j swift

After revisiting the Roger and Holly storyline, especially how its framing changed over time, I was reminded how important it is to consider the cultural context of each episode. What aired in 1979, what was revisited in the 2000s, and what still feels unresolved is worth unpacking. In the original arc, Holly’s assault by Roger was followed by a quiet moment in the ER at Cedars. Ed asks if she wants Roger arrested, and she says yes. But the camera holds on her face, and the silence introduces a different kind of ambiguity. It seems to suggest she either wants justice, wants to get Roger in trouble, or wants sympathy from Ed to pull him closer. That framing doesn’t question the fact of the assault, but it shifts attention to Holly’s motives in a way that complicates how the audience is meant to see her. At the time, that kind of ambiguity was common in soaps. Watching now, it feels like the show was avoiding moral clarity. By the early 2000s, when the show revisited the story, the cultural conversation around consent had changed, but not always in helpful ways. Popular shows like Sex and the City and Dawson’s Creek leaned into "complicated" relationships but skipped over questions of power. Pacey’s affair with Tamara was treated as edgy, not abusive. In Disclosure, the focus was on whether the victim resisted enough, not on what was done to them. So when Holly and Roger talked years later, the show fell back on the same kind of ambiguity. The scene kept their emotional bond in play but let Roger move forward without fully owning what happened. According to Maureen Garrett, she was told the story would focus on Holly’s voice. What aired didn’t do that. It seemed more interested in keeping Roger sympathetic. This isn’t about the actors. They gave strong work. But the writing reflected its time. Soaps don’t lead these conversations—they mirror the culture around them. If a movie like Disclosure was shaping how people talked about consent, the show was going to echo that. This was a chance to push back against those patterns, and it didn’t.

Yes, in Rosemary’s Baby (the novel by Ira Levin), Rosemary Woodhouse’s husband Guy is explicitly described as a “day player” on the soap opera Another World. Here's a direct reference from a film-criticism blog that cites this detail: “She would never have married frustrated Another World day player Guy Woodhouse …” (willmckinley.wordpress.com) This confirms that within the story, Guy is indeed an actor on Another World, and Rosemary watches his appearances as part of her insight into his career and frustrations. But, not in the movie.

There was no shade implied, but if it was inferred, please allow me to clear it up. I merely meant that the discussion about BTG tends to focus on ratings, casting, and writing changes rather than a summary of the current episodes. Although I do agree; some fans are great about helping others get up to speed. And, one only wants to spend a limited amount of time catching up before it feels like a homework assignment.

In hindsight, this interview is ironically amusing because the interviewer has no rapport with Ms. Francis and seems to have no ability to ask off-script follow-up questions. Including responding to notable revelations. For example, the difference in acting while sober. There are so many gems that Ms. Francis throws out there with no further discussion. Most mysteriously, did she assume she couldn't return to GH at that time, or was she told she couldn't return to the job she preferred? When Genie Francis says, “I was newly sober,” that’s a profoundly meaningful contextual marker. It potentially reconfigures how she perceived opportunity and risk. But the interviewer doesn’t follow that thread at all. No question about whether she felt safer in daytime post-sobriety, or whether past dynamics at GH felt untenable for reasons other than formal rejection. Instead, the narrative is left suspended in ambiguity: did she try to go back? Was she told no? Or did she foreclose the option herself based on past experiences and unspoken context? And, it does Ms. Francis no favors because it invites a kind of cheap triangulation where fans debate what others must have done to her, rather than what she might have been working through in herself. What we’re left with is exactly the kind of elliptical record that fuels the most recursive fan myths: “She must have been blacklisted,” or “They never forgave her,” when in fact the text only tells us that she felt stuck—a very different kind of story. One that could’ve been explored with a better interviewer, but wasn’t.

Putting aside, the shallowness of sourcing an entire article from Reddit comments, which reflects a larger trend where the labor of fan discourse becomes free content and flattens complexity. I think the piece makes a fair point about soap operas being easier to jump into than a lot of prime-time shows, but I’d push back on the idea that all soaps are equally accessible. For example, I watched the first week of Beyond the Gates and liked it, but when I came back a few weeks later, it didn’t feel easy to reenter. There was exposition, sure, but it still required sustained attention or back-reading to get my footing again. And, I wasn't going to get an accessible recap from the monthly BTG forum, that wasn't biased by the paratextual issues discussed by that subculture. Whereas, Days of Our Lives is structured for that kind of casual return. The stories move in blocks, dialogue repeats key beats across multiple characters, and the compartmentalization between plot threads makes it easy to catch up on one piece at a time. That’s not a flaw; it’s a stylistic choice that lets the show stay open to lapsed viewers, newer fans, or even someone folding laundry. It would be interesting to look at how each show handles that reentry point. The hardest job in soaps right now might be writing for both the viewer who’s watching since 1978 and the one who just tuned in last Tuesday.

