I’ll just come out and say it: I hate Silas.
I don’t want to, because I love Michael Easton and I was so excited about him coming back to the show. But I really, really hate this character. I hate his glasses and his stupid ponytail. I hate his smugness and his arrogance and his inability to convincingly replicate anything approaching normal human empathy and emotion.
PATRICK’S RIGHT THERE WITH ME.
When he casually pronounced that Danny has cancer (and do not even get me started on where that is probably going) after a thirty second examination… and then just turned around and marched off without another word, like some sort of automaton? I actually laughed out loud. This guy’s barely been around a week and he’s already a parody of himself.
Caleb and Libby were goofy, but from the clips I’ve seen, they were also sex on a stick. Sam and John pretty much had me from their very first scene together. Silas and Sam? Are like a black hole of anti-chemistry. This is not a love/hate relationship. It’s all hate, all the time. And he’s already proven himself to be such an unappealing asshole that I don’t want to spend any more time with him at all, much less watch Sam do so.
Or, in the words of my co-blogger:
I’m just going to hope that they are doing a severe Pride and Prejudice on Silas and we’ll get a likable human being at some point before I tear all my hair out.
If that’s where they’re going with this, let’s move past the spurning her at the dance portion and get into the admiring her muddy boots in silence post haste, okay, writers? POST HASTE.
And hey, speaking of assholes, can we talk about Diane for a moment? Because I HAVE SOME FEELS. Listen, when the new team had Heather force Todd to fire Diane from her columnist job, I took it as a positive sign that Carvilati and Co. had been as insulted by the idea of her leaving her successful law career for the glamorous and well-paying life of a celebrity gossip monger as I was.
Which is why it’s so surprising that, in its own way, the writing for her over the last year has done just as much — if not more — damage to the character. I understand there are various backstage reasons for Diane not being around all the time anymore, and that’s fine. However. On the handful of occasions she’s been around, she has:
- Defended Todd for stealing Sam’s baby (and Alexis’ grandson).
- Helped keep Connie, her mentally ill friend, from receiving proper treatment.
- Trashed Jason, her dead former friend and client, as well as Sam, her current BFF’s daughter in court in order to help Silas get custody of Rafe against Rafe’s express wishes.
- Defended and gotten bail for Franco, a man who has personally terrorized most of the town, especially — again — Sam and Jason.
The issue here isn’t that Diane is representing guilty people. That is how our legal system works, after all. But her friendship with Alexis was one of the few things I enjoyed during the Guza years, and her actions over the last year have basically trashed that. And I don’t buy it. I just don’t. Because no matter how competitive she gets in the courtroom, there is just no way I will believe that Diane would ever willingly defend anyone who had hurt the people she cares about without a qualm.
Of course, yesterday we learned she does have some qualms. It’s just they’re not as important as… oh, hell. I’ll just let her explain it:
DIANE: As your attorney, yes, of course I will provide the best defense possible for you, because that’s my job. But I am also a thinking, feeling human being and as that, I find you disgusting, Mr. Frank. You are a deplorable monster who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to people I care a great deal about. […]
FRANCO: Well, if you hate me so much, why did you take my case?
ME: What an excellent question!
DIANE: I am defending you for two reasons, Mr. Frank, God help me: money and publicity.
ME: …
It’s a good thing she’s still got that fabulous rack, is all I’m saying. Because otherwise? DEAD TO ME.
(But seriously, Carlivati — you know you do have other lawyers in town right now, right? Like, Scotty! Who could have easily taken this case without betraying anyone! So we don’t always have to make Diane the heartless asshole queen from hell? JUST A THOUGHT.)
Despair in the Afternoon 
No, they ruined Diane! She was one of my favourites! Though she did represent mobsters, she did have a conscience! She was pretty much what I thought of when I thought about lawyers: Intelligent, successful, but she does have a moral compass. I feel the the show is on a slippy slope going backwards. And why even bring Franco back? We liked him dead!
Anything to do with Franco, IMHO, sucks. It was bad then and worse now!
Diane and Alexis were great friends. Will this latest money grab by Diane ruin that forever? I mean I love a sexy pair of shoes too but dayum Diane..you that strapped for cash!?
Just sayin. This was low and Ron deserves a smacking for ruining a strong woman. Shit! That was Guza’s bag! Make em weak.
While I’m bitching, Silas sucks! Ron can do better. Shame on him! And WTF is with that friggin’ pissy ponytail!?? Please GH, shape up!
I sometimes feel so torn watching this show. I totally agree with all of your criticisms of the writing and characterization, and yet there were also those great scenes between AJ and Michael and, especially, between Tracy and Monica. Plus, despite the fact that I hate, hate , hate the whole Franco thing, when I watched that scene between Ava and Franco in the jail cell, I was annoyed at myself for enjoying it. He’s got so many amazing actors to write for — have them do something better than this!
Despite the negative tone of my last few posts, there are definitely moments I’ve enjoyed over the last week. And the show as a whole is still LIGHT YEARS better than it was several years ago. Hopefully the issues with the Franco and Silas storylines will get ironed out soon.
Scotty was a better choice to defend Todd or Franco versus Diane.
except franco kidnapped scotty’s step grandson, so Laura may not like it too much. i really hope he is being charged with kidnapping aiden, someone should pay for hurting one of Liz’s kids, Jake never got justice from being kidnapped and his deadbeat’s [LOVELY] gf leting it happen and not helping or telling anyone to her hiring armed thugs to terrorize Liz & Cake, to his step grandfather running him over while driving drunk.
Pretty sure Aiden is one of the five counts of kidnapping he’s been charged with (along with Sam, Lulu, Carly… and maybe Jason in Hawaii?).
