j swift

Yes, but those writers are few and far between, as evidenced by what actually occurred on screen. Sorry, to be on a bit of a diatribe, but I think what set me off is when people post about the value of maintaining core families as if it were a new idea. I think, given that the show has been off-air for a couple of decades, it may be interesting to challenge some of those well-trod opinions, and see if they hold up. And, to me, this idea is neither imaginative nor practical, because it was so rarely well executed despite being oft repeated. It is the soap fan's analogy for universal acceptance of the metric system. A great idea, that's often been proposed, yet never well implemented.

Arguable on Dean and Paulina, and you were close to changing my mind, but even you needed to conceded that it is rare. And I would argue, despite sharing scenes with his family, Dean was mostly a Frame in name only. I share the widespread admiration for Another World's history and commitment to canon. But the increasingly tired argument—that the show would have been better or more popular if it had just stuck with its core families—doesn’t hold up. The data suggests it's difficult for later writers to sustain a genuine connection to the past, just as new writers are rarely eager to reconstruct it.

The point remains: the reflexive urge to go back “when things were good” inevitably results in bad recasts and characters that are family in name only, when under the guidance of a new writer. Here's my challenge, name a character created by a writer in the last decade of the show, who was introduced as a member of an established family, that was well received? I'm not talking about recasts, like Anne Heche. I'm talking about family members in name only. Those characters who weren't at all informed by their family dynamic. For example, Dr. Jamie, lil'Maggie-2Dads, macho-Dennis, the-suddenly-Cory cousins, and Olivia. It is rare for a writer to create a character tied to a core family that sustained or was popular. But, if anyone can think of three examples, I might change my opinion.

Cat wore a $300 blouse to paint kid's faces? Seems like a poor candidate for a stepmom, because she's got some unrealistic expectations for children's behavior. Also @Soaplovers @carolineg I really like your whole exploration of Stephanie and Kayla. It is such a great reminder that a little character progress costs nothing, and would be so welcome.

On the other hand (always the optimist), I would watch a show centered around Jada, Stephanie, and Gabi. I think they are modern, vibrant women, and they don't feel as if they could've also existed at any other time in Days history. Those three women, their families, their antagonists, and the dumb guys who love them are currently enough for me. Furthermore, I would argue that if you survey the ingénues of the other four soaps, Jada, Stephanie, and Gabi are the most likable, and fun, without being only motivated by romance. And, it feels like a breath of fresh air focusing on those three, as opposed to the older male leads of other shows.

To reiterate our discussion about the current DAYS writing team, the issue with casting Russ should have been secondary—if Olivia had been a well-crafted character, her lineage wouldn’t have had to carry the weight. The case of Olivia is a clear lesson: simply belonging to a storied family like the Matthews does not guarantee a character’s popularity or resonance. What we needed was depth—perhaps more insight into how her identity as a dancer shaped her personal life. That kind of interiority could have made her genuinely compelling. Invoking legacy by name alone—be it Matthews, Harrison, or any other—amounts to little more than empty gesture if it isn’t anchored in the present storytelling. A legacy is only meaningful if it meaningfully informs a character’s evolution. Take Willis, for example—arguably my first favorite character. Would I have appreciated an update on him in 1989? Certainly. But simply reintroducing him wouldn’t have worked in that moment. By then, the show’s tone had shifted, and the qualities that once made Willis dynamic would have needed adjustment to remain palatable to a late-’80s audience. Nostalgia can’t write itself. It’s easy to lament the way soaps sometimes seem to forget their own history, but honestly, I can’t think of a single instance where a new writer successfully resurrected an old plotline or introduced a character from a legacy family that truly landed with the audience. Soap fans are nothing if not imaginative—we project myriad possibilities onto past characters. So when a new writer delivers a definitive, canonical outcome for a returning figure, it almost inevitably falls short of the expectations we’ve built in our minds.

First, @DRW50, I want to begin by expressing my respect—I hope my tone reflects that. I’m engaging here in the spirit of thoughtful debate, and I truly value your insights. Regarding Rachel and Renee, I see them as examples of writers attempting to revisit the past, only for the audience to find the result underwhelming. Personally, I’ve never lost sleep over Megan Hathaway’s absence. In that context, wishing for character returns often feels like a reflexive response, one that overlooks how frequently those storylines disappoint. In other words, it’s a rare feat for a new writer to successfully right old wrongs or reframe the past in a compelling way. We might be better served by letting go of that hope. Instead, there’s rich potential in crafting a Salem that draws influence from its history without being tethered to it—contemporary, engaging, and forward-looking. Stories about issues affecting the culture now (or 18 months ago), rather than trying to recreate a nuclear family that may not be relevant to how families live today. This may stir another pot, but I feel similarly about characters who remain on canvas despite past misdeeds. To be specific, the writer who penned EJ’s rape storyline, and the actor who portrayed it, are no longer with the show. In a genre where recasts are standard, it seems unfair to saddle a new actor and writer with the weight of those past decisions. EJ's continued presence suggests he remains popular, and if the creative team wants to explore his story further, I think we have to allow it to evolve.

