It has trickled down through the grapevine that NBC will almost surely cancel Days of Our Lives when its contract expires in 2009. NBC, it seems, will be the first network to ditch soaps altogether. Considering that Days is an extremely popular and long-running soap, this news is a wake up call to soap fans. Passions was bound to be cancelled just as Sunset Beach was before it. But Days? Days is another story. Regardless of the Neilson ratings - which are entirely inaccurate and don't even include DVR (TiVo) settings - Days is a national institution, second in popularity only to General Hospital. Days fans are rabidly passionate about their show and addicted to it like crack. But the sad truth is, those fans are irrelevant to NBC. They are not making money for NBC. None of us soap fans are making money for the networks. But what the television moguls fail to realize is that any replacements for soaps are likely to have even lower ratings than what the soaps are currently pulling in (and like I said, the Neilson rating system is outdated and more irrelevant than anyone wants to admit). Sure, some soap fans will still be at home and will turn on the television regardless of what is playing. But many more will take the opportunity to mourn their beloved shows and then find something else to do that does not involve television. Or, if they have cable, their viewing options will be more varied than anything the major networks could offer. Those of us with DVR's are unlikely to add new, watered-down daytime reality shows to our recording schedule. Why would we when the reality programming on prime time and on cable is already providing just about every form of entertainment imaginable? The idea that no one is watching television in the afternoon will keep budgets and ideas to a minimum. Prime time will always be top priority. Daytime will always be a "project." The worthiest and most sensible project, however, would be to SAVE the soaps - not to abandon ship and send an American grand tradition to its grave. Soap operas - like jazz and baseball - are part of this country's constitution. Their absence could have societal ramifications no one is prepared for. For instance, long time fans (some of whom have watched their shows for 20, 30, even 50 years!) will likely suffer psychological problems as a result of their "family and friends" disappearing. This is a dramatic thought but it makes perfect sense. There will be anger, loss, bargaining - all the side effects of losing a loved one (or, as it were, an entire community of loved ones).

In case you haven't heard, NBC's reason for dropping Days is that they will be expanding their morning show to four hours (up from three). Are you kidding me? FOUR HOURS? Who on this earth has the time or energy to watch a four-hour morning show? I feel that as an abused and ridiculed soap fan, I can be blunt: Those morning shows are crap. They are good for getting an overview of the day's "events," but how could anyone sit through four hours of that? Or even three? Which is what I'd like ABC to consider as they weigh expanding Good Morning America to three hours (up from two). Message to ABC: Following the lead of NBC is beneath you. If the soaps on other networks start falling, then that means YOU'VE WON. You have a LONG way to go in producing soaps that are worthy of their glorious pasts. Let THAT be your goal. Do not be a follower - be a leader. And show that soaps can evolve and be brought into the 21st Century, retaining old fans and making fans anew. It is time to be bold and creative. It is not time to shut down. Let NBC shut down if they want to - that is their failure. If NBC cancels Days of Our Lives, then shame on them. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that America will lose a bit of its soul when that day comes.

One more thing: ABC should NOT pick up Days. No, no, no. Days of Our Lives and ABC are like oil and water. They just wouldn't mix. I am all for the survival of Days, but not at the expense of All My Children or - God forbid - One Life to Live. And that's the rumor now, that one of these shows will be nixed. This rumor has popped up before. But where there's smoke there is usually some form of fire. This fire should be put out NOW. Over the past few years I have loathed All My Children to its very core. The show has had absolutely no soul. Only recently with the surprisingly excellent Zarf story, is it beginning to regain its energy. I don't think it should be cancelled, as it is the only soap on ABC that is making a concerted effort to change its core energy, and in the process it's gaining positive press and attention for daytime. Anyway, the cancellation of AMC is unlikely to happen since Susan Lucci's star power is considered more valuable than the entire cast of One Life to Live combined. Which is sad, because OLTL is a better show (and has a stronger cast, half of whom are better actors than Lucci - though she is undoubtedly a bonafide star). Yet OLTL would be the first ABC show to be yanked off the air. I have no doubt about that. I for one am ready to fight for its survival, despite my grievances with its production over the past few years. It is improving, and it needs to be kept alive. The other option, if ABC does decide to expand GMA or pick up Days, would be to cut AMC and OLTL down to a half-hour apiece. I am against this too, even though Ilene Kristen tried to convince me the half-hour format is better. I'm sure she's right, but if the show was pared down to half its length, I can only imagine how the cast would be pared down too. What a perfect excuse that would be for Frons and TPTB to cut people like Catherine Hickland, Hillary Smith, and Ilene Kristen from the roster.

