-The Nash/Jessica scenes this week were drastically improved - they were actually romantic! Up until now their scenes have been only about lust. TPTB were wise to show Jessica's fantasy of cuddling with Nash. Now it seems she is falling in love with him, not just horny for him.

- Could Pagie be acting any more suspiciously? She seems VERY satisfied that Spencer is dead.

- Christina Chambers is improving.

- Bravo to Bob Woods. Bo really went OFF on Rex, and that was the most passion I've seen from Woods in a long time.

- The whole Spencer murder mystery is off to a great start. Rex and Michael each think the other one did it. John thinks Michael did it. Natalie thinks John did it. Todd has an alibi but something is off about it. Natalie tampered with evidence. Michael is keeping big secrets from Marcie. It's all spiraling out of control in a most interesting way. Right now the only people I'm truly suspicious of are Addie and Paige. I also have been wondering if Margaret could still be alive, or if her sister might have swung through town to have a word with the man who faked Margaret's death.

- What is UP with Talia? I am really digging Beth Ann. And I like Talia so far, but man oh man she is very shady. Is it just me or does she seem like she has about a million secrets? Now either this woman has an agenda, or Beth Ann is wisely infusing her scenes with some mystery. Either way, this is one new character I want MORE of.

- The JoVan scenes were good. I'd like to see John and Evangeline become close friends again.

- Why doesn't Evangeline just quit working for Nora? It's so obviously not working for her and she's miserable.




"I always look forward to your column every week, but I have one question for you. I keep hearing that John and Natalie will break up, probably during Feb Sweeps. But now I hear that next week they end up in bed together, and Dena Higley says that the Spencer murder investigation is a John and Nat story. (Prominent Spoiler Artist) says that John and Marty are coming to our screen very soon. I don't know what to believe, and I DO NOT want to continue watching this show if they keep John and Nat together. Are these just teasers they are throwing at us to keep us watching or are they really going to break up John and Nat? Do you know anything for sure? If you don't, when you do, would you please post it? I just want to hear an actual spoiler and not a rumor that they will break up I guess. I'm so sick of watching them together." - Shan

First I'd like to clarify something: I am not a spoiler artist. I have heard there are some very confused message board posters who deride me for "not knowing what I'm talking about." The truth is, I often don't! Even though I now have some pretty awesome sources, I am not a spoilerist - and this column is an OPINION column, not a spoiler column. I do not nor have I ever claimed otherwise. Those claims are made only by the confused people I mentioned above. They are the ones, I think, who don't know what they are talking about. Having said that, I reserve the right to speculate on any subject I wish. I reserve the right to read spoilers and incorporate them in my commentaries - and I reserve the right to NOT read spoilers. Such was the case during the Adriana's stalker storyline. Remember that piece of garbage story? I actually had deluded myself into thinking the outcome would be surprising and worth all of the hours I wasted watching it unfold. I had read spumors early on that Dorian was responsible. But I didn't accept it as fact and put out a column right before the reveal, proposing that Rex or Adriana could be their own stalker. Then, after it was revealed to be Dorian, I was bombarded with comments accusing me of being a fake. These were from the same confused people mentioned above. Not only were they confused, but also disproportionately fired up about it. The fact is, I don't always know what's going to happen, and I'm GLAD for that. However, I often do get spoileresque information from a variety of sources, and it all kind of blurs together sometimes. Some if it I intuitively believe to be true, some of it I don't. And enough cannot be said about the nature of daytime and how pieces of information which are genuine can also quickly become false due to last-minute changes. Unless you are e-mailing with Brian Frons himself, you don't know what's going on for sure. And that includes every spoiler artist on the internet. Of which, I am not one!

