The Rise of Los Angeles

In a recent blog post, I lamented the state of The Young and the Restless, and I referred to The Bold and The Beautiful as my "also-ran" soap. I'm not alone. If you track the ratings, media attention (anything, really, but the international appeal), B&B never quite has seemed to measure up to Y&R.



At the same time, in the last few years, the dynamic has changed. B&B has won the "Best Show" Emmy (in a shrinking field) for the last three years. While I hold my nose at this (not because the show is bad, but because Brad Bell and his team have scripted VERY SPECIFIC "Emmy shows", usually involving Susan Flannery and Betty White), it's hard to miss the fact that the dynamic of B&B has changed.




For those of us who are William Bell acolytes, it is also hard to miss that most of his proteges (folks who brought Y&R to Number One status with him)--Kay Alden, Jack Smith, David Shaughnessy, Ed Scott--toil on B&B in one way or another. Many of B&B's most interesting cast members these days also are those who were jettisoned by Y&R (Sony) in recent cost-cutting regimes.

So, I'm still ambivalent about proclaiming B&B as my #1 soap. B&B still does infuriating things that are simply eye-rolling. Examples: Steffy declares the much-older Bill Spencer Jr as her soulmate--but when he dumps her (in a great, heartwrenching arc), she turns her attentions to his son THE VERY NEXT DAY. After decades together, on the SUSPICION that his wife Brooke might have had berry-fueled sex with his son Thomas, Ridge dumps her--has a wedding with ex-wife Taylor the same WEEK--and dumps Taylor at the altar and returns to Brooke THAT NIGHT once the truth is revealed.




So, why can I forgive B&B, which has made a habit of these sudden story jumps (and of hiring top-notch soap performers from other shows, but dropping them within one or two contract cycles )? I think it has to do with the fact that B&B embraces its identity as classic soap.

Take the example of the Steffy tale, mentioned above. In the current story, Steffy now lusts after Liam (Bill's son). Liam wants to be engaged to the virginal Hope. Steffy's lust for Liam makes sense--he's BILL'S son, and he's in love with a LOGAN (the family she blames for all her troubles). Liam also saved her life recently--a bonding experience. In this triangle, we have three core families (The Taylor-Forresters, the Logans, and the Spencers) all mixed up. Liam's lust makes sense...he's a horny young guy and he's been veeeeeerrrrry patient with Hope. Hope's sexual reticence makes sense--she seen how her mother's "Slut from the Valley" ways have often caused mayhem. Bill Spencer Jr. will be torn with jealousy if his son takes up with the woman (Steffy) he was recently about to leave his wife for. The downstream stuff will be even better. Fighting for their daughters will pit Brooke versus Taylor against each other again...but for once not over Ridge!

I've often complained about Hunter Tylo's Taylor...who was once the sanctified oncologist/psychiatrist...but who really WAS the voice of sense on B&B. In recent years (since her second return from the dead), Taylor's been off the rails -- alcoholic, vehicular manslaughter, sleeping with Brooke's son, sanctimonious...endless. Taylor is now a spastic, hypocritical, controlling and sanctimonious (I use that word again because it is DEFINITIONAL) controlling mother.



Now, positioning Taylor as the show's evil mother is BRILLIANT. Evil mothers used to be the stock in trade of the best soaps! (think Phoebe Tyler and Enid Nelson on All My Children; think Vanessa Prentiss on Young and Restless). With Susan Flannery being open about wanting to retire (and her character having Stage IV Lung Cancer), the show needs a new "bad momma". Hunter Tylo is now perfectly positioned for that (living through her children because her own life is bereft; using her children to fight old battles).

