j swift

1

I've always wanted to see scenes between Roger and his father, Adam. Adam intrigues me. Wasn't he also involved with Dr. Sarah McIntyre? That whole era interests me because it feels like GL really trying to grapple with women's liberation and more internalized drama.

Isn't there an old compilation VHS of Roger Thorpe produced at the same time as the other GL videos, like the one about Reva? What years does it cover? One assumes it doesn't have a lot of 1970s scenes.

Agreed on all fronts, Joy is old news, back to the present episode complaints....😉🎬 Let's give credit where credit is due. DAYS is finally re-learning how to braid plots across the boardroom, bedroom, and courtroom. I am currently enjoying DAYS taking three worn out soap topics (an unplanned pregnancy, and a corporate takeover, and a murder/shooting mystery) and interweaving them more than they had been in the past. Those tropes may be familiar, but what’s new is how they’re being layered with each beat moving multiple stories instead of siloed arcs Johnny's arrest/trial may lead to him being a Dimera mole at Titan. EJ's tampering with evidence is going to effect his relationship with Belle and may even ripple into the hospital board storyline. Tony is using Xander and Sarah's relationship troubles to try to get Dimera back in the hands of the family. Gabi is going to flirt with Xander during Ari's kidnapping to align with Tony. There's not only clear, character-based motives, but there's a sense of community even when certain stories are backburnered for a week. Last year, if a week went by, and we didn't see amnesiac Abe watching Body&Soul, I was thrilled because that meant nobody else talked about it for a full week. But, yesterday's Kristen and Gwen scene went a long way to demonstrate how things have changed and people in Salem remember that they all live together in a relatively small community. And while we don't need to spoilers to predict what is going to happen next I still want to see it played out, which is usually not the case when I can easily predict where a story is going.

Yes, they are different ages (by design). But, I would not enjoy it if Joy and Ari were both trying to destroy relationships at the same time. Whether it's Stephanie & Alex, or Doug3 & Holly, it would just be the same story (man tries to hide a secret affair), on different days, using a different set of characters. Salem is too small for redundancy, even if they are generationally separated. Which explains why we can't have Rachel Blake and Rachel Black together anymore (lol).

It is maddening how a fan can performatively mourn the loss of an actor after being responsible for adding to the discomfort the family must have felt in his passing. It would seem like anyone with common decency would avoid posting about the topic unless they wanted negative attention from their peers.

It strikes me as a redundancy issue. RonC's out, along with his newest character Joy, and replaced by Ari, who was introduced the same way (sleeping with a guy as soon as she was introduced), but make her younger and part of a broader set of characters like the teen crew. Ari and Joy play the same role structurally (the girl with loose morals who might steal your man), but poor Joy was established at the wrong time given an exiting writer. And we certainly don't need them both in Salem at the same time.

err

Well then she's even more of a villain (and pretty dumb too)😉😎

@chrisml That’s an interesting angle, and I agree that Zaslow’s financial position would’ve shaped his options. One added layer is that because this was an AFTRA case, he would’ve had union backing—so while personal resources surely mattered, the legal weight didn’t fall entirely on him alone. That might explain why the process moved forward despite the financial hit from the accountant. In civil arbitration cases involving workplace discrimination, especially those backed by unions like AFTRA, it’s quite common for legal counsel to work on a contingency basis or with institutional support. That means they get paid from any eventual settlement, not necessarily upfront. Plus, AFTRA’s legal infrastructure would’ve supported Zaslow’s claim, especially given its implications for industry precedent @DeeVee I hear you on general soap media trends, but in this case Logan's story cut against the institution, not in defense of it. It could also be interpreted as pretty risky for Logan to publish a quote by MADD that was so incendiary.

Poor Jane Alexander was taken for a million dollars, and the thief stole from sweet Kate Collins too.

Wortham Krimmer and Wisner Washam are two of my favorite male names in the soap industrial complex. There's something so inherently soapy about both names; I am actually surprised a writer like RonC didn't name a character after one of them. However, few may surpass my actual favorite name, Tudi Wiggins.

