Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Viewing Single Post From: Spoilers for the week of July 22nd
Member Avatar

Jul 20 2013, 03:00 PM
I also had a problem with Jennifer's friendship with Carly. Why would she overlook Carly's marriage to Lawrence, the man who raped Jen?

Carly knew about what Lawrence did, yet she disregarded it once she fell in love with him. If he'd shown any kind of believable remorse for his actions, (like Jack did for his) I might've understood it better, but Lawrence's supposed remorse was far from convincing.
I feel like the writers were handcuffed in a few ways w.r.t. that. First of all I think MS and CC leaving the show was sudden and they had to arrange a quick exit for them, and it ended up being very sloppy. They were written off together romantically because the actors were leaving at the same time, so it was a neat and convenient way to free up Bo and tie up all the Lawrence stuff. Secondly I think they felt it would just be too contradictory if Jennifer lectured Carly about Lawrence raping her, given that she got together with Jack who did the same thing to Kayla. Yes Jack's storyline was handled much much better than Lawrence's, but even then, there is probably no ideal way to handle a "redeemed rapist" storyline. At the end of the day, you can't tell a rape victim that, Hey at least he's changed so forgive him, okay? A rape victim never ever has to do that, and the fact that Kayla did, I mean, it speaks to her incredible goodness, IMO, but I would never ever be able to say that she has to do it. So let's say Carly said to Jennifer "How can you lecture me about Lawrence when you did the same with Kayla's rapist?", what would Jennifer possibly be able to say? "Jack changed and repented and Kayla forgave him so it's okay"? There's no really good way to handle a "redeemed rapist" storyline, and I guess it was just symptomatic of soap operas in the 1980s that they used rape so much as a plot device, so we have to live with it the best we can and salvage the best we can out of the mess, but I can see why the writers let sleeping dogs lie. They brought up the irony/hypocrisy between Lawrence and Jack during the rape trial but I feel like after they did that they wanted to forget about Jack's past. I don't necessarily agree with it, especially as long as Kayla was on the canvas, but for a while they were banking on Jack and Jennifer to be the It Couple so they had to really sell them hard (that mentality ended very quickly once Gene Palumbo became HW in 1991, but.).

Also, I mean, Jennifer and Kayla weren't really friends before they became sisters-in-law, Kayla was older and much more tight with Hope than Jennifer, who was having teen storylines while Kayla was involved in the big adult ones. Given that Carly and Jennifer had a past, I can see that compensating for the problem in ways that Jennifer and Kayla's relationship couldn't. OTOH, Kayla probably did not expect much loyalty (or whatever you'd call it) from Jennifer the way Jennifer and Carly could from each other so maybe it would be easier for Kayla to understand Jennifer than for Jennifer to understand Carly. Anyway the "problem" was that Jennifer and Carly's deep friendship appeared out of nowhere one day; audiences will have a much easier time caring about relationships they see develop instead of ones they're merely told of. That's why, even though Jennifer grew up with Carly, in the long run people like Jennifer & Hope together more, they like seeing Hope and Kayla have adventures, etc. I think the amount of shit Jennifer went through to help Carly never really caught on with audiences because Carly just came out of nowhere as someone we're supposed to care about, and that feeling kind of lasted throughout their friendship. If the audience were more invested in the friendship they might have wanted to see them overcome the obstacle that Lawrence represented, but I think nobody really cared.

But at least Carly's family never tried to gaslight her mother and make everyone think she's crazy, or keep Jack in jail or even kill him, etc etc. Even if Jennifer wanted to believe Kristen had changed, like, she's still to this day so resentful towards what Kate did to "damage" her family that I would think she'd have at least as much trouble with the Dimeras. I STG if anyone did that to my mom I'd never get over it. Peter was much more at fault than Kristen, obviously, but she had her own drastically awful deeds like locking Marlena up in a basement FFS. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Kristen's character and am glad she's back, even though I wish the writing were a bit better, but I feel like they should've at the very least had Kristen have to earn Jennifer's trust back. They should've broached the topics of Peter and Laura, I mean Jennifer still can't totally forgive Kate to this day because of her hurt feelings on her mother's behalf. And I think what the Dimeras did to Laura was way worse than what Kate did.
Offline Profile Quote Post
Spoilers for the week of July 22nd · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion