Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James from London" data-source="post: 444244" data-attributes="member: 22">Haven&#039;t they just. One of the things I find increasingly fascinating about soaps, but which makes them hard to talk about in any sort of conclusive way, is that, by their nature, the story is never quite over -- so while Zoe&#039;s comeback might be considered &quot;disastrous&quot; (I think I&#039;d settle for &quot;puzzling&quot;), the devastatingly good episodes that resulted from her death this week, however unplanned that death might have been by the writers just a short while ago, retroactively sheds that comeback in a whole new light. i.e., we wouldn&#039;t have got this without that.I can think of several instances, from Jim Davis&#039;s death to Letitia Dean&#039;s annual panto commitments, where necessity has proved the mother of invention on soaps, ie., offscreen circumstances impacting what we see on screen, often with lasting consequences, but I guess that&#039;s a whole other topic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James from London, post: 444244, member: 22"] Haven't they just. One of the things I find increasingly fascinating about soaps, but which makes them hard to talk about in any sort of conclusive way, is that, by their nature, the story is never quite over -- so while Zoe's comeback might be considered "disastrous" (I think I'd settle for "puzzling"), the devastatingly good episodes that resulted from her death this week, however unplanned that death might have been by the writers just a short while ago, retroactively sheds that comeback in a whole new light. i.e., we wouldn't have got [I]this[/I] without [I]that[/I]. I can think of several instances, from Jim Davis's death to Letitia Dean's annual panto commitments, where necessity has proved the mother of invention on soaps, ie., offscreen circumstances impacting what we see on screen, often with lasting consequences, but I guess that's a whole other topic. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?