So, now that I've made that disclaimer... Yes, John and Nat are having sex and then going from "bad to worse". The sex is there, I'm afraid, to cause a Natalie pregnancy. I truly hope that isn't the case, because a Jolie baby would surely be a sign of the apocalypse. Seriously... the world is ending if Jolie has a baby. Then again, not all pregnancies on soaps result in babies. Another prominent rumor is that Natalie is soon to leave town for a spell. Will she come back after this break with a secret baby? Will she even end up pregnant? Or is this Jolie's ceremonious last f--k and nothing more (God willing)? These are the kinds of questions that are valid to ask at this time. I don't think anyone is still deluded about Jolie working, and I know Michael Easton didn't sign a new contract to keep this couple going for much longer. But a Jolie pregnancy would certainly complicate alot of people's lives.

"I like the pairing of John and Marty. But even more I like what it will bring to the McBain character, in terms of his relationship with a widow raising a son alone. Both John and Cole lost their fathers, and Cole like John seems to have assumed the role of the man, protecting his mom... I would like to see the dynamics of the John/Cole relationship. Cole resenting John at first, feeling threatened about another man in his mom's life. Then eventually bonding, and each finding the healing they need. John being the father to Cole, that his father's death robbed him of. The father he himself was robbed of." - Dee

I suppose a John/Cole dynamic could make for interesting television. Then again, it could be a crashing bore. Neither actor involved really does much for me, so together they may do even less. But it's certainly worth a shot, if for no other reason than because it's fresh. John interacting with a mother and son would certainly be something new and could provide alot of growth (not to mention conflict) for John's character. It would also entangle him by default with Todd and Blair, which is good. John's only hope of becoming a good character is to escape his prison cell at the hotel and start forming relationships with someone other than Natalie. Their relationship is toxic and it's the only one he has outside of Michael and his cop buddies. That needs to change.

"The John/Marty thing... I've been looking at from a different angle. Let's start with Michael Easton. As a leading male, he is hot garbage. Nobody likes his character. As a matter of fact, he is the most hated male character besides Spencer on the show. They have to redeem this man at some time. IF or when Jolie ends... he will be hated even more. Do you see the writers redeeming John through interactions with Marty? What I mean is that Marty is a messed up chick, but she is a psychiatrist. Dr. Crosby didn't do squat in helping John rid himself of his demons or issues. I'm thinking this is where Marty comes in. I'm sure there will be some romance, but the main focus of the John/Marty relationship will be 'therapy' for John to redeem his character to the audience. This is something the show should have done with Dr. Crosby, but they turned that into a complete joke. I'm thinking they are... going back to John's redemption, with a guise of romance with Marty. What do you think?" - Angie

Hmmm. Angie may be on to something here. On paper, John/Marty works well. The idea of "John's Redemption" is kind of an abstract notion for me, though. I honestly can't imagine John McBain ever being interesting or exciting to watch. Do you really think his "redemption" will make him more exciting? If anything, it might cause him to become even more dull. On the one hand, Marty could help John mature and start acting like an adult who doesn't hate women. But on the other hand, Marty and John together might be the most boring and unwatchable couple since... Jolie. I really don't know what to suggest to make John more interesting. Perhaps there isn't a way. But I suppose it's worth a shot to let John grow up - and I could definitely see Marty forcing him to do just that. Throw a step-son into the mix and John might be forced to deal with alot of "grown up" issues he's avoided his entire life. The main problem for me is that I don't believe John is capable of love. I didn't see love with Natalie, I didn't see love with Evangeline (though at least John seems to LIKE her!), and I can't really picture seeing him love Marty. I've never seen him NEED someone. So for my money, any John McBain romance is a dull prospect. I would love to be proven wrong.

"Kassie De Paiva has been more outspoken than Trevor St. John over the years, and has said many of the same things, like that Todd and Blair needed an overhaul, how the Asa house story was bad. She talked up Spencer and Blair calling it 'romantic', she has talked about John McBain.
This week on her own message board she clearly states she doesn't see Todd and Blair back together right now and how Blair needs a relationship that isn't abusive (huh?) and how Blair needs to move on and laugh with a new man. DePaiva has gone much beyond what St. John has said. And good for her - she is allowed her opinion." - Mary