Nobody wants characters like Joy, but are there any current Hortons out there compelling enough to make you tune in daily? And, it subverts the question about seeking new viewers, and how a rigid adherence to the past is often perceived as a barrier to those that didn't grow up with the show. I'm simply wondering if it's time to reconsider the old paradigm. Instead of longing for a return to the soap era’s heyday, perhaps we should explore how revisiting the past through the lens of a new writer is rarely rewarding. Because, to me, that's the lesson of the Carlivati era. Leave the past in the past, or you wind up with doctors thinking that they're Renee Dimera. Allow this to be my entry into the anti Make-Soaps-Great-Again (MSMA) movement. Honor progress, not regression.

This may be a semantic issue. Certainly Ron, his manager, and his agent knew about his contract expiring, and they knew that they had not been contacted to renegotiate. Is that the same thing as being fired? Maybe…. But, as we've discussed ad nauseam, there were other factors. Including that his contract rate was held over from the time DAYS was on network, so there were financial considerations. The new producer wanted their own team. And there is a natural life expectancy for any writer, and RonC had reached that limit. Either way, there are union issues involved in who gets credit for work, and how much it can be re-edited and still be given credit. So, the transparency is in the credits. However, as @ArizonaDaze said so well, I don’t anticipate any noticeable changes in the next six to nine months—nor will I be actively searching for them. Much like I disregard those who clamor for attention by parroting rumors, pasting Wikipedia excerpts, or outsourcing their commentary to ChatGPT, all without contributing a shred of original thought, insight, or genuine entertainment to the conversation.

IDK... It gets to the point where you're recasting parts just to have the last name of Horton, and doesn't make much sense. If we needed more professionals, like doctors and lawyers, it would be nice if they were a Horton. But, the do-good/upper-middle-class historical family holds no promise for me without the rest of the clan. There aren't many fascinating Hortons that I really want to know what happened to them, except Laura. And she's both dead and a not a Horton by birth. I would reiterate, that if you want the soap to be popular and gain new viewers, you can't live in the past and make it too unreasonable for a new viewer to jump in. If Sandy Horton and her kids haven't been seen in a generation, I don't think she would inspire writers or viewers to re-connect with the show in 2025 as much as a good modern plot with lots of current references.

Tanner Stine (ex-Joey Johnson - DAYS) got a new gig for god.

If they only needed a couple of grand to save the whole hospital, it feels like there were simpler ways to raise funds. Also, why is never sunny in Salem? Finally, my argument why I think RonC's leaving was not a surprise. It is not unusual for a new writer to want to write an episode with as many characters as possible for their first day, so the fundraiser was a good start point EJ coming out of the coma is the next chapter of the mystery The fundraiser allows for a re-set without consequences, like when they dedicated Horton Square Most of RonC's stories have concluded at this point Side note: someone merely tagging your name, does not give you the opportunity to derail an entire thread. I am neither entertained nor enlightened by your bickering. If someone misunderstands your intentions, take it as feedback to write more concisely, don't try to change their opinion. AND if you can't take it to the PM's because a member has blocked you, they don't want to engage with you — don't take it as an invitation to respond in the threads.

Do you think if OLTL was on today, they'd do a conservatory story with Viki? I mean, after the DID, going back in time, and hiding out in a diner in Texas; don't you think someone from the board at Lord/Manning would suggest that Natalie get a court appointed financial conservator for her mother?

Furthermore, Because,

So true, it always makes me angry when they would assume CC was a villain, meanwhile he was the one who was cheated upon. And how many single men raised four young kids in the 1970s? CC was devoted to his kids, and we never saw any reason for them to blame him for their past.

This is speculation, not a spoiler (I know nothing)

I didn't pick up on that at all (lunch was good, so I may have been distracted). It feels nuts, but I keep thinking that there's no way that they're going to saddle Tate with a baby forever. Given that Sophia is already showing, it would be in poor taste for her to miscarry (we all know soap miscarriages rarely occur this late in the gestational period). So, as I watch, my mind wonders to the thousands of different ways that they can write themselves out of this corner.