The beauty of B&B is that the throughline of characters is not forgotten. Rick has ALWAYS hated Ridge (as the man who chased his daddy--Eric--away). Thomas grew to hate Rick (after Rick slept with both of his sisters AND his mother AND took a certain primacy at Forrester Creations). It was enough that Thomas tried to scare/hurt Rick twice. Amber, the needy social climber BRILLIANTLY played by Adrienne Frantz (much missed, by me, on Y&R), took BOTH of their virginities. Word that Jacob Young is returning in the role of Rick makes me think that a Rick-Amber-Thomas triangle is automatically going to unfold...and how amazing will that be? The triangle makes sense, the actors are capable, and we can already predict every reasonable beat in the story.

In the end, that's the thing about B&B that makes it best. It embraces classy soap storytelling. (Friday's cliffhanger was a very public proposal from Liam to Hope--and she was clearly ambivalent about it), it follows core families and doesn't mostly kill them off. Actions from decades ago are remembered and fuel today's characters. The show almost never veers into crime-drama or science fiction...so that one knows one is going to get good domestic/romantic/business stories. Even now, the show is setting up a Bill Spencer/Nick Marone alliance to bring down the House of Forrester (again)...and the story will be leavened with decades of justifiable personal resentments. The alliance is also on shaky ground, because both Bill and Nick have strong emotional connections to Bill's wife (and Nick's ex-paramour) Katie Logan. However this story goes, it will force Forresters, Logans, and Spencers (all intertwined already) to pick sides. That's how you write a soap!

Genoa City Lost

Readers of daytimeconfidential can discern the truth of Jamey Giddens' recent critique of Y&R. The state of the show is appalling...but it is also curious. All the elements -- from production to writing to acting -- are THERE...so why is the show so bad?

In short, the problem is the absence of heart...of emotion, nostalgia, or sincere feeling. Even remarkable actors who have bled on the stage for us in the past are clearly not connecting to the rushed, plotty show they're putting on.

My credentials: I have watched Y&R since 1973 (I was a wee 8 year old, but mom put it on). Y&R is so ingrained in the narrative of my life that I view it not from a "technical" perspective, but as someone who knows intuitively when the show is true to its nature. Or when -- as now -- it is not.

Right now, we have a canvas filled with original or veteran faces (Kay, Victor, Jack, Paul, Phyllis, Nick, Sharon, Ashley, Kevin) and characters we saw born on this show (Billy, Victoria, Chloe, Ronan)...but it all feels so flat. Characters are doing things they'd NEVER do (Kay annulling her son's marriage out of spite, Victor throwing a woman out of an ambulance and taking a son away from his father).

This happened once before. After a promising start, Lynn Latham's second year got seriously off the rails, as Nikki (Nikki!) ran for Senate and the entire town clustered around some rural village that was being turned into a resort (Clear Springs). Little made sense. Ratings began to decline precipitously during this period, and continued to do so well into Maria Bell's "rescue regime".

It is curious that Maria Bell's Y&R feels so off right now. We know she's capable of heart. Her nadir-story was "the death of Kay". Kay's funeral and eventual reunion were the ultimate of "heart", as a touching romance bloomed with Murphy, old friends and rivals reunited at Kay's funeral, and Marge got a touching "ghostly farewell" to the tune of Perry Como's "Papa Loves Mambo". Greatness!

But then the Silver Chipmunk happened. It is fair to say that, since then, Y&R has progressively devolved back into a crime riddled (Richard Hightower! Skye's multiple deaths! Patty's reign of terror! Corporate shenanigans!, Diane's murder! Baby stealing! Over-the-top Australian mobsters!) mess. Not only do these stories not elicit feeling or emotion...emotion is decisively left out. Examples:

Diane -- a character with a thirty year tie to Jack -- gets nary a tear (except, maybe, from the terrific Christian Leblanc's Michael). Adam is betrayed by Sharon, and embarks on a spree of revenge (thank heavens Michael Muhney -- and his eyes!! -- work against the malevolence of the tale). Three touching couples are made -- well -- not touching.