"I agree that RJ needs to be kept on OLTL. I think there is a great story behind RJ and Vincent and I would like to know it... I think Vangie's past with RJ would escalate any story between RJ and Vincent also. I think Shawn is the arsonist, although I don't know why. Probably to avenge Ted, and to help Vincent." - Patricia

If I had to bet money on it, I'd have to say Shawn is the arsonist, too. But man - wouldn't that be a lame resolve to this story? I am very pleasantly surprised by the arsonist story. The most interesting result surely would be that Cris actually is responsible.That is highly unlikely though because a murder (Ted) is involved. How could Cris ever recover from committing yet another murder? The tag team of Vincent and Shawn is the most logical and likely culprit, but there are many more impact options. Some of these options include Antonio, Layla, Talia, Lindsay, the new character Miles, RJ - and even Carlotta. Can you imagine Carlotta running around in a ski mask and setting these fires? Maybe she used Cris' computer because she doesn't have one herself, and borrowed some of his turpentine - not realizing she would end up implicating her son. Honestly, I would PAY to see that. As far as RJ remaining on the show... it's not looking good. I couldn't agree more that RJ's involvement with Vincent would have certainly secured Vince's place on the canvas and made everyone a heck of a lot more invested in him. What a shame that the writers don't want to tell a story for an African-American character unless he or she is interacting with a non-black character. Vincent is fine so long as he's on screen with Natalie... but he only lasted five minutes with Layla, and was only seen with RJ once. Executives fear making the screen too "dark," and nobody could convince me otherwise. I have seen it go on for years and the fact that this fear still prevails is one of the barriers I referred to earlier which keep daytime inferior to other mediums. For African-American soap fans, the struggle to continue watching is tenfold. Y&R is the only show that respects its black fans. OLTL is surprisingly near the top of the list, and how pathetic is that when Evangeline is the only major black character on the show?

"I am so pulled in by Cristian Vega and the fires in Llanview. After the press conference and the search warrant for his home the walls are closing in on him. I was so moved when he stated he did not want to go back to prison. You felt his pain and frustration with every word he uttered. Once again he is being accused of a crime. The scene with him and Evangeline on the floor in his loft after the search was riveting. These two share so much strength, love, and devotion that words were not necessary. David Fumero is doing an excellent job. He has really the driving force behind this story and he is selling it. I hope the arsonist is revealed and Cristian will finally get some justice in his life." - Belinda

Despite the fact that (as my readers know full well) I cannot stand Crave as a couple and I'm eagerly anticipating their break-up, I have to admit that the scenes Belinda is referring to were by far their best scenes to date. Not because they are becoming a good couple - they're not. They still make absolutely no sense together. Crave is becoming more watchable because suddenly they have a story and their airtime FOR ONCE does not revolve around gratuitous sex. They have gone from soft core porn stars to a tortured soul and his worried protector. Two weeks ago Evangeline's biggest problem with Cris was his temper and refusal to accept gifts. But now her concern is whether or not he will go back to prison - something make-up sex cannot fix. The stakes are much higher. Can Evangeline trust Cristian? Is he lying? Is he losing his sanity? How will she help him legally and emotionally? Will Cris' problems cause her to waiver in her commitment to him, or intensify her blind loyalty (no pun intended)? For the first time, Crave has a storyline and are not just vapid pieces of eye candy. The best thing for their characters though, remains a nasty and emotionally complex break up that sends Evangeline into Todd's orbit and Cris either back to prison or so far to the dark side that he begins interacting with completely new love interests. But for now, the arsonist story is making Crave actually sufferable.

