While ranting about Ron Carlivati on another thread I started thinking what does the use of history really mean to us on a soap?

For me, it’s not bringing long gone characters or locations or plots back in name only.  Or name dropping famous events or characters discussing history like a fact sheet. It’s deeper than that.  And I think the actors bring it out more than we give them credit for.

Its the warmth and camaraderie we see in scenes with Robert/Felicia/Anna on GH.  It’s Laura having anguish on her face when talking about Nikolas and his failures as a parent. It’s Liz remarking that she worked at Kelly’s when she was Cameron’s age. It’s Maggie on DAYS helping Lucas with his addiction.  Sami reverting to her darker side when pressed. And family ties matter- who is related, how they know each other.

What I hate are people just reciting facts or bringing things up for a joke.  Not every detail in the history of a character needs to be brought up in every conversation.

23 hours ago, Faulkner said:

They talked a little bit about Dina (that he was just now getting over her death, thanks to Diane) and she, I recall, told Lily that she was just like her mother (gag).

What bugs me is the erasure of Dru’s death, which I know is partly political. When Lily was making up with Devon and reminding him of all the losses and tragedies they survived together, she started with HILLARY’s death. I’m like, hello, you guys lost your MOTHER in a freak accident due to Phyllis and her schemes. 

Devon and Lily should have had more issues with Phyllis over the years. How hypocritical was it for GT Phyllis to attack Lily for her part in Hillary’s death at the funeral, when Phyllis herself played a part in Dru’s death? And Lily/Daniel just behave like Daniel’s mother and her past actions are water under the bridge.

Of course, this show fetishizes Neil’s death, which… I KNOW… is partly due to how beloved KSJ was behind the scenes, how much press KSJ’s death gave the show, and some recency bias. (Even though Y&R treated him like [!@#$%^&*].) But as much as Neil is brought up, you’d think Devon and Lily would at least mention that they’ve been essentially “orphaned.” 

And the show could have used Devon and Lily being at odds with Phyllis because of Dru for years.  They mined the hell out of Katherine/Phillip/Jill for decades.  Lily and Daniel being involved just makes it richer.

2 hours ago, Forever8 said:

I was surprised on yesterday's episode that Daniel asked Lily about Dru's death to her; my mouth gaped open in shock. And then they had Lily mention it was different because a body was never found. For years they hardly mentioned the circumstances of her supposed death, so I don't know if that's a hint for something upcoming or if whoever wrote it wanted to give the Winters a bone.

That’s great that they mentioned Dru, and hopefully VR’s presence at both the KSJ tribute and the 50th celebration means fences have been mended (perhaps opening a door to something bigger—I dare not hope for a return). EDIT: there’s a huge elephant in the room, of course, in mentioning Dru’s death in relation to Phyllis. I’m guessing they didn’t touch on that.

But it’s just so weird that they’ve been giving us these little references here and there. And, you’re right, for more recent viewers, it could be easy to think that Neil raised both of them alone. Their feelings of loss have been compounded by losing BOTH parents. Y&R did them a disservice by letting off-screen events get in the way of telling proper stories.

 

1 hour ago, titan1978 said:

And the show could have used Devon and Lily being at odds with Phyllis because of Dru for years.  They mined the hell out of Katherine/Phillip/Jill for decades.  Lily and Daniel being involved just makes it richer.

Totally. Even Hillary befriending Phyllis could have been an opportunity to spark some buried animosity between Lily and Phyllis.

 

Edited April 6, 20232 yr by Faulkner

On 4/4/2023 at 8:25 AM, victoria foxton said:

When David Stewart passed away. Both Bob and Kim mentioned their deceased spouses Nick and Jennifer. To convey that they knew what Ellen was going through. Details like that are very important.

a lot of that has to do with having the same actors in the role. much harder when there are new actors, who don’t always know their characters’ history, along with new writers who tend not to care.

so while the writers may have only rarely referenced the long-standing animosity between kim and susan stewart, kathryn hays and marie masters always made sure it was there, even there was nothing explicit in the dialogue. 

7 hours ago, wonderwoman1951 said:

a lot of that has to do with having the same actors in the role. much harder when there are new actors, who don’t always know their characters’ history, along with new writers who tend not to care.

I find it even more important to honour history when a recast comes in. When Alec Musser came in as Del on AMC, they treated him basically as a new character. Del was engaged and lived with Kendall offscreen for years. That was a faint and passing mention. There could have been so many emotions and baggage to unpack with that. We never really knew how and why they broke up. 
 

I would have to agree that the actors play a major part in this for me. Just seeing two long-time characters share a scene together knowing all of what they have been through does touches me. I love it when history is only occasionally touched on, and used for story beats I.E., Secret Reveals! I always felt Bill Bell was smart for leaving things left in the air.

Edited May 12, 20232 yr by DemetriKane

I think Ashley’s paternity was wonderfully played by Bell.  Even if his intent was that it never should be revealed, especially to John, we know and Ashley knows, and it informs her character’s vulnerability. It didn’t need to be revealed to accomplish the greater characterization that it lead to. It wasn’t done just to create a secret to be revealed.

Edited April 19, 20232 yr by titan1978