- Billy and Victoria: The story here would have been to see them stay together -- fight together -- against obstacles. Instead, they folded as soon as the first marital assault hit them. Where's the rooting value in that?
- Nick and Phyllis: Apparently they're sex buddies again. Okay. The actors still FIRE UP the room in every scene when they're together. So why is there no emotion or tenderness or motivation in their scenes?
- Lily and Daniel: (Controversial here--I know Cane/Lily have major fans). There's something beautifully touching in a pair that damaged their union through youthful mistakes rediscovering each other from a grown up perspective. Daniel feels he doesn't want to be a father (shadows of his own damaged childhood and paternity/maternity issues??)...but could Lily make him feel secure in his nurturing skills, so that he would be a good stepdad to her kids...and even dad to his own Lucy?

There WERE promising emotional stories.

The Lear-esque "Fall of the House of Newman" was especially good...and it really made the most out of Marcy Rylan/Eric Braeden's terrific chemistry. The family was fractured. This promised YEARS of rivalry and reconciliation. Instead...it is over. Forgotten. Done. Huh?

Phyllis -- inexplicably -- tried to pull baby Lucy from the secure loving parents who were raising her. (I guess I get it...it has to do with making up for her own previous shortcomings as a mom). Everyone picked sides. It was an agonizing story. Then...Phyllis got Lucy, was ostracized for week, then Nick and Michael seemed to mostly forgive her...and it's over. Forgotten. Done. Huh?

The Y&R canvas is OVER-STUFFED. The show seems to have little motivation to write for Tricia Cast/Doug Davidson, Kristoff St. John ... Yet the show also refuses to decisively clean house, and to commit to protracted story arcs we can invest in.

These days, I find little compelling material to draw me to the show. There are a few very capable actors (Muhney, Leblanc, Rylan, Thomas-Scott, E. Davidson) who are still finding emotion in every scene they do. There are a few others who rise to the occasion when they can connect with the material (Bergman, Braeden, Heinle, D. Davidson, Stafford). Still others seem utterly emotionally disconnected from this plotty show...even actors who have given us AMAZING performances in the past.

I still check in every day, but more and more reluctantly. My thoughts stray to cable (Breaking Bad, Torchwood, True Blood, Big C, Weeds). B&B (that's another blog post) --always my also-ran soap--has become my first soap of choice!. I guess I'm waiting for Genoa City to welcome me back to a big, nostalgic, sloppy, feel-good-or-feel-bad-BUT-FEEL-SOMETHING homecoming.

We'll always have Paris! The Bold and the Beautiful

B&B is on a creative high these days, in part by fully embracing its identity. It plays adults (and senior adults) more than kids. It does bit of socially relevant stuff. It centers on the never ending drama of Brooke Logan and her Ridge. It knows that camp, vague incestuousness, vague perversity, and constant partner switching is its RECIPE...and it's doing it just fine. This week, the luminous Heather Tom's Katie is in the midst of (I think) a re-awakening triangle with ex-lover Nick (who is also the ex-husband of her sister and her niece) and Bill Spencer Jr. (my fave, Don Diamont). Ridge and Brooke--a "destiny/westiny" couple according to her son Rick--had an ultimate over-the-top moment in Paris (see image at top)...and then seconds later Brooke undermined her reunion with husband Ridge by having a flirtatious Skype session with his drop-dead-gorgeous son Thomas. We won't even mention the fact that my favorite, Amber, is in a three-way-who's-the-daddy tale (and I don't think she realizes her baby is going to be African American!). The show is firing on all cylinders.

the bold and the beautiful brooke and ridge by forrestersabrina

Why are its ratings not good? Why are its demos so awful? Oh well...even if B&B is not long for the world, we'll always have Paris!

Cast Melody Thomas Scott as Beth Logan on B&B

The picture above is a dated composite of Beth and the Logan girls, created before the advent of good image manipulation software

Nelson Branco reports that Melody Thomas Scott is being written out of Y&R, since her contract negotiations are not going well.

I am dismayed.

This is the wrong thing to do. There are 20 (I'm not exaggerating) less interesting cast members who should be cut first...I'd give up 10-15 folks for Melody as Nikki. This (cutting core veterans for financial reasons) is the sickness that has killed the rest of daytime. It has been happening for a while on Y&R (Victoria Rowell, Jerry Douglas, Don Diamont), but this is the worst. Clearly, Eric Braeden is probably next. It's wrong, wrong wrong.