The only subtle change that I noticed today were characters actually texting each other. One of my enduring soap-related pet peeves is how characters seem to live in a pre-cellphone era—forever waiting to run into each other at the Brady Pub or the hospital before divulging crucial information. In a world where teens practically have phones fused to their palms, it’s refreshing (and frankly overdue) to see the show reflect that. Now, onto what I would consider the most perplexing scene of the day: Amy, Paulina, and Chanel discussing the potential adoption—without Sophia present. Why is the person at the center of this decision missing from the conversation? Add to that Chanel’s oddly timed “We’re not that religious” line, clearly a setup for her dramatic “I have something to admit” before the commercial break. It felt forced, contrived even. Yes, I understand the episode was engineered to cast suspicion on Chanel regarding EJ’s shooting, only to exonerate her by the end—but I never bought into her as a legitimate suspect, so the dramatic tension fell flat. That said, I do appreciate the methodical pace of ruling out suspects every few days. So far, we can strike Kristen, Chanel, and Kate from the list. It’s a satisfying narrative rhythm and lends the mystery a bit more weight. Lastly, I must air a minor grievance: the Chad and Johnny scenes. While earnest, they would feel far more resonant if they were between Johnny and JJ. Not only are they contemporaries in Salem’s ever-flexible timeline, but JJ—being the son of Jack Deveraux, a man with a disturbing past—has his own experience wrestling with familial trauma. A Johnny/JJ alliance would add nuance and emotional heft to both characters. All in all, an uneven episode with glimmers of promise. Here’s hoping tomorrow’s installment keeps the pacing but ups the plausibility.

Unfortunately, it may not mean much, as every head writer since Shakespeare has promised to focus more on the Hortons. I'm certain if you prompted ChatGPT to write a cover letter for the job of head writer at Days of Our Lives, it would automatically include a swear to focus on the Hortons. It's like Kindergarten class being asked a question by the teacher, “what do we say when a soap journalist asked about the future of Days?” and all the little boys and girls say, “focus on the core families like the Hortons.”

Also, an amusing side note to today's episode: Notebook the Musical that Alex and Stephanie are going to see; closed four months ago on Broadway. So, the touring company is premiering in Salem? I googled it and there's no tie-in to Peacock, as I assumed. And the actual tour in our universe hasn't been cast yet. Another casualty of trying to write in cultural references nine months in advance. Much like when Leo went to Iceland to see Madonna, days after she postponed her tour due to illness IRL. But, at least they nailed the timing of The Traitors.

And, those are the four saddest plants on television. They're so pitiful it is distracting.

I just think the imbalance of money and power in Salem is too much in favor of the villains, we need some rich benign people. For example, there was a time when Neil seemed to be nearly as wealthy as Tony Dimera. Bo referred to Hope as Princess, in part, because Doug was among the upper class in town. But, now EJ and Maggie feel vastly more wealthy than Paulina.

I think Kenya is not getting due diligence, but I don't like her as a housewife. She is definitively not a girl's girl. She's awkward about sex, she exploits other women's weaknesses, and she's never demonstrated loyalty. I think she's interesting. I think she'd do better in an era when reality TV would focus on a single person and their surroundings. But, she's never been in a friendship (or any type of non-hostile relationship) with another cast member worth exploring. And this whole fight seems to actually be about BTS issues like casting and screen time, as opposed to what we actually saw on screen. Because the reactions never seemed organic to the situation. So, there are other variables at play, that if they are unable to discuss on camera, then I wish they would have edited the entire thing out.

I don't know about eunuch, but I was thinking today while watching one of the Dreaming Death episodes that Warren always acted like he had a huge sign around his neck that said "Loser." A very ineffective villain. I always remember Warren like Alan, or any number of powerful, yet not conventionally attractive and, smarmy guys on soaps in the 1980s, who still seemed to attract the most wonderful women. They had tons of unwanted post-coital under-the-covers scenes. They were the embodiment of Kissinger's quote about power being an aphrodisiac, because those dudes were not cute, and only occasionally charming. And, gals like Lesley Anne got nothing but heartache out of their pairing. Was I surprised later to find out that the actor was gay? No. But, he was always written as having a ton of swagger and always on the prowl. Both of his major roles were men who wanted to acquire power in order to impress (or control) women.

I finally got back to it and finished it last night. I have to say, Lisenti's ability for story-telling through editing is formidable. His choices of which quotes to put in which order, really adds a spark of humor. It is editorial commentary through implication rather than inserting his own narrative. My favorite joke that gets repeated book to book is someone will tell a long, involved story, and then someone else will reply with one line that doesn't agree with the recollection. For example, an actor will tell a long casting story, followed by an executive who will say, “I don't remember it that way…”. Because it was obviously a bigger deal to the actor than to the production as a whole. I think that I've read all of his books at this point, and his editorial flair is definitely a high point. Also, in the list of things that doomed Texas, never forget that it was dopey Brandon Tartikoff who was quoted during the announcement of the spin-off saying it would be 'Dallas in the daytime' which haunted them from the moment it was said aloud.