It also explains @AbcNbc247 question why Chanel was having fights with EJ on the 6/20 episode that should have been between Johnny and EJ --- because there needed to be an on-screen explanation of how EJ would've gotten footage of him fighting with Chanel.

It is a pretty well plotted mystery when you consider EJ knows: If everyone who threatened him gets cleared one by one (e.g. Ava, Kristen, Gabi), And Johnny’s footage is damning, Then the only way to deflect suspicion from Johnny is to introduce a new suspect with even more motive and emotional volatility—Chanel. So he plants Chanel in the spotlight knowing: She’ll get ruled out based on timeline (he trusts either Belle will figure out that anyone on the memory card appeared before EJ ejected it, right before he was shot. Or Chanel will remember what she wore on 6/20). Johnny gets eliminated by contrast. The real shooter (who EJ still believes is Johnny - but EJ's probably wrong) stays buried under the narrative misdirection Yes, ironically, if they had “wornontv.com” in Salem, Chanel would be off the hook immediately. 😉 Hopefully, Chanel is wearing something she bought after 5/5 and still has the receipts on her phone.

We didn't see a new suspect today, we saw Chanel get turned into a misdirection. Here’s what I think happened. EJ found the memory card that Rafe planted and watched the footage with Tony in the June 30th episode. The original video showed Johnny confronting him the night of the shooting. Instead of turning that over, EJ cut that part and spliced in the argument he had with Chanel from the episode that aired on June 20th, after he had already recovered from being shot. He then had Rita mail it to Belle. That’s what Belle and Jada saw today, and it conveniently shifts suspicion to Chanel right after Johnny’s arrest. Tony’s reaction makes more sense if you read it that way. He doesn’t want EJ pulling stunts that’ll blow up the case. But he’s not sentimental about Johnny either—he wants leverage. If Johnny gets cleared the right way, he can be used. They can drop him into Titan and start working as the DiMeras’ mole. So yeah, we got a lot of movement today, but I don’t think the case just cracked. I think EJ had Rita send them a doctored memory card and redirected the spotlight. Also, Gwen’s now had scenes with Julie, Chad, Xander, JJ, and Leo, and not one of them has asked where she’s been, what she’s been doing, or why she cut her hair. Sure, she’s a lot—but isn’t anyone just a little bit curious where she’s been all this time, at least to provide exposition on behalf of the audience?

It felt like a breath of fresh air today. Bonnie finally got to talk like a real person. No mugging, no sitcom timing, just a woman who’s been through it telling Sarah the truth. That line about having three kids with a man who beat her until Mimi killed him? Brutal, without being theatrical. And the advice wasn’t about Gwen, or romance at all. It was about Victoria. Bonnie said: you know what Xander’s capable of, so protect your daughter. If you can get him to confess to beating Philip, do it. That’s not dirty, that’s survival. And it meant something because it came from someone who waited too long. I don’t know if the show will let her stay in that register, but for today, she was smart, specific, and emotionally grounded. I’ll take it. AND, bravo 👏🏼to Days production 🎬 for choosing the visual of Sarah scrolling on her phone for pics, rather than clutching a silver framed 8x10 glossy photo of Xander. PS - 🤞🏼please don't let Sarah be moved or motivated in anyway by Xander and Gwen's kiss. Let Gwen keep him, it will be Sarah's greatest revenge.

Why would Gwen assume that she is welcome at the Horton House given that she's wearing Julie's necklace, and she is the confessed killer of Julie's Aunt Laura?😉 Plus, Gwen was living at the DiMera mansion with Dimitri—or at the hotel—before her exit. So why is she now dragging her suitcase into Widow Williams’s house?🤔

Why would Belle tell Rafe that she has the memory card? (1) He’s no longer on the force, and he’s been critical of Jada. (2) He and his sister are suspect, or at least potential witnesses, so Belle should avoid tampering. (3)Rafe’s never solved a case in his life; not even his own kidnapping. Why would Belle loop him in now? Why not have Belle tell JJ (a rookie cop), and then have JJ tell Gabi (sort-of girlfriend)?