But, okay...even though this is just wrong, but I'm over it. Because the perfect role exists for Melody.

Melody as Beth Logan on B&B. Hear me out:

- Melody in catfights with Susan Flannery's Stephanie. Priceless.
- Melody as the mother to Heather Tom's Katie. SUPER-PRICELESS. Nikki and Victoria re-united.
- Melody as the mother to Jennifer Gareis' Donna (after cussing her out for years as Y&R's Grace Turner). Priceless
- Melody having confrontations with Don Diamont's Bill Spencer Jr. (after Nikki's many years with Brad Carlton). SUPER-PRICELESS.

Plus, Melody's skills at broad comedy and archness would fit in excellently in the campy B&B universe. I'd love to see her "counsel" grandchildren Rick and Bridget in their wicked romantic ways.

Sadly, Beth (save for a few days when she was played by Marla Adams -- Y&R's former Dina Mergeron) has been dull as dishwater. It's time to amp her up, and make her a mother SUITABLE for her Logan-slut daughters.

I just think Melody and Katherine Kelly Lang's Brooke would just SHINE in scenes! I'd love to see MTS's Beth constantly "coaching" Brooke in how to get her various men back.

I even think Melody sparring with Alley Mills' Pamela would be a hoot.

Universe, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make this happen! I'll even send money.

The gay male soap fan

With gays erupting all over daytime :-), I thought this historical article might offer some interesting historical context on a segment of the audience that was long ignored.

In another long-promised excerpt from that out of print soap book I have been drawing from, I wanted to share this tail-end excerpt from Jane Feuer's chapter, "Different Soaps for Different Folks". Her broader chapter considers the question of how soaps, programmed for such a mainstream audience, have come to have such specialized appeal for subgroups like African American women and gay men. Because the appeal of soaps to gay men has been a through theme in this blog, I thought I'd include some her comments on that topic. The article is old (1997), so it would be interesting to think about whether what it says is still relevant almost 12 years later.

=========

The Fan and the Gay Male Audience


Although they may not he counted as a commodity audience, demographic groups other than women in the age range of eighteen to forty-nine may he interested in soap opera as an art form. The common word for those viewers who are overly invested emotionally in soap operas is fans, and according to Michael Kape, the level of affective investment differentiates the fan from the ordinary viewer. (Very few soap fans are as extreme as, say, the one who stalked soap star Andrea Evans and forced her to leave One Life to Live.) Kape makes a distinction between fans who merely have an emotional investment and the readers of Soap Opera Now, whom he sees as better educated and more discriminating. But not everyone agrees with this distinction. Many academics believe that the audience/fan distinction has been too sharply drawn, and they now feel that viewers may be deeply emotionally involved in soaps and, at the same time, may be critical of them.


If fans have been given bad press, perhaps too sharply setting them oft from other viewers, then one group of viewers presents a particularly interesting case: gay men. Gay men are known to be more devoted fans of soap operas than straight men. Since many gay fans are not forthcoming about their sexual identities, this is an impossible audience to study statistically. Yet Michael Kape believes that the networks are aware of their presence, and that they will do more to cultivate this audience in the future. According to Sean Griffin of the University of Southern California, who has researched among gay male fans of All My Children, the show's producers are aware of this audience, or hoped to increase its size by creating the openly gay male character, Michael Delaney.