"As for Evangeline, you are very harsh on her character - but I understand. I am very angry that TPTB have reduced Evangeline to almost an 'extra' status in every storyline. I would love Evangeline to have her own story. Why is she so averse to marriage? What happened in her past? Does it have something to do with her parents' own marriage? Is the story she told John about her father true? Maybe something else happened? Maybe an old flame somehow impacted how she feels about marriage? Or something all together different - maybe a former client seeks her out for some kind of revenge? Anything to get her away from the succubus that is Cris Vega." - Zina

Absolutely. These questions are things the writers should have explored long ago - that's how a character is made believable and understandable. People like Evangeline because she came on the show with a huge attitude and had class. Here was a powerful black woman unwilling to back down from anyone while defending psychopaths like Mitch Laurence. People still like her because they grew to love Renee Goldsberry. But others have stopped liking her because despite Goldsberry's talents, the character lost what she came on the show with (balls) and remains completely undefined in terms of her past. They even brought her sister (Layla) to the show, and still there is no back-story. Layla has been on the show now what - two years? We know absolutely nothing about her either. She considered herself an actress when she arrived - but like her sister, has lost her initial character definition. The Williamson sisters might as well be renamed "That black girl and her sister." That's how much thought TPTB have put into their characters. I have heard Evangeline will soon be exploring something dark from her past - let's hope this is true. For our sake and for Renee Goldsberry's sake.

"I am dismayed about the fact that online Soap magazines like SOD and SID pander to the big fan bases while giving little thought to the smaller ones. I thought the United States was supposed to look out for the little people I have yet to witness this with SOD or SID. I particularly like the last article you wrote before this one because even though you stated you were not a fan of NuMarty you at least sat up and took notice of the chemistry between her and John who you appear not to be too fond of either. What you don't realize is you've hit the nail on the head as to why people are stating they don't like this recast. There are not a lot of Susan Haskell fans left... However, there is a large Jolie fan base who has decided that NuMarty has to be gotten rid of and it has nothing to do with her acting - although they state this is the reason." - A British OLTL Fan

Believe me, I am well aware that some Jolie fans hate Marty without being objective. That's to be expected. But I won't let a fan base influence what I write - even if it were to work in my favor. In other words, as someone who loathes Jolie, I would very much like Marty and John to work as a couple. But if their scenes amount to crap, I will say so. I respond to what I see, not what I want to see. The scenes from two weeks ago between John and Marty were terrible for many reasons. And Christina Chambers' acting left alot to be desired. In fact, Melissa Archer walked in and stole the whole show. However, this past week things improved. The Marty/John scenes were better, and Chambers' forced and bizarre acting choices were more subdued. Perhaps one of the directors over at OLTL is actually doing their job for once, because it seemed to me that the mistakes Easton and Chambers made in trying to generate instant chemistry were largely corrected. Overall, I think Chambers has potential but she'd have a much easier time of it were she not playing Marty Sayebrooke. It was stupid to recast the role, and the adjustment to Chambers is nowhere near complete. Will it ever be? The jury is out. I'm still willing to give her a chance, and this past week gave me hope that at the very least, I won't hate her. As for the United States looking out for the little guy... you would think. But that statement is beyond generous. As far as I can see, the government of this great country is looking out for its own interests, and for the rich. I don't see enough of fighting for the "little guy." Do you?