I still don't know of any adult who would suggest that an 18-year-old who gave birth without medical supervision 48 hours ago should ride on a bus for any amount of time with a pillow stuffed down her pants. When logically, she should either hide out with Melinda. Or, simply tell the truth since she has nothing to be ashamed of, which Melinda is aware of as a former teen mother herself.

@carolineg To recap: mostly just for my own clarity. Sofia needs to keep Tate away from the baby for another 24 hours, to make it to 72 hours, so he won't reclaim the baby. BUT she doesn't know that baby is living at the Hernandez house for another 12 days, until it gets adopted. AND, if Tate finds out before Sofia that Leo and Javi have the baby, Sofia is concerned that Tate will mess up the chances of the baby getting adopted as soon as possible. OF COURSE, since it is a soap opera, this could all be avoided if Sofia told the truth and garnered sympathy for being a victim of a system that left her with no other viable choices but to abandon her baby after giving birth in her bedroom alone at 18. However, that would be inconvenient for the love story of Tate and Holly (a couple who has only been able to sustain a relationship for a few weeks when one of them wasn't in a coma, juvie, or in hiding on Smith Island). One thing I keep circling back to is Melinda’s own background. She was 18 when she had her daughter. So why would she, of all people, suggest that a traumatized girl who just gave birth in her bedroom should hop on a bus to Chicago with a pillow under her shirt? If the goal is to delay Tate, wouldn’t hiding out in Melinda’s apartment make more sense? The plan doesn’t feel protective or strategic—it just feels narratively convenient. The plan’s only purpose is to mislead Amy and Tate about where the baby was born. But why does that require physical travel? Melinda could easily say Sofia took a bus to Chicago for a clinic appointment and went into labor—no need to actually go.

I thought Javi explained (like in real life) the parent has 72 hours to immediately reclaim the baby (no harm, no foul). Then a 14-day “cooling off” period of foster care before placing the baby for final adoption, which implies there's a second chance to rescind the abandonment, but this time it would need family court approval. Either way, the point is to keep Sofia out of Tate's sight so she can give a reasonable explanation why he couldn't attend the birth of the baby. And, Melinda, Tate, Holly, and Sofia don't know the baby is the Hernandez house. @carolineg and I may have difficulty reconciling the logical dissonance that keeps Sofia from telling the truth of the recent traumatic birth to Tate. Which makes it confusing because this is not how actual human 18-year-olds would react. But this is the best summary I can give based on what I saw. Thanks for that. But, if they hadn't specifically implied Gwen was wearing Julie's necklace, would you have been able to recognize it? Because it looks different than I recall from the scene with Melinda and Julie at the Bistro (RIP).

Is Gwen tall, or did the necklace look bigger and more garish on Melinda? Here's what I understand. Melinda and Sofia don't know that Leo has the baby, but they assume it has been placed in safe care and will be placed into foster care after 72 hours if one of the parents (aka Tate) doesn't claim it. So, Melinda wants Sofia to go to Chicago and come back in 72 hours saying she had the baby there, and it was adopted there. To prevent Tate from interfering with the safe haven process and allow it to be adopted. Most importantly, Melinda and Sofia don’t know the baby is at the Hernandez House—they think a random stranger took it in.

