As One Life to Live tells a very high stakes dramatic story about

one paralyzed child, Matthew, and another about child with cancer, Shane

, what about the rumors that its longtime star, Erika Slezak, may be facing the greatest soap peril of all (unemployment?)

http://www.marlenadelacroix.com

Sorry, jinx, I see what you were saying. You're right, they've had the kids in danger stories on Agnes shows. I think beyond that point, what some may find distasteful is that these stories seem like they're all about plot device and sensationalism. Cole's drug addiction happened at the speed of light. So did the relationship between Starr and Schuyler.

Why can't these stories be told in a more leisurely manner, with less focus on these big shock value moments? I think that's what makes OLTL so difficult to process sometimes, because they never take the time to both build a story and explore the consequences of a story. Either things dawdle for months or years and then suddenly end, or things happen out of nowhere. It's frustrating because some of OLTL is so well written and so beautifully acted.

OLTL, even in the worst of times, featured great actors who knew their characters- who could make anything worth watching. Where have the Jessica Tucks, Fiona Hutchisons, ect gone?

They're on cable, at shows like Damages, Leverage, Dexter and True Blood. Those are the new soaps.

As for Slezak, if this rumor comes to pass, it will freak out the online audience but the offliners won't realize she's actually gone for a while. Besides they can pay four newbies with her salary.

They're on cable, at shows like Damages, Leverage, Dexter and True Blood. Those are the new soaps.

those are all also amazingly written tv shows.

now if only we could get someone, or a team of people, to write soaps one tenth as good as any of those.

Well frankly, I don't want the soaps to revert back to the socially conscious stories right now - not until they work on cleaning up some of the stuff that is wrong with soaps.

It is not that they can't do them justice because they could if they tried, but my question is how in the hell can you take it seriously when you have a serious socially relevant story in the midst of a return from the dead or some outlandish [!@#$%^&*] that can't ever happen.

Back when Agnes Nixon and others sought to raise the standards of soaps by rising them above the common dribble that inhabited soaps and tried to give them a conscious and respectability those stories worked. But they don't now. Soaps have no respect for themselves anymore so how in the world can they even try.

What amazes me is the cry for better stories and dealing with the fallout in a proper way but yet those same fans will cry for Dixie's death to be undone on AMC or any number of things.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

I am of the opinion that soaps should not do socially conscious stories at all. TPTB and the audience have the attention spans of gnats. There is no tolerance for stories to play out in a meaningful or realistic way because everyone gets bored. Perhaps it is because these topics are covered by Oprah so we have heard it all before.

Dexter is my favorite television show, but it is the acting along with the writing that make it fascinating to watch. Michael C. Hall is a talent. I don't hold it against soaps for having some bad actors. It is hard to have a cast chock full of very talented people, but TPTB can do better in the casting dept. and they can use their cast more wisely when telling stories.

About Slezak, I want to believe that it is all rumor and that she is safe, but who saw the Martha Bryne and Don Diamont firing coming? More likely ABC will continue to phase out Vicki to avoid the uproar of that firing Slezak would cause.

Dear range is "done" with OLTL only as long as it helps his views count. I don't care for Stacy or John but I found the accident drama excellent today. I'm just disappointed another person insists on perpetuating the ES rumor crap.

Now we are going to start with personal insults with other board members? Come on Vee.

No offense..... but you never have anything positive to say about OLTL.

Not offended. I raved about the show in November and December when people who do not even watch it constantly came here to trash it. The show in my opinion has sucked since January, and has only gotten worse. Its just my opinion.

Not offended. I raved about the show in November and December when people who do not even watch it constantly came here to trash it. The show in my opinion has sucked since January, and has only gotten worse. Its just my opinion.

Hard to believe, but I was about to rise to your defense. I recall that you were raving about the show when characters and performers you really admired and enjoyed were being featured.

I'm really not a Viki fan (much prefer Dorian) but when I hear the title of the show ONE LIFE TO LIVE, I think Viki is the "ONE" life. Unfortunately the show no longer treats Viki as it's center where other stories are an outgrowth of that center, and unless it does, I don't think it matters if she's on the show or not. Right now, her family is rarely featured. The reason I've watched the show for all these years is primarily because of the Buchanans, Lords and Cramers. Kevin's gone. Joey's gone. Jessica and Natalie are featured minimally in a second (or third) tier story. Cassie's gone. Kelly's gone. Adriana is gone. The remaining Cramer's all have stories but they're fractured and not connected with each other. Although, I think these stories are well written and capably performed, I'm not terribly entertained because I'm just not very interested in the Morascos, Thornhearts, McBain, or Montez's.

