j swift

Oh....., I don't know why I thought she told them. But, Sofia knows Leo has the baby (her baby), correct? Or did I misremember that whole day?

I don't know the criteria for common, but they showed Gwen leaving last time (because it coincided with Theresa coming), but I don't think they spoiled Joy leaving (to be fair, nobody seemed to know Joy was leaving until her penultimate episode, so there were no little hints to slip in the promo). And there were no spoilers in the promo to indicate that Stefan's exit would be permanent. So, yeah, this reads like a case of see ya Doug3 , don't let the front door of the Horton House hit ya on your way out of town, with six months worth of clothes, tucked in a backpack.

I recall Sofia telling either Javi or Leo that she's the baby's mother, in the square this week, and I remember it being Leo. So, did that happen with Javi?

I hope that if awards have to carry on, we'll say the same thing about gender-based awards in a few years. Imagine the possibilities of awarding acting based on categories inherent to soaps. For example, best acting in a dramatic monologue. Not the best villain or best body like the Soapys. But, criterion based categories that have more meaning than the presence or absence of an XY chromosome. If they stopped pretending, there is a divide based on how men and women act that necessitates the need to reward two men and two women from the all the soaps. Then, many more quirky, dramatic, and heroic characters might have been recognized.

In your opinion does the ever evolving qualification system enhance or detract from the legitimacy of the awards (which admitted already has a pretty low threshold for validity in honoring the "best" at anything)? I can see it both ways. It's good to adapt, but not at the expense of reliable criteria.

Clarification: just to clear my name. Despite the poor syntax in the Countess's post, ⬆️ I wouldn't want anyone to misinterpret the libelous implication that I would ever post video tributes using stolen videos to a MAGA site. I believe she is saying that we've collectively missed the opportunity to watch her other performative posts mourning the loss of an actor after being responsible for adding to the discomfort of his family.

Ohhh, Maybe Gabi is asking Gwen if she saw Stefan in Alamania, and Gwen says no. And Gwen replies that there are “two” missing Dimera heirs. If that's the case, I wonder if Gwen is going to ask for Dimitri's cut of the profits from the sale/merger of Dimera to Titan? She should, and that would be fun. I'm sorry to admit that I liked the Ej/Kristin/Gwen scene, and I hope they are established as a co-living sibling trio, contrasted with Alex/Philip/Xander.

This is classic Donatella damage control: retroactive clarity through exasperation. No one accused her of failing to share. The concern is that she either didn’t read or didn't comprehend Her Stories. And sharing a screenshot isn’t a substitute for understanding the argument inside it. Let’s break down the tone and structure: 1. “NOT recommending this book because the name Swajeski is in one sentence.” This is a transparent deflection. The issue wasn’t just that Swajeski was mentioned. The issue was that Donatella built an entire interpretive claim—about networks pushing rape for ratings—around a paraphrase that misrepresented the source. She’s now minimizing that framing to make the criticism seem pedantic. 2. “I guess I should have cut that line since some people seem not to be able to read critically.” This is both bad-faith and contradictory. If the Swajeski line wasn't important, why was it included in the first place? She's trying to play both sides: that the sentence was meaningless, and that you're at fault for interpreting it meaningfully. This is rhetorical sleight of hand. Also: “some people seem not to be able to read critically” is Donatella-speak for “I got called out and now I’m lashing out.” It lacks intellectual confidence. The mature move would’ve been to acknowledge ambiguity in her wording, not to blame the reader for noticing it. 3. “I swear I bet the rest of you did not have any trouble understanding.” This is a classic false consensus fallacy, paired with emotional projection. When someone appeals to an imaginary silent majority (“everyone else understood me just fine”), it's almost always a defensive bluff. 4. When Donatella invokes “you don’t know me,” it’s meant to function as a shield. A way to delegitimize any critical read of her tone, her motives, or her argumentative inconsistencies. But the irony is: we do know her. Not because we’ve invented her, but because she has performed herself, in extreme detail, across thousands of posts. She shares freely—often compulsively—not just facts or soap history, but her inner weather: irritations, loyalties, hurt feelings, moral judgments, vague suspicions, and what she finds funny or devastating or beneath her. She doesn’t contextualize; she emotes. Likewise, she narrates thought-fragments and forum dramas as if everyone’s been following along for years. That’s not anonymity—that’s a confessional style. So when she says “you don’t know me,” what she really means is “don’t hold me accountable for what I’ve shown you.” Because in real dialogue, self-revelation carries weight. It builds context, you don’t get to flip the switch to “you don’t know me” just because someone reads you correctly. That’s not nuance. It’s evasion.