Network recognition of the gay male fans is only part of the reason why this alternative group may be of interest to students of soap operas. Gay male viewers, like African American women viewers, raise the question whether different audiences receive different messages from the same programs; that is, whether or not they constitute interpretive communities that differ from the assumed eighteen- to forty-nine-year-old housewife audience. The experts I interviewed disagree about whether gay men create different meanings from soaps than other audiences. Michael Kape does not believe that gay men respond differently from other groups. He says that if you look at the origins of soap opera as a form that relies heavily on emotional response, you will discover that "people are people," that sexuality ultimately does not affect responses to powerful soap opera dramatics. Sean Griffin, on the other hand, says that it does. His interviews with gay male fans of soaps from the Internet news group "rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc" led him to the conclusion that gay men had a fundamentally different response from other viewers to the introduction, for example, of the gay character Michael Delaney (played by Chris Bruno) on All My Children. According to Griffin, however, the responses of gay men are not uniform, and some conform to those of women and straight men. Some gay men, for instance, agree with some straight viewers that actor Chris Bruno is perfectly believable; other gay men find that the actor, who has declared that he is straight, is uncomfortable in the role. (There are straight fans who share this view too.) Griffin says that "Gay men seem more often to do a 'double reading'. While they remain completely engrossed in the story lines and characters, they also see the whole thing through the eyes of ‘camp'."


Griffin's research found that the gay culture's investment in the diva phenomenon (as explored in The Queen's Throat: Opera, Homosexuality, and The Mystery of Desire by Wayne Koestenbaum) factors into the pleasure of some gay male fans. Griffin makes the comparison of certain gay men who are staunch defenders of Erica Kane with those who are tired of her snotty egotism. Griffin also finds that gay men generally have a greater sense of whimsy or irony with regards to soaps, because they know that they are not the networks' intended audience. He also believes that the ability to read the small clues or social signs that help gay men identify one another in an often hostile society may help them in reading where soap story lines are going (in other words, which two characters are being set up for a romance, or that a character has been limping although others ignore it).


Lastly, gay men obviously like looking at handsome male actors. Here, it is hard to differentiate between how straight women and gay men appreciate the show. In the online discussions of soap opera Web sites on the Internet, Tad Martin was usually spoken for by the female fans, while Pierce Riley (at least when played by Jim Fitzpatrick) was championed by gay men. When asked why this research is important, Griffin replied, "Well, my main interest (other than I am a gay male myself who loves soaps!) is how gay male fans challenge the often rigid ideas about how who the viewers of soaps are and how they read these things." If this is true, then the title of this article, "Different Soaps for Different Folks," is a lot more complex than it seems. It is not so much a question of say, Generations being targeted at black viewers and The Bold and the Beautiful at whites. The issue is really that different audiences seem to make different meanings out of the same soaps.

My irrational anger at the Bold and the Beautiful

At Soap Opera Network, someone printed a blind item from SOD about a youth oriented "revamp" coming to Bold and Beautiful. I have watched B&B from the beginning, and that just made me angry! This summarizes a few of the thoughts I put down about this. Can B&B be saved? I love the show, and I really hope it can...

======

Let me apologize in advance for this rant.

I share everyone's concerns. Is this going to be shaky-cam? Is this going to be filmlook? Is this going to be new 'edgy' sets with loud music? Is this going to be played by lots of pretty, vapid people with few skills...and little tie to history? (Hey, the vapid-and-pretty defines this show since 1987 ).

Clearly, this is not going to give us more Lesli Kay or Winsor Harmon on our screens.

ON THE OTHER HAND...I have been unable to watch for weeks. I simply can no longer watch grizzled, angry Ronn Moss. I loved Kelly Lang, but goodness is her schtick old. Jack Wagner looks old and tired. Flannery is being phased out, and her absence is felt. The main story now is about DEMENTIA using an actress we never saw before (and character who has not been a viable onscreen character since the 80s). This is after a long run of terminal abdominal cancer, drunken hit-and-runs, alcoholism, meltdowns of key characters, confronting one's elderly mother about one's abused childhood, rape, shooting, insanity, suicide, and terminal heart conditions. This is darker and more melodramatic and more eye-rolling than anything. The endless litany of 40- and 50-somethings playing characters with adolescent sensibilities, morality, and capability for commitment are.... Promising entertainers (Lesli Kay, Heather Thom, and Eileen Davidson) languish or are mis-used in high-concept stories that are reminiscent of 1930s/1940s women's films. That's fine--but you can't build a whole show unendingly on this dreck.