I hope it's cyclical, not strategic. I hope it's not a deliberate attempt to phase out the core families I've become invested in over the years. It wouldn't be the first time. The Buchanan's didn't start out as a core family. There are no Wolek's anymore. The show survived. But Viki was always the anchor and in some way the other characters tied back to her. No more. They need to change the name of the show. The Many Lives of Llanview or something. It's not the show I've been watching for so long.

I wasn't commenting on the quality of the current stories, but, rather, the Professor's assertion that children in jeopardy is a recent development which shouldn't be done at all. She'll invoke Agnes Nixon as some sacred cow, all the while ignoring some of her defining moments in soap history like Laura Cudahy being run over by a drunk driver or Tad and Ray in the park or little Dottie Thorton killing her father. Those stories didn't send young mothers fleeing from their television sets, but when a Guza or Carlvati or Frons does basically the same plot, Connie siezes the opportunity to wantonly grind her axe, as if it had never been done before. Her cries to "Think of the Children!" and "Men with Guns!" always ring false to me.

Actually she stated that while this was done in the past, the fact that doing two of these storylines at the same time is something new and that doing these types of storylines with no balance of anything lighter and or romantic maybe a turn off for some.

OLTL's problem is that it features too many bad actors in major stories. RC is a fool to give Farah Fatah such a heavy story. All it will do is give her more opportunity to stink up the joint. The kid who plays Matthew can't act, but at least Bo and Nora will churn out some good work. These are not good stories for OLTL. It isn't strong enough to carry two downer stories at the same time.

The rumors about Erika Slezak are hopefully untrue.

You see I don't think RC writes for the actors per se, he writes for the characters, which what I think writers should do.

A prime example of this is the character of Alexandra Spaulding on Guiding Light and how differently they've written that character with each of their portrayers.

I don't think the stories are all that bad either, just the execution and yes the weakness of the actors carrying the stories. I'm sure if we had some strong actors in the whole Rex/Stacy/Gigi mess, alot more people would be enjoying the story than they are now with FF and CH. (I'm on the fence with JPL)

I don't want to believe that Viki is leaving OLTL. I truly don't believe RC would be a major fan of that (just as he wasn't of Tina's sudden exit), but then again we do have Frons and Valentini at the helm so with them who knows?

I am of the opinion that soaps should not do socially conscious stories at all. TPTB and the audience have the attention spans of gnats. There is no tolerance for stories to play out in a meaningful or realistic way because everyone gets bored. Perhaps it is because these topics are covered by Oprah so we have heard it all before.

Where daytime comes into play is viewers have a more strong reaction to a social issue when it happens to someone they feel like they know.

Like when Courtney on ATWT had bulimia. There wasn't a storyline where suddenly she started purging and then the next thing you know, she's in the hospital and the story is done. Her feelings of insecurity were slowly built up over a year and she began binging and purging.

The teens on OLTL are involved in such constant melodrama, they aren't relateable, they become a joke. The pacing of the stories lets the show down over and over. I feel like some of the stories, such as the aftermath of the Tarty sex and the motivations and pacing for the David/Buchanan storylines, are almost textbook examples of how not to pace a storyline.

I don't care if OLTL tells social issue stories, I just want them to learn how to tell a story.

I am of the opinion that soaps should not do socially conscious stories at all. TPTB and the audience have the attention spans of gnats. There is no tolerance for stories to play out in a meaningful or realistic way because everyone gets bored. Perhaps it is because these topics are covered by Oprah so we have heard it all before.

I love socially conscious stories but I don't think all soaps should do them. What I really wish is that the genre was healthy enough to support a variety of soaps. I wish there could be shows for those who like camp, topical drama, supernatural, teen drama, etc... There should be shows for Carlivatians, Malonians, Nixonians and Bellians. Unfortunately, one of the sad things about soaps is that they're all the same and all equally played out.

Oh Ann we said the same thing-

Eddie Alderson is all over the map with his performances.

You have Kristen Alderson kissing a 30 year old teacher.

The girl cannot act. She is horrible.

Scott Clifton is pretty appealing and a decent actor.

You basically sacrifice his character to give Alderson drama. (How this girl has not been recast is beyond my comprehension). Not to mention she looks like she is 13 years old!!! It makes the storyline seem like some dirty old man's freak show fantasy hour. Its DISGUSTING.

Shane's asthma attack and performance and Farah's performance was like a Saturday Night Live skit.

Marty and her adrenaline rush/Incredible Hulk Impersonation was- was-was- i am speechless

I could go on and on...the serial killer storyline (always a bad sign for any soap) Stacy on five days a week (You KNOW Frons handpicked this chick)

I just don't like soaps anymore.++ Ducks head++ Hell I think Y&R is just as bad++Ducks head/runs for cover++

I am done bitching.