Did I forget that Dimitri escaped from Super Max prison? Why else is Gwen implying to Gabi that Stefan is “missing” like Dimitri?

I will accept this deflection as an apology. 1. Tone and Structure: When she feels cornered, Contessa Donatella shifts from declarative confidence to baggy, overly casual phrasing. Note how the post opens with: “JFP tried to win Emmys because it was a metric she could try to accomplish…” Even the phrase “try to accomplish” is weakly constructed—wordy, hesitant, and redundant. It’s a hallmark of someone backpedaling from a previously assertive stance without admitting they’re doing so. 2. Loss of Argument Shape: She abandons the original discourse on memory, citation, or critical theory in favor of: a soft-pitch economic musing ("Does it indicate quality?"), generalized speculation ("I've heard many actors mention..."), and a diluted defense of Emmy strategy that isn’t really under attack. There’s no clear rebuttal because she’s changed the subject to avoid defending her misread of Her Stories. Classic evasive maneuver. 3. Incoherent Logic / Sentence Breakdown: “It likely it it likely one of the few reasons why…” Not a typo. That’s someone typing defensively, fast, and without re-reading. It breaks her usual sentence rhythm and signals agitation. “Will an actor get a raise because of winning one?” Here she starts constructing a point, then pulls back—distracted by hypotheticals rather than evidence. There’s no research, no quote, no referent. Just fog. 4. The Hidden Tell: “Two things are commonly mentioned in this regard about JFP, winning awards & getting demos up.” That sentence doesn’t say anything—it’s just gesturing at insider authority without actually naming a source or event. If this were academic writing, we’d call it citation laundering. She’s trying to recover ethos with vague authority, hoping no one presses her.

Thank you for your thoughts and your advice on how to spend my time. For what it’s worth, I agree that remembering and citing are not the same thing. That’s precisely why citing matters. It’s also why I’ve taken the time to track down first-hand sources, primary texts, and contemporaneous interviews, rather than relying on recalled message board posts from the early 2000s or unverifiable anecdotes about who was holding what coffee mug. My concern has never been about personal memory—only when memory is passed off as documentation. There’s a long tradition of oral history in soap fandom, and I respect that. But when we’re making sweeping claims about network intent or rewriting historical authorship, we do have a responsibility to distinguish between “I remember reading once…” and “Here’s what the article actually says.” Especially when the topic is this sensitive Can we find a less sincere argument than telling me to read the original text (that the person obviously never read)? I read it and the article it is based upon. I find that the poster is wrong, and then she accuses me of wasting my time. That's just a defensive stance of a small-minded person who has been caught out by their incompetency in a field that they try to portray themselves as an expert in. So, no, I don’t think anyone here is an idiot. I don't waste my time on fools. I think a lot of people are smart and passionate. I just happen to believe that citing sources is a more productive use of everyone’s time than defending a 98% confidence interval based on vibe. One should feel free to admit that they have believed misinformation, and they appreciate the correction. Or one cannot. But I will always be suspicious of your authoritative statements of fact, because it is proven, easily and often, to be baseless.

