert Calhoun response was that Holly and Roger remembered things differently, but Roger was not "unprovoked." From 1/8/1991

I don't 100% agree that DAYS is bad, as much as I would say that it is not for everyone. Certainly, a fan of GH or Y&R would hate the over the top audacity of three middle aged women being held hostage in cryo-pods. But, I still smile at the outrageous hits and misses of this show. I hesitate to use the word camp, because I feel that should apply to an actual earnest drama. DAYS seems to be striving for camp, which is usually best when determined by the audience, and not the deliberate goal of the production. However, the shoddy sets, ageing ingenues, and commitment to male eye candy keeps me tuning in at least 2-3 times per week. Maybe I have low standards, but I think its funny when they stand in front of the Salem Inn and it looks like the set of a high school drama production. I also appreciate the new sexier tone of the show. Many of the "younger" set seem to engage in guilt free sex, without everyone getting pregnant, or being shamed for having fun. Acting and writing were never hallmarks of DAYS, but I also enjoy that characters are allowed to be a bit more complex than just good and evil. Also, I have no allegiance to the show, it was always my second or third choice, so I am not as invested in the quality. Finally, regardless of the flaws, I admire the work of an out gay headwriter in the commercial network environment. His limitations have been discussed ad nausium, and I wouldn't say that the show sets a good example of gay life. But, I'm still the guy who tries to support every forum for gay representation because I feel it is the least that I can do politically (apologies for the overt virtue signaling).

Agreed, my recollection was based on SOD Q&A section from the 90s when people would ask if the clause was still in place. Along the same lines, I was trying to recall if anyone has ever verified the story about a woman throwing fruit at Eileen Fulton at the supermarket. I think she told it on Donahue, and in a few interviews, but it never rang true to me, more like a tall tale based on what people may have said to her on the streets of NYC, rather than an actual event.

The way I interpret that clip is that she's confirming my recollection. By the time she returned there was no "grandma clause."

IIRC, that is origin of the urban myth about Ms. Fulton's "anti-grandma clause." There was a press story at the time that Eileen did not want Lisa to appear to be old, so she had written into her contract that she could never be a grandmother. However, when she returned to the role after her hiatus in the late 80s, that whole issue was cleared up as just a rumor. Audiences worried that Margo would never have a healthy pregnancy due to Eileen's contract, but Eileen herself assured that it was just a rumor, and she had no influence over Margo or Tom's fertility. Much like the myth that Susan Lucci's mother was Phyllis Diller, the question about Ms. Fulton's grandma clause was written into SOD at least once a year, and they responded that it was a myth every time. Now, it may have either been true in the past, or it may have been a PR stunt on behalf of Ms Fulton (apparently the rumor comes from a joke that was in Eileen's cabaret act about Chuckie's death), but it was no longer true once she returned to the show.

I am a big fan of JMR's writing and we did some research on his career when @will81 was posting his articles on his tumblr. Are you using a sharable reference for these articles or your own archive?

The thing about Nicole and EJ is that they hardly reference their history. Now, I know a show doesn't have time to rehash the past fifteen years. But, at one time Nicole fought to be a part of Johnny's life, after she cared for him while he recovered from cancer. She was also a vital part of Will's life because Lucas married her to get custody. Of course, she's been a part of Chad's life because she adopted Sydney, his child with Mia and then switched her for Sami's baby. I know EJ and Nicole reconciled after the baby switch at least once. And I guess if everyone has forgiven Anna, they can have some compassion for Nicole. However, I get annoyed that they write Nicole as if she was Sloan's contemporary, rather than an experienced woman who has a significant history with most of the men in Salem. Filed under it will never happen, how refreshing would it be for Nicole to remark on her age, and be concerned about how much longer she'll be able to rely on her sexual appeal to get out of sticky situations? Rather than, continue to be written a vixen whose only assets are her body rather than her brains and experience. I'd love for her to be more of mentor to Gabi, and advise her not to make the same errors she made at that stage in her life.

Do anyone else think of the Roger/Jenna relationship as a repeat of the points in the Roger/Mindy story or had the character of Roger shown any progress between the two romances? To me the essential details are quite similar. A former bad girl who is attracted to the naughtiness of Roger, is then transformed by the love of a romantic hero (Nick/Buzz). Obviously there was more to both stories, but other highlights include the women both having fathers who were enemies of Roger. And, of course, Roger's revenge when he felt betrayed by both women.

Here's what I liked about today's episode, they played all of the adults as intelligent people. Alexis uses her brain to figure out the identity of the hook. Laura knows the map of the tunnels. Felicia knows how to get one over on Ryan. These are bright women who have been in sticky situations before, and they know how to use their brains to get out of trouble. Events don't just happen to them, they have the agency to save themselves. That is both a powerful and fun message to write about in daytime.