I count myself among those who disapprove of their behavior, as well as those who want to discuss fact, not fan fiction about real events. However, it still holds that your original point about Rauch and MADD trying to avoid making GL look bad is irrelevant to the contractual issues being discussed. When Zaslow writes in the memoir (that you have quoted) that “restrictions were placed upon me,” he’s not describing some punitive act of sabotage by P&G or a personal grudge from Paul Rauch. He’s referring to the legal framework of arbitration—which only applies if the original contract is still considered active. If he had accepted new work—especially at a rival network—it could have been interpreted as him walking away from or voiding that contract. And if the contract was no longer in effect, he’d lose access to arbitration, which is a contract-based remedy. So those “restrictions” were essentially: don’t breach or supersede your old contract while you’re still trying to enforce your rights under it. That’s standard legal logic. Nothing sneaky. Nothing soap-operatic. Just legal cause and effect. I have always valued SON as a forum for discussing ideas, not trying to prove who is correct. You persist in only correcting the record, to distract from being contextually inaccurate. That’s the difference between someone invested in truth and someone invested in being right. I apologize for taking up too much time or space, as you clearly have no interest in an exchange of ideas with me. I hope you will forgive me for trying to explain an issue that you have misunderstood for 28 years. I was trying to be helpful, and you've mistaken my efforts.

Yes, @TheyStartedOnSoaps absolutely—and you're correct, here’s the timeline for Paul Rauch: He served as Executive Producer of Guiding Light from November 1996 to December 24, 2002 After that, he went on to work as an executive consultant in Russia on the period drama Bednaya Nastya from 2003 to 2005. From 2008 to 2011, he was co-executive producer of The Young and the Restless. So yes, he swiftly found new high-profile roles after Guiding Light. That clearly challenges the idea that his reputation was damaged in any way by this decision. TV networks continued to hire him based on his experience and track record. I appreciate your support in helping to prove: The claim that Paul Rauch and Dwyer-Dobbins’ reputations are “in the toilet” isn’t just irrelevant to the argument, it’s factually wrong and historically inaccurate

I agree with @chrisml The claim that Paul Rauch and Dwyer-Dobbins’ reputations are “in the toilet” isn’t just irrelevant to the argument, it’s factually wrong and historically inaccurate. Rauch went on to executive produce One Life to Live for another five years after Guiding Light. Dwyer-Dobbins remained a key executive at P&G, with increasing authority during the final years of As the World Turns. These were not disgraced figures shuffled offstage—they were entrenched, salaried decision-makers whose careers extended well beyond the moment in question (unfortunately). There is no justice in this case, and that fact that a message board (or general public opinion) disapproves of their behavior, obviously meant nothing to them when they made their choices, or upon reflection.

I chuckled because it was so in character for Gwen to tease Julie by dropping her bags at the Horton House only to turn around and decide to stay with her in-laws. 👏🏼 Also, not building a new set for Xander's bachelor pad, and raising Victoria in a crib in the boardroom, genius cost saving move. 😉

I don't understand what you mean? The quote from the memoir supports the logical timeline I presented, and aligns with Michael Logan's reporting. AFTER, Michael Zaslow had filed a complaint against GL with AFTRA, and pending a lawsuit, he could not take sign a contract with OLTL because it would have affected [his] arbitration against P&G. It not about public perception, or P&G would've fired Dwyer-Dobbins for saying such a stupid thing in TV Guide (and paid out their toxic-shock lawsuits that actually crippled them financially and kept them from producing soaps). It was about showing that Michael Zaslow was terminated at GL for his illness (which is against his civil rights). And if he accepted a job at OLTL in August 1997 it would've undercut his claim.

@TheyStartedOnSoaps One other note, Michael Zaslow's representation would not have allowed a meeting with the executive producer and head writer of OLTL after he filed his complaint with AFTRA, unless they assumed he had been fired and was off contract. It is an implicit understanding of any employment contract, that you can't seek a new job while under your current contract. Although there is a chance that the memoir is referencing a period prior to his complaint, it doesn't align with the timeline in the Logan story that had them meet on a specific date after the compliant. But before the lawsuit. I sympathize with your sticking to the remembrances from the memoir, and I certainly don't want to change your mind just to prove a point. But, I think if you look at it paratextually, including using common logic and legal knowledge, you will see it doesn't quite add up that GL would've stopped MZ from seeking a five-week contract from OLTL.

Thanks for the additional information, but do you have any sources to affirm it? Because that contradicts the reporting on the settlement agreement. As noted, given the evidence we have from the reporting about the settlement, the only logical conclusion is: appearing on another soap immediately could weaken claims of financial harm in the lawsuit against P&G. So, he wasn't kept from working by P&G, it was a smart move by his lawyers to protect his lawsuit until a settlement was reached. Logically, P&G would've loved MZ to take a OLTL role for 5 weeks in August 1997. Because it would mitigate the damage from Dwyer-Dobbins's “wizen” quote if he was free to work and be hired by any other soap (which is her quote from 1997) Says Dwyer-Dobbin: “We're not going to stop him if he wants to do this .” As I understand the timeline, the only reasonable response is that Dwyer-Dobbin was “not going to stop him” in August 1997, because he had already been fired, (as was later proven in the lawsuit). So, I would ask you to review the source material, just to make sure your recall fits with the known timeline.