I sit here, in my 40s, and even _I_ feel this show is stagnant and over-populated with the older generation. The show has failed to bring along a viable younger generation in forever. There WAS promise with Sean Kanan and Adrienne Frantz...but shockingly this was squandered when the creative team got bored.

So, I _do_ feel the show needs reinvention and new characters/stories. On the other hand, every single "reinvention" at B&B has failed. There was the "diversity" experiment, where Paulo Bendetto and Lilly Melgar and George Alvarez were introduced. How long did that last? There was last summer's "Boldface Records" undending tripe. Appealing performers have been introduced throughout history (most recently, folks like Ben Hogetsyn and Mykel Shannon Jenkins), only to wither on the vine. Stellar infusions by the likes of Lesley Anne Down and Joseph Mascolo have been allowed to fade out with whimpers, not bangs.

This show has been as lost as any show on daytime. It has been held afloat only by its' lead-in and its international sales and, yes, its pedigree. But, as the lead-in and the international sales decline, and the pedigree grows older and colder (we miss you, Bill Sr.!), I find B&B has less and less to offer.

So, yes, re-invention is needed...more here than anywhere else in daytime. BUT...if they do not change their EP and they do not change their HW, and they do not listen to their experienced consultants (Jack Smith and Kay Alden have left NO imprint on this show; I find NO improvement due to the Y&R writers who were added)...then there is no mechanism to bring about change or improvement.

You'll think I'm nuts here...but if any show needed Wendy Riche and Claire Labine, this is it. SERIOUSLY. For B&B has lacked a soul, an identity, commitment to characters and stories, and a direction forever. There is a reason I DVR this show nightly but cannot bring myself to watch. It is too painful. There are brief and grand glorious soapy moments (Sally weeping over Darla's dying body; Storm's suicide and the resulting transplant), interspersed with unending sap played by largely unlikeable characters.

It is time for change. I embrace it. But I am afraid if a "youth-quake" is what is going to be offered. That misses the point. PLEASE give B&B a soul.

======

Now, I'm kind of hung up on the idea that I think Judith Chapman's Gloria Abbott should come to B&B and pick up the reins at Spectra? By all accounts, Gloria needs to be "rested" at Y&R, and B&B needs her camp fabulousness. With Eileen Davidson at B&B, Ash and Glo could revive their feud. Since Gloria's signature is perfume ("perfume on the Glo") and Ash designs fragrances for Forrester...it could be a whole new era in the Spectra-Forrester war. I REALLY REALLY REALLY think Gloria could front Spectra and make it great (in story) again. [Leslie Anne Down probably could too...but B&B seems to have no interest making her anything other than a hand-wringing mother].

Now, what about this revamp? I think it debuted, in part, on July 2, 2008 in the US. Until July 9, for US viewers, you can see the episode on Youtube. Click the episode link here (CBS will not allow the video to be embedded).

For critical moments, watch at:

0:01, 3:16, and 4:19 to get a sense of what people are talking about--exteriors and rocky fast cuts. That this coincides with Beemer's arrival is likely not an accident. This is actually a highly appropriate style change for an LA-set soap...I am definitely down with that.

You know what...if the writing is good, and the show is still rooted in its' history and core families, I can go with this. But, it will not give the show a "soul".

But I realized something today...if B&B wants to continue showing us (as it has since 1987) people with adolescent romantic behavior...the least they can do is feature adolescents behaving thus. That. already, is an improvement over the aged mess (and I'm a gerontologist!!) we have been getting.


======

Even though I want her to revive B&B, I really want Judith Chapman/Glo to stay on Y&R anyway. (Yup, I'm the only one who does :-) ). But I so miss Darlene Conley and Sally Spectra that I can't stand it. At least when their stories were stupid they were INTENTIONALLY stupid. Now, they're just embarrasingly stupid (dying Katie goes to the prom; dying Felicia in end stage bowel cancer that has metastacized to the liver gets a miraculous partial organ transplant and now looks healthier than anyone on the show).