You just had to go and remind me about that dreadful storyline about Asa's house! Gosh, was that painful. I had literally buried that memory. Anyway, you are right about DePaiva. She is fairly outspoken. But the manner in which she is outspoken is generally more polite and politically correct than say, Trevor St. John or Robin Strasser. When commenting on the show, she seems to state her opinions as though they were from the viewpoint of a fan rather than a star. She "can't see" Todd and Blair together again so soon, as if to suggest that it simply doesn't make sense. Which it doesn't! So she is merely stating the obvious, and doing so dispassionately. She has often stated that she'd like to work with Michael Easton, but not in a way that is demanding or bossy. If she is in fact campaigning for certain storylines (which she probably is), then she is doing so in the classiest and least offensive way possible. Unfortunately that approach may also be less fruitful; it's hard to say. But if I were TPTB, I would take DePaiva's opinions about Blair very seriously. In fact, DePaiva should have storyline input for Blair. She has played her for over a decade and knows the character inside and out. She's maintained Blair's essence through several writing and production regimes as well as numerous inconsistent and debasing storylines - without losing her footing. If she and Trevor St. John both want to see Todd and Blair torn apart for awhile, then they are probably on to something (or else they are just sick of working together!). As I've said before, the most interesting Todd and Blair storyline possible is to see them let go of each other. That storyline has never been done before. Then let's see them exist a co-parents and form a brand new friendship with one another.

"I totally agree with your comments about Rex. This character has been destroyed for two idiotic reasons: 1) to give Adriana a storyline and an understanding actor to play off of. What a nightmare this turned into! I’ve only thought that maybe ONCE in the entire time span this character (Adriana) was created, that she was worth watching. Why wasn’t she killed off instead of Duke? And 2) to help out Marcy & Michael keep a child that doesn’t belong to them. I’m not buying this 'the best for Tommy' motive from Rex. I actually liked his character when he was a bad boy. Now, he’s as pathetic to watch as Adriana." - Janice

Yeah, I hate to admit it but Rex is kind of boring these days. That would have been hard to imagine a couple of years ago. Rex was a well-defined bad boy. Even when he loved, he retained his badness. His love for Jen Rappaport was much more believable and intense than that for his current paramour, Adriana. But that was tarnished when TPTB moved him on to Adriana much too soon after Jen's death. What would have made sense after that would have been for Rex to turn once again to Lindsay, if only to retain some kind of closeness to Jen. Lindsay would probably want to be with Rex too, for the same reason (though no doubt she'd be wracked with guilt over it). But the Rex/Lindsay bond was dropped like a hot potato, probably because Brian Frons noticed that Catherine Hickland had a new eye wrinkle and thought it would be best to get her dropped to recurring and shoved to the far back burner. Instead, he gave us Rexiana - a couple so boring that they caused more yawns than Jolie and Crave combined (at least those couples are so bad that it makes you laugh, whereas Rexiana just puts you to sleep). As for Adriana, she is one of the dullest characters on the show. Which is such a shame. To give Dorian a "new" daughter was an inspired idea. To make her a sweet little convent girl was ironic and interesting - at first. But to follow that twist with years of whining and peachiness was unforgivable. THIS is the daughter of Dorian Lord? What's the point? Shouldn't Dorian have a daughter filled with as much hellfire as she had at that age? Now they've tried to turn Adriana into this naughty little brat wearing Prada and Gucci and starting instant underwear companies. Puh-lease! Adriana should have turned into a full-scale bitch by now, feuding with Jessica and scheming to ruin Natalie's life. What better way to carry on the Dorian/Viki tradition than by having their children at war with each other? But Adriana hardly even interacts with Jessica and Natalie. And when she does, it's all kiss-kiss. It's very lame. Adriana's recent "attitude adjustment" was so slight that it had no effect in the end. Melissa Gallo is beautiful and really does look like Robin Strasser's daughter, and she seems to relish the times when Adriana is allowed to be a diva. But otherwise she just sinks into the background.

