I really appreciate how soaps have been portraying realistic troubles lately. On GH yesterday, Lucky lamented that he couldn't handle doing his taxes, and enlisted mathematically-inclined Liz's help.

I took almost two weeks off for the holidays, the longest I've been away from the office that didn't involve a newborn, and it was so strange watching soaps at home. Instead of sitting at a desk, I was catching snatches of everything I could, in between car pools and grocery shopping and entertaining drop-in friends.

I'm huge Scott Bryce fan, and thought Hunt Block's take on ATWT's Craig was terrific, too.

I'm a long-time GL fan, going back to elementary school. Back then I didn't know what a soap opera was, I just hoped Holly would wise up enough to realize Ed Bauer was nicer than creepy Roger Thorpe.

I was sorry to hear that none of the three networks that air soaps will be airing the Daytime Emmy Awards this year to honor them. But I wasn't surprised.

One of the complaints I have about soaps is they sometimes miss the small moments that would really resonate with viewers.

I hadn't been at Digest for too long when I was given the assignment of going to a soap star week at a spa in California.

I finished Eileen Davidson's new book, Death in Daytime, so I can officially recommend it (last time I suggested it I was only halfway through).

I've talked before about how strange it is to see magazine jobs portrayed on soaps. As doctors and lawyers surely noted for years, there's a whole lot of dramatic license being taken — brain surgeons who deliver babies and cure mystery viruses; D.A.'s who prosecute people they're closely connected to.

Soaps are understandably protective of their storylines — with ratings down, they want to preserve the element of surprise. But I'd argue that when a story point is strong enough, letting the audience know what's coming will entice them to tune in.