"Just read your column and wanted to comment... the part that really got my attention was your reference to the actress that is playing Marty Saybrooke. I have been commenting about that throaty little nervous laugh that she has that is driving me crazy - and no one else seems to have noticed it." - Charlotte

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I couldn't quite figure out how to describe Christina Chambers' odd little quirk. Charlotte does so beautifully here, calling it a "throaty little nervous laugh." That is exactly what it is. This is what we refer to as an "actor habit." Actor habits are almost always negative. They are crutches an actor uses to busy themselves when there is a lack of connection to the material. Michael Easton does it with his eye-rolling, gum-chewing, and hands-on-hips. Bree Williamson and Brandon Buddy use interjections like "I mean" when they forget their lines or have a lapse in their subtext. Christina Chambers' little crutch is this unpleasant sarcastic laugh she does at the most inopportune times. She uses this laugh as a reaction to just about anything: To comment on another character, to express dismay, to show that she is upset, and the list goes on. It is VERY annoying. I sincerely hope the directors at OLTL are putting a stop to this, and fast. They better be if they want people to warm up to this difficult recast. This past week it started to disappear, thankfully.

"'Super Boring Couples' is right! I can't wait until these dull couples implode... and with the way Jolie especially is going right now, I can't see how anyone can tolerate or support this couple. Why would any fan of Natalie want her to sacrifice her dignity and self-worth for John? These are NOT the actions or words of a man in love. The latest straw was him blatantly reminding her after she argued why Marty was there, that 'the last time he checked it was HIS place!' Granted, I felt Natalie had no business talking to Marty the way she did, but John had no right to talk to Natalie that way either. If Natalie had any cajones, she would have marched herself OUT of HIS place and told him to kiss her BLEEP! There are plenty of things a couple in love will tolerate with each other, but blatant disrespect and/or lack of concern shouldn't be one of them." - Beatrice

Recently I found out a friend of mine was in an abusive relationship. She described her situation to me and despite myself, I couldn't help but think of Jolie. They are a textbook abusive relationship. John either hates her, or expresses love through cruelty. Either way you cut it, John is one messed up guy - and Natalie is a codependent seeker of abuse. Over the past year she has displayed a complete lack of dignity and self-love. It's made her so pathetic and really hard to root for. If John and Natalie continue to live together, I wouldn't be surprised if John hits her in the future. All of the signs of abuse are there. The rage, the insults, and the ultimatums. Unfortunately, I think that even if John started physically abusing Natalie, she'd still stay with him. She keeps explaining away his behavior and sees herself as the cure to his problems. But he has been clear that if Natalie wants to remain with him, she must follow his rules - period, end of story. As a couple, they are both seeking to get their own way and not to reach a compromise. It is more than obvious that John does not love Natalie - and I think in time Natalie will realize that she does not love John either. She has been chasing after a person who quite simply, does not exist.

"I'll take your observation that Dena Higley is writing the end of Jolie a step further and say that she never wrote them as a viable couple from the start of her writing for them. I don't think that she has any interest in either character and is just following Brian Frons' directions to write for them because there has never been anything resembling a romantic moment written by her for them. Even when their fans were seeing romance and love, Dena Higley was writing John with such contempt for Natalie and Michael Easton was playing it as if he resented her. The death knell for them was during Michael Malone's time when Natalie confessed to John that she always loved him and he ran out of the room after Evangeline a bit later. How anyone talked themselves into the destiny of John and Natalie after that, is beyond me. I would never want a character I liked with a character who had done that." - Justine

Nor would I. I truly do not understand the fans of this couple. I would urge them to take a closer look and try to see what is actually being presented. I will say that a large part of Jolie's failure has been Michael Easton's performance. 90% of his interactions with Natalie over the years have consisted of utter resentment and loathing of her. How much of that was the writing versus Easton's acting, it's hard to say. But as far as I can tell, he didn't even try to make this couple work. And considering how bad the writing for them was, it would have taken a Shakespearian genius to make their "love" believable.