If I magically took over the show, one of the first things I would do would be to put Adriana into a near-fatal accident and have her wake up as the new bitch on the block (I know it's copycat but I still say the Jason Morgan personality switch was one of the most brilliant story devices of all time). I'd have this Adriana Version 2.0 steal all of Dorian's money and throw Mommy Dearest out on the street. Then I'd have her get revenge on Jessica for cheating on Antonio. Next she'd buy the property Roxy's hotel is on and decide to demolish it to build her new corporate offices. There would be a big umbrella story surrounding the demolition of the hotel, with Natalie campaigning to save it. She and Adriana would begin a nasty rivalry at this time. Just as it looked like Natalie and Roxy were able to save the hotel, Bo would announce that it wasn't so. Adriana would heartlessly destroy the property, sending Roxy, John, Natalie, Michael, and Marcy all out into the cold. This is the kind of full-scale bitch Adriana should be. It's the story of what happens to a convent girl when she inherits a gigantic fortune and is spoiled by power. And THAT girl would have been perfectly compatible with Rex Balsom - before he was neutered, that is.

"First of all, soaps UPHOLD MORALS? The same soaps that have characters like Blair that have whored themselves for men? The same soaps that have characters like Natalie who blatantly chase after men no matter who they're with? What kind of morals are those? Soaps are purely for entertainment, the icing on the cake is when you get real-life issues played out on screen like a character dealing with cancer, or being gay. To suggest though that soaps are for teaching morals is, well - ridiculous!" - Beatrice

Beatrice is responding to the item in last week's mail bag section where one of my readers suggested that the interracial pairing of Todd and Evangeline would disrupt the moral teachings of parents - black and white - everywhere. Which of course I had to rant about in vehement disagreement. But I was dissecting the incoherence of the logic behind interracial love affecting one's morals. Because to me there is no relationship between the two - merely racism. I was trying to say that "morality" does not justify racism - nothing does. But what Beatrice suggests is just as valid and not quite as dramatic: Soaps are not for upholding morals. They're for entertainment! How often do we (and TPTB) forget that? Entertainment should always be the #1 goal where the production of soap operas is concerned. And yes, when a soap is able to address social issues within an entertaining storyline, then by all means PREACH IT! Let's face it - soaps are produced, written, and acted out mostly by individuals who live in big cities and have liberal politics. Not all, but most. And most those same people are friends with and work within a community of artists which includes members of all races as well as plenty of gay people. So of course they are going to want to tell social issue storylines because they are advocating for their friends and often for themselves. That desire is balanced out by the corporate suits who are aware that a good chunk of the soap audience is conservative and sometimes even racist, homophobic, etc. I think the only moral responsibility soaps have is to not let that fear of turning off the conservative part of their audience prevent them from telling the stories they want to tell. Quite simply, it is a form of censorship. It's the year 2007 - as far as I'm aware interracial relationships are commonplace. I'm ready for stories like Zarf/Zoe on AMC - socially progressive and very entertaining. If socially progressive isn't possible, then at the very least I expect to be entertained. Tangeline entertains me, and the fact that they would constitute an interracial couple is completely inconsequential.

"I don't know if you get Erika Slezak's newsletter but she said she is very upset at the way Viki is being written (or lack of). I don't blame her because we all know Viki could be doing so much more than just sitting on the sidelines. And they don't have to bring out Niki every two years either. I am also not a huge fan of paring Viki and Clint again. I think Viki needs someone new... This is a very bad time for soaps, like you said in your column. Besides canceling shows, they are kicking off characters that should be front and center. AMC did it with Brooke English and now GH is doing it with Alan Quartetrmaine. I don't quite know how I would survive if I heard that OLTL was being canceled or if Erika was leaving/fired. But I'm afraid with the way the soaps are being disrespected now, both are possible." - Sean