I have this deep, deep loyalty to William J. Bell...I can't totally explain why. I so want this final baby of his to thrive for a long time. For me, the monstrosity is the creative direction of this show. I personally suspect that B&B is about to plummet from rank 2, and join all the rest at the bottom of the pile. There is nothing to sustain viewership right now.

======

Darlene Conley was the soul. B&B was kind of a cold fish when it debuted. Interestingly enough, I really don't think B&B caught fire initially, and succeeded only by being Y&R's follow-up. When Sally joined the show (initially for a short term role, but boy did it explode!), it turned the show on its' ear. Suddenly there was humor and camp. Suddenly there were haves and have nots. Suddenly there was this great ongoing battle. It was fun, and work EVEN BEFORE they brought Macy in for a Romeo and Juliet with Thorne.

Brad Bell's storyline commitment to the Spectras waned fairly quickly, but at least he left them on canvas. And Darlene, bless her heart, was such a force of nature that she was able to steal the show even when she was just quiet in a scene. Like Jeanne Cooper on Y&R, Darlene LOVED her audience and its' adoration, and she projected in back in every syllable and movement. She was the emotional hook for the show.

In those earlier days, Susan Flannery and Katherine Kelly Lang also rocked. Flannery was so cold, so hard...but when she does one of her verbal harrangues--pure reason, little emotion--you can't help but agree with her. She CLAIMS you with her total authenticity. I never really liked Stephanie, never really supported her actions...but couldn't wait to see her.

When Flannery and Conley went at it--all reason versus emotion--it was a perfect ying and yang.

Back in those days, young ingenue Brooke...so sexy, so sweet, so sincere, totally sold me. She often did horrendous things (keeping Ridge and Caroline apart, later bedding Eric), but she did it with such girlish sincerity. She was the opposite of Sally (not loud, not boisterous), but equally plausible as a girl carried by dreams and hopes.

One would think that, despite Conley's death, Flannery and Lang might be able to keep it going. But Flannery is so CLEARLY bored, it doesn't work very well anymore. And her character's relentless clinging to Eric undermines her as a supremely rational being, because her choices make so little sense. She has also been damaged by plot driven messes (like telling Katie she "loves" her, when we never saw that relationship develop on screen). And Lang, dear sweet Lang, is 100% implausible now. A 40-something woman is NOT a girl, and her choices cannot be justified as "clinging to hope and dreams". When a woman does that at her age, we start to see she is sick, deluded, rather like Amanda Wingfield in the Glass Menagerie. Such sickness can be fun to watch...but it cannot sustain the emotional core of a show.

Taylor and Felicia never worked as emotional centers for the show. Taylor used to be so crisp and *always right* (I say that in a good way), and she should have stayed that way. Tylo simply doesn't handle playing "breakdown" well, so now we have our strong and smart Taylor erased, and indelibly replaced with this weeping and shrieking mess. Not fun.

Lesli Kay stole my heart during her terminal illness story, but they should have let her character die. The "rescue" ruined Felicia in three ways: First, it introduced a supreme implausibility, rather like "Josh" at All My Children. Second, we didn't see her go on to make choices IN LIGHT of her death experience...so in the end the dying became irrelevant. Third, the character has been horribly neglected ever since...so we don't have anyone we "root" for. I still love Kay, but (due to the absence of writing for her) she has tended to become this snarky dame in the corner...there is no heart or intrinsic interest.

Suddenly, we have a show at 21 years of age with NO emotional center. There has been a desperate attempt to put Katie there...but the writing has been so schlocky and our history with Katie so brief, it cannot sustain interest.

I honestly believe that unless this show is willing to start over...to build some young generation members who command our emotions...it is dead. I cannot think of a SINGLE outstanding young cast member since Adrienne Frantz. There is not ONE since Amber that just drew us in emotionally. That represents at least a decade of failure.