It's giving an Archie redux, and I was hoping Linda would have a more interesting story for this year. As always, Christmas in the square is miserable. I wonder if they already filmed the sequence to insert into the Christmas show as insurance? Meaning, did they film the whole death scene, or are they just hoping that nothing happens to any of the actresses between now and December.

A ten month time jump is a risky move. They'd better hope that they can pull this off

Amanda was a bit wilder in her Sinclair bros + Josie quad, but that story is best left undiscussed... Poor Josie, only in Bay City does a beautiful girl go from modeling to police work. It's a wonder that her nose job survived all the trauma.

sorry, I didn't mean that Cheryl was unsympathetic toward Dawn, she just lost some of her innocent demeanor prior to her departure through her scenes with Chad and John

To me, Dawn's story does not age well. There's a lot of Dawn blaming her mother for exposing her to HIV. She actually cries, "why me?" It screams of a daytime show trying to do a socially relevant story and then going out of their way to find an "innocent" victim, rather than telling the story of a person who was more likely to be living with HIV in 1988. Finally, to add insult to injury, she hooks up with a rich boyfriend who rather than using his wealth to fund treatment research, takes her to Europe to die in Venice, while her only on screen symptoms were that she was exhausted all the time. Furthermore, it could be argued that the story did more harm than good. By portraying a character who serio-converted due to a blood transfusion in 1997, they artificially raised concern about the process. In fact, according to the CDC: risk for HIV infection from transfusion of blood products declined from one in 450,000--600,000 donations in 1995 to one in 2,135,000 donations from 1995 to 2001. So, they weren't really educating their audience, but they were demonizing those who contracted the virus through drug use. In the process they made Cheryl into an unsympathetic character, and they wrote off Scott who had a lot of story potential as a male Love heir.

Please forgive a short Jen Shah inspired rant. I was listening to a podcast that debated her punishment. One host remarked that the prison is too plush with a gym, plus classes on religion and foreign language, while the other noted that 6 1/2 years away from family would be horrible. But, it made me realize that given Jen shows no contrition, prison doesn't feel like justice. Perhaps if she was forced to earn an income for the next ten years, without federal tax penalties, and guarantee that the majority of her earnings would go to the victims, it would be more productive. I don't feel there's any moral obligation to punish a scammer, in order for them to learn not to scam, or to teach others to avoid scamming. But, those people deserve their money back. And, it is not going to happen any sooner by having Jen serve time in prison. So, why not make her work her ass off and get those old people their restitution as soon as possible?

I'm not a fan of an adult paternity reveal, because they are usually so unrealistic. (A). What adult would change their last name and disregard the man that raised them just because they happened to move to the same town as the guy who once had sex with their mom? (B) The whole inheritance thing where a person becomes instantly rich because they find out that their biological father is wealthy ignores that estate laws enable to people to leave their wealth to whomever they please, and being a child is not a guarantee of being an heir (e.g. Leona Helmsley's kids, she left her millions to her dog). (C) Characters often never reference their family of origin again once their paternity is revealed, as if now that they've met this guy, they can never send a holiday card to the rest of their family ever again. So, I nominate a recent example as worst to the Cassadines Valentine and Victor reveal. Not only is it a retcon that makes no sense in terms of what we've seen on screen, but also, it is totally unnecessary for the story being told. The close second in that same family would be the reveal that Nikolas's father was Stefan and not Stavros. Totally didn't matter to the story, made no sense in terms of the characters, and therefore completely an unnecessary plot detail. As for Alexis being a Cassadine, that was an interesting backstory, but once Stefan died, I don't know that it has had much of a payoff in terms of story.

I'd always assumed that Mrs. Hathaway was Megan's mom, but she had an affair with Stefano that resulted in her conception. Then, Maxwell was forced to "adopt" her in order to appease Stefano and gain a position within the consortium. I recall that Megan had an antagonistic relationship with Tony/Andre because she mentioned that growing up Stefano always preferred her over Tony/Andre, which was part of his motivation to then kill Megan's father Maxwell (I use Tony/Andre because goodness knows which one it was supposed to actually be at that time). Of course, that screws with the timeline, because Megan grew up in Salem and went to school with Bo. So, unless she was talking about her childhood summers spent in Europe, that would mean that Stefano lived in Salem in the 1970s, despite having moved there on screen in the mid-1980s. However, this is when Stefano starting finding out that he had another child every year, on top of adopting the Blake children Kristen and Peter. But, it would be interesting if they write in the beats about Megan's history with Tony/Andre.

Speaking of which, how great would it be if Mamie is coming back for the 50th to sue Sharon for stealing her famous cinnamon bun recipe to sell at Crimson Lights?

You know you're a soap fan when you read this headline and think Guiding Light, not Simpsons