Unfortunately, anything is possible these days. But even these current TPTB aren't stupid enough to fire Erika Slezak. However, if they continue to ignore her talent, she may get frustrated enough to leave. She is a consummate actress still capable of carrying a huge storyline. She spent years doing so and only recently has been neglected. This has to bruise her ego, not to mention frustrate her as an artist. True actors need a challenge. If she feels unchallenged for much longer, she may be forced to seek that challenge elsewhere - perhaps by returning to the stage. But the chances of her leaving, in my opinion, remain obsolete for the time being. That said, the situation with neglected vets on daytime is truly reaching a new level of abhorrence. AMC's decision to let their best actress (Julia Barr) go and not even write her an exit story, was appalling. GH's painfully sad release of Stuart Damon is stunning and heartbreaking. Not only has GH probably taken years off of this man's life, but they have also sliced fresh wounds through the rest of the cast, creating a new low in morale and sending shockwaves of fear through the minds of all the remaining vets (as well as drudging up old memories of how Anna Stuart was essentially murdered by TPTB). Stuart Damon is a marvelous actor and a true core character on the show for nearly 30 years. The fact that GH fired him just before his 30th Anniversary with the show is doubly uncouth. It is the most efficient evidence to date that TPTB want to get rid of all the "old folks." They clearly can't write for anyone with wrinkles and see no point to it. Nothing could hurt soaps more than this trend. It supports the conspiracy theories which suggest that TPTB are trying to get soaps cancelled. They are purposely alienating the very few true-blue fans who remain. They seem intent on disavowing the time-honored family tradition of soaps, instead opting to force the top generation or two of Quartermaines, Buchanan's, etc., into obscurity. I would like to suggest that you take the time to write to TPTB (addresses listed below) and let them know how you feel about Stuart's firing, and the complete disrespect the current producers and writers have for veteran players. The fans do not care how many wrinkles are on John Ingle's face - in fact, those wrinkles only accentuate his acting. Not only are wrinkles interesting to look at, but they often force us to pay more attention to the eyes as we are not distracted by the beauty of youth. And when you look into the eyes of a veteran player like Stuart Damon, you are likely to see something profound and touching. But TPTB would rather we focus on superficial beauty and ignore what is more human and more interesting to behold, even at the expense of defiling the importance of the core family unit. If the shows sadly cannot pay to have all of their cast members under contract, then they should at least offer them recurring jobs. The fact that they killed off Alan Quartermaine far before his time is a gross indecency and a big F-you to the fans. This would be akin to OLTL firing Phil Carey. What happens then in ten years when Erika Slezak is nearing 70? What about Robin Strasser? Her contract is up next year.

"What a horrible future it would be without soaps. I am still hurting over the cancellation of Another World. I loved that show. I always thought that show had the best sense of humor and real life reactions than any I’ve watched. It’s probably been off, what 10 years now? And I still think of the show and stories on there often and miss it terribly." - Bea A.

I didn't watch Another World regularly, but I did catch it from time to time. It wasn't my cup of tea but I did respect it. Some of the characters were more interesting than those on most of the other soaps (Felicia, Rachel, Karl, and Cass come to mind), and many of the actors were excellent. I thought Passions was fabulously awful and at times very entertaining. But I'm a closet James Reilly fan (shhh!) who enjoys evil clowns, demonic possessions, monkeys in love, 70 year-old witches having newborn babies, etc. Passions was Reilly's ultimate bonanza of camp and gothic horror. I feel bad for its fans. Ultimately, I believe it was done in by the fact that most of the actors just flat-out sucked. Passions, more than any other soap, chose to value physical beauty over talent. Because of that, it deserved to go off the air. And other soaps will deserve that same fate if they follow in Passions' footsteps. But the only glee I get out of Passions' cancellation is that now there is a chance for Andrea Evans to FINALLY return to the soap that made her a star and to the character of Tina Lord - definitely one of the 5 best characters in the show's history. If you have it in your heart, write to TPTB demanding her return - and tell them Jeremy sent you! While you're at it, make sure you let them know that you value talent over looks, and that you love the vets and want them treated with respect.

Please send your OLTL thoughts, complaints, suggestions, and desperate pleas to:

Robert Iger, President of Disney (ABC Parent Company)
robert.a.iger@disney.com.

Anne Sweeney, President of ABC
anne.x.sweeney@abc.com.

That's it for this week. Thanks for reading, and don't forget to e-mail me.