"In my opinion, John is not the villain in this mess. Natalie deserves every bit she is getting and more. John told her many times to her face that he was in a relationship he wanted and that he did not love her (Natalie). When a man tells you something like that - believe him! She wanted John and what she wants she intends to get no matter the consequences or who gets hurt in the process. She grinned at John and Evangeline's pain when they broke up (Yeah that's loving someone alright - rejoice in their pain). She disrespected John and his relationship by throwing herself at him knowing he was seeing someone. She knew he was messed up and had a HUGE hero complex because of the way he lost his dad and his fiancé due to his witnessing their violent deaths. Knowing all of this she used his fragile psyche to serve her own needs. She knew that he only paid attention to her when death came knocking at her door so she used this tragic turn in his psyche to get what she wanted - his attention. Aside from when she was trying to lure serial killers to come after her and playing the damsel in distress, he brushed her off. So why the pity party for her now? She invited this into her life. John made it clear he did not have a romantic interest in her. He cared for her, felt guilt over her, but he did not want her. Not in the way she wanted him to want her. So he gave into her because mainly he does not want to be alone (he admitted it). She got what she plotted and schemed for." - Lilly

Wow. Even though I consider myself a lukewarm fan of Natalie's, I have to admit that this indictment of her is spot-on. I hope the rumor that Natalie is leaving the show for a spell to "find herself" turns out to be true, because she really needs it. Her level of emotional maturity and self-respect are so low that it makes it nearly impossible to care about her. If it were up to me, I would either turn Natalie "bad" again as a result of being burned by John (no pun intended) or I would have her truly look out for herself and no one else - including whatever man she has the hots for. Either way, she needs to be a bad ass again. The whiny, needy little girl routine must end.

"I have no use for either the disgusting freak Nash or Jessica the whore. NuJess came on being way too sanctimonious - now she's a slut that would make Blair want to take notes. I hate that they're making Antonio a chump in all this... but on the upside it's getting the character more fans. Here's hoping that Jess and Nash go to where all whoring Buchanan's go... London!" - Joey

Meow! It's true - TPTB have all but ruined Jessica Buchanan. Way to go, considering she is the freakin' daughter of the show's heart and soul. What's been done to her could only come from the mind of a horny, middle-aged heterosexual man. The idea of Jessica cheating with Nash could actually be alright - and fairly realistic considering his relationship with the now-integrated Tess. BUT... it needed to be done with taste. It needed to be a true love story pulling two people together regardless of the consequences. But that's not what is happening. What is happening is two people who want to have sex. That's all I see. I don't see love. I see a new bride that is obviously not sexually fulfilled by her husband and wants to have two lovers. Tess was a whore who slept with a different man every night. Now Tess is inside of Jessica. How stupid then was it for Jessica to get married so soon after integration? She should have been single for awhile until she figured out what her new self wanted from life. She has turned out to be an immature, selfish whore and it's a damn shame. Nash should stay away from her, and his insistence on encouraging her to cheat makes him not only naughty, but downright tasteless. He should be able to see right through her.

"I agree that OLTL seems to be improving slowly but surely, but I still have a list of pet peeves that are annoying the heck out of me. Until recently, I didn't think that I could dislike Rex and Adrianna any more than I did during their ridiculous stalker storyline. Was I ever wrong! Where on earth do they get off playing God with people's lives and acting totally justified in doing so? I really used to enjoy quirky Rex, but the way his character is currently being written is turning me off in a big way. Last time I checked, Adrianna was a member of Starr and Jack's family. How can she possibly think that withholding information about their baby brother is a good thing? I'm glad that Todd and Blair are going to be taking a much needed break from each other, but why does Blair get to be the one doing the dumping yet again? Suddenly she thinks that they are toxic together. It seems to me that a few weeks ago Todd was trying to tell her that exact same thing, but she refused to hear it. I wish TIIC would just end this repetitive madness and let them move on to other things." - Gerrie

