I agree that not everyone has to be tied to the existing canvas. My big pet peeve is when we're told that someone is suddenly another character's long-lost child, and it makes NO sense in terms of what we saw on the show

Brenda on GH isn't related to any major family is she? You'd think after she became so popular they wouldn't feel like they had to do that.

I hate a lot of the pregnancy related storylines. I don't know why soap writers are so fascinated by them.

Edited May 6, 201213 yr by RomeAt50

Did they ever find that one random long lost son of Adam's? It was right before the confusing Asher story I believe.

I'm an advocate for soras but hate when it's done to too many at once for no reason. Looking at GH and their last round of soras. Y&r's is slightly better as they messed it up and are now fixing it.

Brenda on GH isn't related to any major family is she? You'd think after she became so popular they wouldn't feel like they had to do that.

I hate a lot of the pregnancy related storylines. I don't know why soap writers are so fascinated by them.

Brenda's family came on the show before she did. Didn't stick around long though.

Did they ever find that one random long lost son of Adam's? It was right before the confusing Asher story I believe.

No. They should have just made Asher into Miguel

Who's the Daddy storylines- Does anyone even care anymore? Usually I end of rooting for the opposite man to be the father anyway. And GH seems to be the one that uses them the most.

There is something on TV Tropes about this... your chances of getting pregnant on a soap are directly inverted to your desire to get pregnant. I have to say, I would agree with you that this day in age there is no reason to get pregnant without wanting to, but it happens so often in real life that it is one of the more realistic soap cliches.

Also I hate the way soaps portray abortion, it is always obvious no woman will have an abortion so why must they act like they're even considering it? And the worst is when, no matter how young the couple involved in, no matter how much they hate each other and only had angry sex one time, no matter how much the man is otherwise portrayed as a selfish !@#$%^&*], they will show the heroic man running in slow motion to the abortion clinic to stop the bad woman from having the abortion. Soaps never admit that most guys in that situation want the woman to have an abortion.

Well, yeah, the abortion factor is part of what makes it ridiculous. Although, I still find it hard to believe that most soap characters (who are virtually all upper class and at most adhere to some sort of inoccuous, secular, generic religion that otherwise consists of praying in the hospital chapel while someone's in a coma) wouldn't have access to and avail themselves of some form of family planning. But, even when accidents happen, there are other options, including abortion, that are almost never discussed. Soaps have traditionally been thought of as escapism for female viewers, and while I think there is an element of dismissiveness to that assessment that I certainly don't agree with, I can't begin to imagine why TPTB who probably do see soaps that way would think that women would want to spend their leisure time "escaping" into a world in which women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Clearly, that's nobody's fantasy...more like a nightmare of the clock being turned back to a time that most women don't wish to revisit.

For me, it would be more plausible if soap characters kept unwanted pregnancies in check but STDs were rampant. And I really can't empathize with a character who is partnered with a jealous, possessive, violent man (which is pretty much every male lead on soaps for the past decade) and doesn't even think to take the morning after pill when she somehow manages to fall into bed with his long-lost brother, arch-enemy, etc. without a condom, while not on birth control pills.

Back to the original question, I actually think amnesia is the worst cliche of all. At least the pregnancy stuff can happen, biologically speaking - and even DID is a documented psychological condition (though extremely rare, and some in the field do question its very existence) - but my understanding is that amnesia as it's depicted on soap operas is pretty much a nonoccurrence in reality. I'm no neurologist, and in my limited knowledge I do know that in theory there are different parts of the brain that control memories of specific events vs. memories of how to perform the various bodily functions that no soap would have the guts to show a leading character no longer being able to perform. But we're talking about massive brain trauma, caused by freak accidents/acts of violence that I highly doubt would so neatly impact only one part of the brain.

My understanding is that the biggest issue with traumatic brain injury in real life is cognitive impairment (aka loss of IQ or adaptive functioning, drastic behavioral change, etc.). Memory may well be affected, but I don't think it happens in such a simplistic way as to erase everything and everyone that came before but leave a person cognitively readily able to form new memories/bonds.

In the early-mid '90s, some of the more well-written soaps were starting to experiment with focusing on the behavioral changes in such scenarios (e.g., Jason on the Labines' GH and Holden on Marland's ATWT). Even so, for whatever reason, the cliche of the complete loss of memory of everything that happened to the characters pre-accident was presented alongside the more realistic elements of the story and, under later writers, that amnesia aspect eventually overshadowed the fact that these characters were, to put it crudely, "brain damaged." I don't know why the Quartermaines, with all of their money, never attempted to have Jason declared legally incompetent, and was Holden supposed to have any cognitive impairment after he got his memory back (by being hit on the head again, I believe, like something out of an episode of Charles in Charge)? It would have explained so much of what I saw of this character's actions in ATWT's last 10-15 years, but...

The fact that, 20 years later, the amnesia plot device is still used on soaps (usually in conjunction with the aforementioned back from the dead stories) is an embarrassment, IMO.

My mother watched DOOL from inception. She kept track of how many times they used total amnesia and the even less likely total amnesia with facial reconstruction, to explain a character's disappearance and a newly cast actor's reappearance. I wish I had her notes, but they're gone, as is she. It was funny as hell to read back through them.

Edited May 6, 201213 yr by SweetPea36

Memory may well be affected, but I don't think it happens in such a simplistic way as to erase everything and everyone that came before but leave a person cognitively readily able to form new memories/bonds.

Based on what I know its possible for it to happen that way but as you said its not the way it usually happens when people get brain injuries.

No. They should have just made Asher into Miguel

According to Adam, Sonia Reyes was in California raising Adam's son Miguel... as if Adam would let a Chandler heir just disappear.

According to Caleb, Sonia died giving birth to Asher. So... who raised Miguel?

According to Adam, Sonia Reyes was in California raising Adam's son Miguel... as if Adam would let a Chandler heir just disappear.

According to Caleb, Sonia died giving birth to Asher. So... who raised Miguel?

That's why I said that story was confusing.

Triangles between the same two people for years on end, with both couples being revisited depending on how loud the fanbase is/who's on the show at one point or another.

As for DID--there are a few shows who have had that story, but truthfully, OLTL owned it like no one else (now how well they handled it--that depended on who was in charge of the show). Not that many other soaps did storylines featuring it.

I've never even heard of other DID stories except for the ones on OLTL and currenty GH. Who else did one?

Santa Barbara had one with Jane Sibbett in 1986. GL had one with Jane Elliot in 1982. DAYS with Jean Bruce Elliot in 1981-82 and Patsy Pease in 1992. AW with Anna Kathryn Holbrook in 1990 and 1994.

Edited May 6, 201213 yr by CarlD2

As the World Turns in the 90s had Royce played by Terry Lester. (Doug Marland passed away before he could see the story through...)

I always forget about that (mostly because I was never really sure Lester was able to play two different personalities).

Santa Barbara had one with Jane Sibbett in 1986. GL had one with Jane Elliot in 1982. DAYS with Jean Bruce Elliot in 1981-82 and Patsy Pease in 1992. AW with Anna Kathryn Holbrook in 1990 and 1994.

DAYS also had Trish Clayton split into personalities, Cynthia and Lisa, after she killed her abusive step-father, Jack Clayton.

DAYS loves that plot. Sami has had multiple personalities for years...