I want to clarify something that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle: there’s a difference between "remembering the discourse" and "actually citing the record". The passages you quoted from Her Stories don’t say what you think they do—and your interpretation is drifting into territory the book explicitly avoids. Let’s anchor this for a second: > “We were told to play up the rape of Marley,” following a network logic that “women want to see other women being victimized.” > — *Her Stories*, p. 246 This is a paraphrased summary, not a direct quote from any NBC executive. The attribution of that logic—“women want to see…”—is Levine’s characterization of how the network framed its notes to writers. It’s not a memo. It’s not even sourced to a specific individual. The closest primary quote we have is from the 1991 *SOW* article, where Donna Swajeski says she was told to “play up the rape” so it couldn’t be read as consensual. That’s not the same thing as NBC saying rape boosts ratings or demanding that Jake rape Marley. What your posts are doing is backfilling that ambiguity with a more dramatic version—one where NBC "demanded" rape, and Swajeski "fought a war", and NBC "wanted the show canceled". These may be things you remember hearing in forums, but they’re not substantiated by either Levine or Swajeski’s primary quotes. At most, we’re dealing with editorial pressure filtered through the assumptions and anxieties of the time. That doesn’t make the pressure less real,but it does mean we need to be careful about claiming intentionality or motive that wasn’t documented. Also—just to point out gently—the argument that NBC pushed rape stories because they wanted to cancel Another World makes no internal sense. That’s two mutually exclusive goals: one to spike ratings, one to sabotage them. It’s one thing to argue NBC mishandled AW; it’s another to invent a conspiracy where violence against women becomes a cancelation tactic. I’m not dismissing Donna's post was a mess. It was. But the deeper point Levine makes is actually more subtle than “NBC wanted more rape.” She’s tracing how a mix of ratings panic, cultural precedent, and lack of creative autonomy created a pattern—one that often left writers and characters boxed in. That’s worth unpacking. But let’s not do it by repeating the very myths the book is trying to clarify. I would suggest you actually read the book, rather than simply quoting others who have done the work, and you misunderstood their efforts. Because perhaps the lesson learned was that the violation of Marley as written by Donna Swajeski did not raise ratings, and that's why she was not signed to a new contract. And that if we allow ourselves to use the perspective of time, rather than blame it for poor memory, we can learn the truth. Or, hold on to your old false beliefs, I truly don't care. Just stop spreading untruths masked as authoritative information here in this forum. Unless you want to be corrected every time.

Thanks, I just went back to read the SON article on Tumblr. If anyone needs any soap opera history mythbusting call @chrisml.🕵🏼‍♂️ There is a single quote from Donna Swajeski saying she got a note from the network to “play up” the violence in the scene so that it could not be inferred as consensual in any way. She was not asked to make it sexier. They did not demand that Jake rape Marley. The daytime executives at NBC gave a script note (like a comment on the side of a Word doc) to Donna Swajeski that if she wanted to write a scene with sexual assault, then it had to look violent, so that it could not be romanticized later. Therefore: They not only did not order anyone to be raped. Swajeski pitched the rape. And in written response, NBC noted they were concerned that Swajeski's script was too abstract, and needed to be shot more directly in order to communicate the impact of the story she wanted to tell. There no evidence, nor any suggestion in the article, that NBC want to use sexual violence for titillation. In fact, they wanted it to be horrific, so the impact would be dramatic, and aligned with Swajeski's pitch. Swajeski wanted to avoid the filming being traumatic for the actors, but she understood the need to visualize the horror. The push for a more undeniably violent portrayal could have been an attempt to avoid exactly the kind of ambiguity that reinforces rape myths. In other words, they may have been trying—however imperfectly—to do the opposite of what they’re being accused of: to confront, not obscure, the reality of sexual violence. And there is zero indication that Swajeski disagreed. Once again we are able to correct a misassumption in moments that has existed for decades, because some people lack the curiosity to ever ask questions, despite trying to act like an authority. And just in case anyone was wondering, there has never been a published account of any Walt Disney corporate executive ever commenting on the creative decisions that dictate who can be the lead character on a soap opera.