@DeeVee & @TheyStartedOnSoaps I think you may have misread (or misremembered) the timeline from the Logan article. Because, although P&G denied it until they were sued, he was taken off contract before July 1997. April 1997: P&G asks him to take a 13-week medical leave. He’s already visibly deteriorating, and it’s affecting performance. He later states in the lawsuit this is when he was effectively fired. And his lawyers successfully argued that once P&G stopped paying his contract, it nullified their ability to expect exclusivity. June 23, 1997: He files a grievance with his union AFTRA. July 17, 1997: He meets with OLTL’s producers and writers. They're “reduced to tears,” August 1997: His reps pull the plug on that appearance: The article notes that his agents declined the offer. The likely reason is legal strategy: appearing on another soap immediately could weaken claims of financial harm in the lawsuit against P&G. So, he wasn't kept from working by P&G, it was a smart move by his lawyers to protect his lawsuit. One could assume that P&G would've loved MZ to take a OLTL role for 5 weeks in August 1997. Because, that would've proved that MADD's quote has no effect on MZ's employment. But, that would've been logically bad for MZ's lawsuit for wrongful termination. Mid-August 1997: He files suit against P&G, citing MADD's wild claim in TV Guide. He ultimately appears on OLTL in 1998: After resolving the grievance (which reportedly ended in a confidential settlement), Zaslow returns to One Life to Live in 1998 for a limited, emotionally powerful arc.

If you are honestly looking for help, I would suggest that you reread the responses of @Errol, Toups, @carolineg, @Vee, @TEdgeofNight, and @slick jones. Or anyone else who has consistently objected to your use of gossip dressed up as truth. Your inability to understand the difference between primary sources and fan speculation is absurd, given the amount of people who seek to correct your record of misinformation. This was a corporate employment dispute between a unionized actor and a multinational sponsor-owned production company. The fabrication by Donna completely misrepresents how this industry works. This was an expensive liability situation, not a hobby theater workshop. They weren’t casting Our Town. They were navigating a crisis with massive financial and reputational stakes. But, let's get down to brass tacks: Donna isn’t just being provincial, she’s operating in a cultural frame that soaps encouraged: personal drama over structural reality. She read—or more likely heard about—the article secondhand, filtered it through years of sentiment, and produced something that feels emotionally true to her, but is canonically false. One Google search for the original article from Michael Logan. And suddenly, all these confidently told tales—"Paul" Rauch whispering in corners, writers ready to write for Holly, MADD as just the messenger—collapse like bad scenery. What Donna is doing—again—is substituting dramatized retellings for factual record, and responding to genuine grief from longtime viewers with condescension disguised as clarity. It’s not just misleading; it’s arrogant. If you’re going to ‘correct’ people, the least you could do is cite a source that exists. Whereas, I’m not here to argue. I’m not working off vibes. I posted the actual source. Full stop. Contessa Donatella's Post – Misstatements and Corrections CLAIM: “Zaslow went to them, armed with finally, his diagnosis. That is when he asked them to write his ALS into story. That is when the writing team jumped into action...” CORRECTION: There’s no mention in the TV Guide article of the GL writing team brainstorming a return storyline. Instead, Dwyer-Dobbin confirms that Zaslow requested the ALS be incorporated—but that P&G refused: “Roger is a powerful, active, sexual, multicolored villain… We do not need a wizened little old man.” No development was initiated. It was a flat rejection, not a writers' room session. CLAIM: “That is also when someone made the decision that they would not do this & Paul relayed that to the team & to Zas himself. And, that is also when MADD uttered that awful quote.” CORRECTION: The quote did come from MADD—Mary Alice Dwyer-Dobbin herself—not secondhand through “Paul” or intermediaries. It was given directly to TV Guide: “It really hurts me to have to say that, but all I can do is wish Michael all the best.” Contessa's framing suggests plausible deniability or removed bureaucracy. The article shows a direct, public-facing decision, with attribution. CLAIM: “Subsequent to this he was out at GL & he sued them & it was settled out of court...” CORRECTION: That part is broadly correct, but timing matters. According to the article: Zaslow was asked to take a hiatus in April. He filed a grievance with AFTRA on June 23, 1997. The lawsuit came later, after the article's publication. So while not false, Contessa’s summary compresses the timeline and skips over P&G’s public claim that he was “not fired,” which was a central dispute.