I agree that TPTB have all but ruined Rex. Which is such a shame because I really do think John-Paul Lavoisier is immensely gifted. Lately though, Rex has been stupid and sloppy. Adriana has always been a crashing bore. And her disloyalty to her own family is highly questionable - but all Cramer women do questionable things in regards to their families. I could handle that from Adriana so long as she was interesting in some other way. She's not (although I must say that the costume department is having a field day with Melissa Gallo and she has been looking amazing lately). As for Todd and Blair, I think they nailed it on the head: Todd accused Blair of changing her mind about him because of the scare of nearly dying and losing her baby, and Todd decided he wanted Blair back because she almost died. Yep, those statements are right in line with their characters. But I really think after Blair's initial rejection of him, Todd should have realized that she's right. After all, he's believed that for a year now. For him to be completely committed to winning her back now is not only questionable - but entirely dull. We have been through this Todd and Blair rodeo countless times over the years and quite frankly: IT IS STALE. There is nothing TPTB can come up with that will prevent it from being stale. Trevor St. John and Kassie DePaiva deserve so much better than to have to play the same material month after month, year after year. Some people say Todd/Blair are still the endgame - others insist that's not so. Much will depend on the Head Writer situation, which could prove very interesting indeed.

"I really don't understand why they are trying to get rid of the only super couple of OLTL - I mean Blair and Todd. Why does Trevor St. John have the right to demand to act with Renee instead of Kassie - she is the best actress on OLTL. I don't hear Kassie making demands she was there longer than Trevor. And personally why pair Todd with Van that is just ridiculous. There are teenagers watching soaps everyday and as parents white and black - we try to teach our children values in life and the networks have a right to uphold those morals." - Name withheld

Where do I begin? First of all, Blair and Todd aren't a super couple anymore. They were when they first got together and Roger Howarth was playing Todd. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love Trevor St. John in the role of Todd. But his Todd and Kassie DePaiva have never been a super couple. A strong couple - yes. A couple with chemistry - yes. But a Luke and Laura? No way. The reason TPTB are trying to break them up (if they even are) is that their storyline has been repeated over and over again for years now and it's just flat out tiresome. Trevor St. John is one of the most outspoken cast members. He has alot of power because he is the male lead and the best actor on the show - and he knows it. Kassie DePaiva has never been too outspoken and especially now that she is in her 40's she knows her job is not secure. I don't think Trevor is demanding to work with Renee Goldsberry (though I do believe that is his preference as it provides the most interesting storyline for Todd). He is simply asking that he is given a storyline other than the same old same old with Blair. Who could blame him? The fact that he is willing to speak out just confirms his integrity as an artist. Many television actors aren't artists at all, but merely glorified models. Trevor is a bonafide actor (artist) and his campaigning on behalf of his character is utterly respectable in my book. The only person he risks hurting is himself (he could conceivably lose his job like Dan Gauthier did), yet he presses on. I respect him completely.

The fact that you suggest that an interracial relationship would interfere with anyone's "morals" is just flat out racist. There is no way to sugar coat it. The idea that characters of mixed races falling in love or having sex would bother you is inconceivable to me. This is the 21st Century. How can you maintain racist, sexist, or homophobic viewpoints in this day and age? Come out of your cave dwellings, already. How can you hold someone's ethnicity against them? Why would you choose to limit people according to the color of their skin? It defies all logic. I realize I am a city person and things are very different here than in some other communities. But I have to stand up for what I know is right: equality. Racism is insufferable and unwarranted. So is sexism. So is homophobia. So is ageism. I urge you to come to grips with this issue and ask yourself WHY you feel this way. Most likely you will realize that this viewpoint was passed down to you by a previous generation or community and that it is up to you to disavow these feelings which sprout from inherited fear and misunderstanding. We are all different from one another, and those differences can be embraced. Each individual deserves a chance to be judged for who they are - not what they look like or where their ancestors came from. I am honestly shocked that people still have these outdated notions about humanity. The soaps should lead us in social consciousness - they must not pander to the lowest common denominator. And that goes for gender, sexual, and age issues too. If soaps have an obligation to uphold morals (which is disputable), then surely they must speak out against racism and positively depict interracial love - which is not only common, but completely normal. And moral. What is immoral is to limit who a person can love or receive love from.

And now, I will dismount my soap box. Until next time...

Some things you may want to write to TPTB about this week: Keeping Timothy Stickney as R.J., bringing back Andrea Evans and Gina Tognoni, bringing back Ty Treadway and getting Tuc Watkins back for good - and of course, anything else you want to see!

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.