Elana Levine’s Her Stories is a valuable cultural text, but I don’t think it supplies the kind of direct evidence needed to verify the theory that NBC insisted on Jake raping Marley. Or that Donna Swajeski was coerced into writing it. That’s a significant claim, and one I’d be eager to revisit if someone can provide a direct interview or quote to support it. Otherwise, I think we have to be careful about substituting our modern critique for historical certainty. Logical Gaps: Why would NBC, P&G, or any producer insist on a rape storyline? That is not just morally reprehensible but commercially risky—particularly in 1990. This was not a time when network execs wanted to provoke affiliate complaints or activist boycotts. Rape stories were controversial, advertiser-sensitive, and only used with great caution, if at all. To suggest NBC “demanded rape” lacks precedent or business logic. Why Jake? Why Marley? If NBC wanted a violent rape for shock value, why choose this character pairing? Jake was already a known sleaze. Marley was sympathetic. That’s not how you'd build a titillating 'event'—and soaps had other tools (murders, affairs, baby swaps) for driving ratings without the same ethical minefield. Why would Swajeski stay after supposedly being coerced? If this moral objection was so strong, why write the redemption arc? Why structure months of story around Paulina’s forgiveness and Jake’s survival? This wasn’t a one-week event. Either she was part of the story’s design or she wasn’t. The timeline doesn't support a rebellion. It suggests authorship. Where is the evidence? Not a single printed interview has surfaced where Swajeski claims she was forced to write the rape. No contemporaneous source documents her objection—only vague fan recollections. That’s not credible enough for a historical claim of this scale. The whole rhetorical foundation is secondhand, misrepresented, and unverified. That wouldn’t fly in academia, journalism, or even decent fan debate. It’s one thing to cite; it’s another to perform authority without confirming the substance.

Donna Swajeski left Another World in 1992, according to IMDB. According to AWHP, Jake raped his ex‑wife, Marley Hudson, in October 1990. I would propose a more logical theory to the idea that the writer (1) withheld her feelings for two years, (2) centered the show around a character who did things she disliked, (3) wrote his redemption, and then (4) resigned out of disgust. I'm not saying that might not have happened. I am only asking you to consider those as unfounded rumors, that can not be sourced to printed interviews or contemporary reporting. I'm certain our editorial authority comprehends the need for primary sourcing. Although it is intriguing that any information that could support the theories that she states as the basis of her opinions remains elusive. The only references we see cited are Facebook posts aka the bathroom wall of the internet. If we look at the rating during this period, they never gain traction against the competition. Thus, we have a writer, Ms Swajeski who pitched a big expensive story, lasting over months, and it did nothing to move the ratings against the competitors. In fact, AW drew roughly 30% less audience than their nearest competitor during her entire tenure. Season One Life to Live (ABC) As the World Turns (CBS) Another World (NBC) 1989–1990 6.3 5.8 4.0 1990–1991 5.3 5.9 3.8 1991–1992 5.4 5.8 4.1 While Ms. Swajeski may have discussed regrets in hindsight (that don't seem easily sourced, or searchable). She may have neglected to mention the balance of art and commerce. A writer can be both commercially savvy and conflicted. That duality is often the truth in soap history. Of course, some are less likely to honor the possibility that more than one thing can be true. Or, even, that they should reconsider ill-conceived beliefs. But, in a genre built as a one-hour commercial for household products, I believe Jake and Paulina would've lasted for years, without any questions of morals on behalf of the writers, if they were effective at selling Prell Shampoo. That doesn’t mean the arc wasn’t disturbing. Only that disturbing arcs, when successful, tend to get repeated, not punished.

He also withheld knowledge that he switched the defense attorney's baby. He fenced stolen jewelry. And he is a reporter. But, again, the victim is acting as the attorney for his son, the defendant, so any other logical complaints must be considered against the Mt Fuji of illogical feats. We have to file the whole thing under “fits with 60 (or at least 25) years of absurdity.” I define my fandom as not being associated with a character, writing, or production. But, the remarkable ability to balance absurdity with human drama.

@AbcNbc247 I assumed you clocked that absurdity of the jury pool selection allowed Amy to learn that Leo has a baby that was abandoned at Safe Harbor. And, Leo knows the mother of that baby is Amy's daughter, Sofia. So as of 7/18/2025 here is my current understanding of who knows what? Character Knows Sophia Gave Birth? Knows Leo & Javi Have the Baby? Sophia Yes Yes Leo Yes (was told directly) Yes Javi Unclear – possibly not Yes Amy No (believes Sophia didn't) Yes Tate No No And I am surprised nobody else is talking about the suddenness of EJ having an illegal sugar daddy to fund the hospital purchase. Despite him saying that he was using the fund from his sale of the stock after the Titan/Dimera merger. That whole detail just popped up out of the blue, as if the audience already knew the purchase was shifty. Despite there having never been established, the idea that the purchase was shifty. Is the lesson learned that any Dimera transaction is shifty (except for Chad), and we should just expect that it was illegal? Because so far, they've not provided any evidence. AND- What's up with physical media? -- one way we know these episodes were tapped 18 months ago, (before current tech advances), is Cat and EJ are obsessed with thumb drives and memory cards rather than saving things to the cloud. Are you telling me the ISA doesn't have an encrypted cloud server?