I agree 5000% will all of this regarding OLTL.

As for YR, I think I kind of admire the suits for giving their long time (many, much older) audience members something entertaining. This story won't go on forever, and I don't enjoy it, but I don't mind it.

ANDREA

Marlena,

As always I appreciate your take on things, even as I respectfully disagree on a few points.

I don't think that the idea of someone living with a disability is nearly as hopeless or tragic as anyone, let alone a child, facing the possibility of dying from a terminal illness. That said, paralysis stories on soaps are usually bigger downers than terminal illness stories for me, because typically characters who are dying suddenly have big epiphanies about things that they (and usually all of their loved ones, who line up for deathbed advice) should have done years ago. Whereas characters faced with being paralyzed/blind/deaf typically act even dumber than they did previously, pushing away the people who love them because they think they are unlovable and a burden because of their disabilities. I'm actually surprised that

Matthew is going to be paralyzed, because he doesn't have a love interest to break up with for her own good (or has one of those girls I saw while fast forwarding through the school dance scenes already become his love interest?). But these paralysis stories are so overdone - and we know that no network is ever going to allow a differently abled character to be a viable lead in the longterm, so any disability is going to eventually be cured - that I'm more bored by them than anything else. In this case, I don't care about Matthew so I'm even less interested.

On another note, I personally would not put David and Dorian's infamous oral sex scene in the same category as any of the antics of this mind-boggling Stacey character. I read your initial reaction to the blow job scene and ultimately I disagreed, but I did not respond at the time because it seemed to me like such a throwaway scene that it wasn't worth arguing its merits with anyone. But it seems like you're still angry about it, so I am going to put my two cents in, not that I expect to change your mind but hear me out: I think a woman (let alone a woman of Dorian's age) being shown to have a pleasurable and empowering sex life with a gorgeous man she has been involved with and cared for (on and off) for almost fifteen years is a positive (and all too rare) thing on soaps these days. And yes, she was using sex to manipulate David, in part, but I think a lot of people use sex to manipulate their partner, at one time or another, to varying degrees. Dorian's motives in doing so with David were clearly established, rooted in a lot of on-screen history with him and with the Buchanans, and ultimately very human. Also I believe Robin Strasser, who has been playing Dorian since before I was born, has said in print that it was actually her idea. I'll trust her judgment.

Whereas I don't know what Stacey's motivation is, and what is more I don't care, and I doubt the actress knows or cares either. And the fact that we are being introduced to Stacey (ad nauseum) through this aspect of her personality makes it all very ugly to me. I would gladly take Dorian and David in a risque love scene any day. That said, I can't imagine that anyone directly involved in any aspect of putting this show out on a day-to-day basis actually relishes bringing Stacey to life for us. It's pretty clear to me that her instant frontburner status has been dictated by someone very far removed from the writing/production (and probably from reality). Was the actress so popular on GL to merit this fanfare? Did she even leave of her own volition after a full contract, or was she replaced with the acclaimed actress who has been playing Lizzie for years? I have not watched GL regularly in over a decade but I don't remember her lasting very long…

Finally, while I bet the highers up at ABC would sadly be all too happy

to be rid of Erika Slezak and Viki, I have hopes that this is the show where it is actually the least likely to happen. As you said, Ron Carlivati clearly enjoyed writing for Viki when he started and created that whole story about her in the diner. And Frank Valentini, despite having been executive producer for well over five years, has presided over very few longtime veterans being fired - in fact, he even rectified the stupid decision to let Robin Strasser get away. Hopefully these are rumors and Viki will be kept around in some capacity, even if it looks like in the immediate future that capacity will consist of giving advice to her daughters and, worse, Gigi.

All of that notwithstanding…I can't say I'm watching regularly these days. I did see Friday's show, and a stabbing and a two-car crash was too much. It's clearly desperation. And despite what I said about the differences that I see between disabilities and terminal illness,

I absolutely agree that two medical stories involving children playing out at the same time is a bad idea (what is going to happen with Shane anyway? Are they going to find out he has cancer when he goes to the hospital from injuries in the car accident? Or will the car crash and the cancer be two separate major events for him in the course of a month?).

But a part of me hopes this breakneck pace works and that the 12-17 year olds they are targeting tune in. There are still more moments on this show that I like than on any other soap on the air these days, so the rumors that Carlivati is in the line of fire do not sit well with me. I don't think anybody is going to be able to do any better in the current climate at ABC, but I firmly believe a writer who doesn't care can and will do a lot more damage. In a few weeks, if I can tune into OLTL and see the characters I love doing interesting things, then I'm happy to just not watch Stacey and the serial killer and whatever else is happening in the mean time.