If it makes you feel any better, although MADD was later promoted within the corporate production framework, her quote remains one of the biggest blunders in employment civil law history. She said that he was unemployable due to a disease, but made no effort to compensate him for termination. That's HR 101, and printing her statements in TV Guide (thus implying that he could not be employed elsewhere) was just language Mr. Zaslow's lawyers to get a settlement within weeks that was reported in The New York Times and elsewhere. In the Times coverage of the settlement, there was no mention of any plans to return Roger to Springfield in the form of Mr. Zaslow after January 1997, otherwise he would not have won the settlement. Thus, any stories about him meeting with the GL team and getting fired directly by "Paul" should be filed as fanfic that is easily disproven.

Mr. Zaslow’s team likely turned down the One Life to Live offer in August 1997 because he had just filed a grievance against Procter & Gamble for wrongful termination. Accepting a new acting job so soon could undermine his legal claim of lost wages and professional harm. Declining the role helped preserve the integrity of his case. Which is why he waited until the settlement with P&G before he took the OLTL offer.

Here is a copy of the original TV Guide Story from August 1997 -- as you can see @GL Oldtimer's timeline was correct according to contemporary reporting. However, the narrative of compassionate creative brainstorming followed by executive override is pure fiction. It’s fan revisionism dressed in confident tone. The TV Guide article says nothing of the kind. In fact, the only creative team mentioned is One Life to Live—specifically: There is no mention of a meeting with GL’s writers. None. Not even a suggestion that the GL team considered integrating his condition. Also, worth noting, this article was written before Mr Zaslow filed his lawsuit. One imagines there were dozens of hungry civil attorneys eager to litigate the suit once the “wizened” quote was published. You’re talking about a named senior executive at one of the most powerful corporations in American media, giving a nationally distributed, on-the-record statement that describes the actor’s physical state in explicitly negative, ageist, and prejudicial terms during the exact period when the actor was disputing his termination and had filed a grievance, is printed in TV Guide, which at the time had a circulation in the tens of millions. It’s almost comically self-incriminating. Because there was no trial, there were no depositions, no internal memos made public, and no witness testimony under oath, so anything suggested about the production staff at GL is purely conjecture. HE'S DOWN BUT NOT OUT By Michael Logan Here's one of the wilder soap developments in memory: Guiding Light's Michael Zaslow (Roger), who has been kept off the show for months due to a debilitating undiagnosed illness, has been making plans to return to work--in his old role on One Life to Live! But fans of the beloved, Emmy-winning star shouldn't get excited. Just as OLTL was expecting Zaslow's name on the dotted line, his agents nixed the gig. Zaslow caused the GL audience great concern early this year when he began to show signs of trouble -- weight loss, slurred speech, and facial dis-figurement that suggested he may have suffered a stroke. For weeks he gamely remained in the role as doctors put him through a variety of tests, but his continued deterioration became impossible to overlook. In April, GL's production company, Procter & Gamble, asked him to take a 13-week hiatus to focus on getting better. They replaced him with soap vet Dennis Parlato, announcing to the press that they fully expected Zaslow to return. Though neither Zaslow nor his agents will comment, the star is report-edly furious with P&G and is claiming he was fired. On June 23, he filed a grievance with his union, the American Fed-eration of Television & Radio Artists. We did not fire him," says P&G day-time chief Mickey Dwyer-Dobbin. "We asked him to take a sabbatical and, dur-ing this time, we have been paying him a small stipend." She says that Zaslow asked to have his disability written into the show. But Dwyer-Dobbin says: "Roger is a powerful, active, sexual, multicolored villain. That's who we need him to be on the GL canvas. We do not need a wizened little old man. And that's what he would have to play in his condition. It really hurts me to have to say that, but all I can do is wish Michael all the best. My heart truly goes out to him." The actor, who may be gearing up for a whopper lawsuit and looking to prove that he's employable, sent word to OLTL that he is eager to work. On July 17, he met with the show's executive producer, Maxine Levin-son, and head writer, Claire Labine, who admits they were reduced to tears during the emotion-packed powwow. They offered him a three-day stint as David Renaldi, the character he played from 1983 - 86. (To explain Zaslow's condition, they planned to reveal that Renaldi had been injured in an avalanche.) Labine, who wanted Zaslow on-air September 1, says: "We were very moved by Michael's courage and forthrightness and his willingness to do this role." Adds Levinson: "He feels he can be inspiring, and we quite agree." Why Zaslow's agents killed the deal is a mystery. At one point they told OLTL they weren't sure if he is contractually free to take the job. But P&G has no objections. Says Dwyer-Dobbin: "We're not going to stop him if he wants to do this ."

The clear intension of the ER scene was to demonstrate Holly's trauma through ambiguously coded responses to imply that she was overwhelmed by emotions. If you interpret it differently once you've viewed it again, please let me know your thoughts. I watched it on TikTok, so I don't have a link, but it is available.