Can we agree Cat's backstory still makes no sense, logically. If she was working for the ISA, and Clyde blew up the car with her Mom & Dad And if the ISA (aka Andrew) saved her and John from being Clyde's hostages Then why did they let her perpetrate a fraud against Chad, and ruin her brother's medical career by having him try to shoot Chad in Paris? If Shane said Cat was "one of the best analysts the ISA had", why is she suddenly talking about being a field agent? The idea that EJ has a secret sponsor contradicts the established story He made the offer for the hospital right after Titan purchased Dimera It was established that he used those funds from the purchase to buy the hospital There's been no prior mention or concern that Versavix would take years to turn a profit So, why all of a sudden did he need a backer, and why is leveraging a loan to buy a hospital a crime worthy of the FBI and the ISA I am proud of all of us for staying away from the low-hanging fruit of Johnny's trial, and just appreciating the new set.😉👏🏼⚖️ The victim is defending the accused The entire jury pool hates the defense attorney The memory card's images would never be accepted into evidence because the timeline of how Belle got it would be questioned, and she never validated the video They never tested if camera held the memory card They don't know when the video was shot They don't know who sent the evidence to Belle, and what was their motive How does the defendant (Johnny) not know when juror selection begins? Why would Jada would show the memory card video to the mayor, but not Chanel, when she was questioned Because structurally, it seems like a semi-clever way to establish how Amy knows there's a recently abandoned baby in Salem. And, Leo knows it is her grandchild.

It is an excellent idea for a character that suffered due to lackluster casting, a poorly established motive, and no established peer group (is he a teen?)😎. We never knew Doug3's age. We don't know why he doesn't speak French. We don't know if he dropped out of High School in the US or France. We don't know why his favorite authors are American, why he dressed like a nu-country singer, or how he knows so much about American popular culture. So, I hold out hope that he's an imposter, and we'll meet the actual Douglas LeClair somewhere down the road.🇫🇷

That's an excellent prediction. I hadn't even considered it, but she fits the bill 100%: a good motive/low-stake character to toss in jail and leave Sofia further isolated, alone, and desperate. That would be a very good move.

While I liked a lot about where DAYS is headed in general, and I said so earlier—there were two things that didn’t sit right with me in terms of narrative coherence. First, the reframing of Cat’s motive and role feels abrupt and contradictory. When Shane first reactivated her for the ISA, she was introduced as a former analyst—brain over brawn, tech-savvy but not field-ready. That framing had a fun ironic edge: the glamorous woman who’s actually a codebreaker, not a femme fatale. But today, we get a speech about how she’s unsure if she’s ready for “field work,” like that’s been the arc all along. On top of that, her reason for working with Rafe has now shifted from honoring her ISA obligations to honoring the hospital for saving her sister. I don’t mind layering motives, but the show hasn’t done the work to stitch those together. It feels like they swapped in a new emotional rationale midstream. Second, the reintroduction of the “silent partner” theory around EJ’s hospital acquisition doesn’t hold up against earlier episodes. Back in May, EJ clearly stated that he was using funds from Titan-DiMera to buy the hospital outright. There was no suggestion at the time that he lacked resources or needed a backer. If Shane floated the silent partner angle weeks ago, and now Rafe and Cat are reviving it, we need to see why that suspicion makes sense based on what we already know. As it stands, it reads like a mystery being invented after the fact, not one that’s been seeded or supported by the existing plot. Happy to be proven wrong if I missed a clue earlier, but these two pivots—Cat’s role and EJ’s financing—stuck out to me as unearned shifts.

Confession: I posted, my computer got stuck on save, then I refreshed and posted, and the same message got reposted four times. I am so sorry for taking up way too much space in this forum this week. I'll be back soon, and give you guys a rest from opinions (that's a promise, not a threat 🤭)

1

2