I get that post-event letdowns are a thing, but I’ve actually found myself more engaged lately because of how layered the custody situation has become—especially now that it’s clearly operating as a power triangle between Sarah, Xander, and Philip. It’s not just emotional fallout—it’s tactical. Sarah could take Xander down in court by exposing the assault, but she’d risk outing herself for covering Philip’s forged letter. Philip could side with Sarah and ruin Xander’s custody case, but that means exposing himself and risking Titan. Meanwhile, Xander and Philip could easily form a temporary alliance—bury the violence, protect the Titan partnership—and suddenly Sarah’s the one who looks unstable and compromised. I appreciate the current dilemma because it explains why Sarah isn't holding the threat of community property against Xander in a way that feels honest, and not contrived based on his assumed power or wealth. What Xander uses in court will tell us everything about whether this story is meant to be balanced, or meant to humiliate Sarah. If he plays the Sarah-kept-her-pregnancy-a-secret card, she has every right to go after Titan. If he sticks to the fraud of Philip's letter, they’re on equal footing. But the show can't have it both ways. That kind of storytelling—where no one can fully press their advantage without detonating something else—feels sharp, contained, and honestly kind of refreshing. It's not plotty in the old sense, but it is dramatic in a way that rewards attention. If this is the direction we’re heading in under the current team, I’m paying attention. HOWEVER, I wonder if the writers know how easily scenes with Felicity slip into infantilizing beats. I keep waiting for her to be treated like a woman in her 20s with an emotional interior, not just a workplace mascot. What would it look like if she were allowed to want respect from Chad and Xander, not a toy recycled as a gift meant for a baby.

I wonder if she ever got her settlement for falling down the elevator shaft...🛌 EJ's gonna have a lot of debt to off set if he buys Salem U Hospital. I want a new Nathan Horton, the other Horton doctor, raised alongside Sarah by Melissa. - (props to Melisa for raising two doctors; what did Neil do besides sending Sarah a pen?) BTW, not a good look for Sarah to conspire with Stephanie after what she did to Nathan.🤫 (but, since Stephanie hasn't aged, Nathan doesn't need to either). Wouldn’t be a Horton revival without a little timeline forgiveness.

Question(s) Du Jour I hate to dredge up bad memories, but doesn’t Versivex seem a lot like Megan Hathaway’s orchid serum—a miracle cure with sketchy ethics? Is it possible one of the DiMera scions is about to try reviving another dead relative with it?

The two questions I need answered in July It was confirmed that Rachel Blake was 'returned' to Kristen on June 3 (after the hospital vote), and Tony DiMera returned on June 30—but we haven’t seen either of them since. Since it turns out Aremid is just down the block, should someone be checking their Apple AirTags? Why doesn't Doug3 speak like a Frenchman, dress like a Frenchman, or walk like a Frenchman? (I needed a third thing to make it a joke) And why was a French citizen, who was convicted of a crime while in the US allowed to change his name?

I swear, some days there's too much exposition, and some days there's never enough. I feel like I'm not that dense (no need for commentary). But it has been two hours since I watched the episode, and I just figured out Melinda's plan. Correct me if I'm wrong, @AbcNbc247 or @carolineg --- Melinda is advising Sofia to continue to appear pregnant for the next 14 days in order to keep Tate from possibly reclaiming the baby from Javi and Leo -due to the Safe Haven Law. Meanwhile, Melinda still has Julie's necklace, which Leo can prove was stolen. However, he would risk self-incrimination by admitting to fencing Julie's necklace to whomever Melinda purchased it from. And Doug3 still thinks that stealing back the necklace will pay off his debt and protect Holly? Things aren't looking good for Melinda's future as an adoption attorney. This would be strike two (Jude), and I don't think she'll get a third at bat. Right?

Haha -- missed opportunities to have a crossover scene of Sophia borrowing Sarah's fake pregnancy pads. At least that would explain how an 18-year-old would have easy access to movie special effects props. 😉

See, I would argue that they put Sofia in such ridiculous situations that Meryl Streep would struggle in the role. For example, given how little we know about Sofia's home life, the relationship with her mother was inexplicable. Every scene, we wondered why Amy got to call the shots. And it must be rough for a relatively young and inexperienced actor to try to pull off a scene that is inherently illogical. Deidre Hall can carry off the absurdity of a scene occurring the day after her husband's funeral, involving the intersecting stories from her various on-screen grandkids over witnessing a murder. But that takes 40 years of practice.😉

I agree, she not a villain for placing her baby into safe care, given that she had literally no other available options. My complaint is that DAYS will use this as a motive to make Sofia into a villain. As the third part of the Holly/Tate/Sofia/DougIII squad, she's clearly coded as the interloper and villain. And I am concerned that today's episode will be used to explain her motive. The idea that Sofia could ever be romantically interested in Tate, after he betrayed her trust with the adoption (by changing his mind at the last minute), dumped her hours after they had sex the first time, and then he will probably blame her for a desperate choice, is logically absurd. In retrospect, Brady's threat to Melinda made no sense. Melinda was offering restitution, Sofia agreed, Brady had no business getting involved.