Also, this is the umpteenth warning you’ve gotten for misogynist language. Keep it up and watch all your posts turn into soliloquies about Sam’s perfection.
You’re right, tenillypo, Franco has been charged with kidnapping Aiden.
i don’t think it’s the umpteenth time, i cleaned it up after the 1st time, and if you read the post again i was referring to Jake’s deadbeat FATHER, who is not a woman,deadbeat w/a ‘s gf. why would i call the gf a deadbeat?
Deadbeat was not the language I objected to. It was calling the deadbeat’s girlfriend a “skank,” which is something you have been warned about on multiple occasions.
Sam has been a TOTAL bitch ever since seeing Silas.
Looked at objectively, she is 100% in the wrong.
She sees him, threatens him w arrest, calls him names, accuses him of murder in his workplace, stalks him, tells him his brother was a killer and was killed, chides him for not reacting to this all as she wants, tells him he has a nephew, accuses him of not caring, then chides him when he shows up to see the boy, calls him a monster when he sues to get Rafe away from a woman who acts to him like Sam did, then he tells her her kid is sick and she accuses him of more crap.
In miniature, this is how the show ALWAYS slants reactions toward characters it favors- Carly, Jason, Sonny, Luke, etc.
I liked that Silas told her to pay attention and sniff reality.
Sam = 100% wrong.
“Objectively?” I do not think that word means what you think it means. (But still, it was a funny read!)
It means what I stated. Look it up, and then read, don’t hiccup.
I had assumed you meant the whole thing satirically what with all the silly “objective” and “100%” talk, obviously. My mistake. Carry on!
If Silas had exhibited one iota of human response, I might agree. But since he explicitly stated that he knew his brother was psychotic, but separated himself so completely that he managed to miss the fact that his brother was (a) a serial killer and (b) dead, it’s hard to feel any sympathy for his loss. Especially since he didn’t express any concern for his nephew, and then showed up demanding custody without bothering to get to know Rafe and find out what his wishes and/or needs are. Now, of course, he’s making insta-diagnoses based on a five-second look at a rash. Of course, he’ll be proved right, because this is a soap. But he’s a horribly written character, and Michael Easton isn’t a strong enough actor to overcome it. Silas is so terrible that I actually prefer watching Howarth as Franco, and I didn’t think I could ever despise a character more than I despised the combination of stunt casting and bad writing that gave us Franco.
And looking at it objectively, any doctor who would say “your baby has cancer” and then walk out the door, and then show up at a hospital where he doesn’t work demanding to see test results for someone not his patient deserves to be brought up before the medical review board. Again, it’s a soap. So that won’t happen. But a character written to be this much of a bastard needs an actor with a whole lot more charisma than ME possesses. As it is, Silas is the most one-dimensional, unlikeable character I’ve seen on television in years.
His cancer reply was dickish, but after being subjected to Sam’s tirades? Think how YOU wd react if Sam did all the above to you at your workplace?
His character at least has a foot in the real world, and not just the soapy stuff.
And, Sam is a one dimensional character, and has been for a decade. Kelly Monaco’s acting repertoire consists of crying and making faces like she’s constipated.
Diane is the only character with some integrity. And Sonny and jason are far worse than Franco, and Silas vs. Sam?
In real life a dr w no criminal record vs. a Mob widow and grifter whose mother has 2 murders to her credit, a sister doing community service for attempted murder, and another who plead out after engineering a jailbreak.
Um, who wins?
Did you miss the part where Kristina is now at summer school preparing for her sophomore year at college. Community service a thing of the past.
Diane kinda lost her integrity when she forgot who her best friend is . Yes, everyone deserves legal representation, but it shouldn’t always be Diane. I think she can afford to turn down a few cases.
Can someone explain to me like I’m Morgan Corinthos, why two little boys (Cameron and PoorDeadJake) have a couple mash-up name like “Cake?”
No, I didn’t miss that part, but Kristina was still serving a sentence, meaning she has a criminal record- that’s the point- a family of felons and criminals vs. a dr. w no record, who is blood kin.
1) They only have a limited cast
2) Diane is actually being true to her character. Alexis is actually the one whose ethos changes on a whim.
In both real life and on the show, I suspect Silas is going to win. That doesn’t change my opinion that it is pretty shitty for a child to be forced to live with a complete stranger who looks exactly like the man he saw brutally murder his mother right in front of him only a few months ago, based solely on the fact that they all share some DNA — especially when that child is currently in an environment where he feels safe, and the stranger in question has demonstrated quite clearly that he has zero capability for dealing sensitively with emotional trauma.
Re: your other opinions, we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
Rafe had no problem living w McBain, who also looked like Clay, so, aside from Sam’s prejudicing him by not telling Rafe what a total bitch she was to a total stranger, and how hypocritically she acted, again, Sam’s at fault.
When watching fiction, you have to be aware of how the writer or director will try to manipulate POVs.
AS mentioned, Sonny is a prime example: he has raped, mass murdered, committed treason, sabotaged airplanes, committed acts of terror and kidnapping, sold drugs to minors, and been in the illegal sex industry. IRL, this makes him worse than Franco, Ryan Chamberlain, Faison, Helena, and just about any other villain in the show’s history, but Guza, esp. tried to slant the show so Sonny’s portrayed as a good guy.
The good thing w the Franco rehab is that the writers are FORCED to turn the tables, and show us how easily such biasing can be accomplished.
Objectively looking at Sam’s criminal past, she’s a bad parent. Only Carly is a worse mother.
As far as McBain, I give the writers a pass on that since they can’t legally mention his name. Of course the show presents its lead characters sympathetically. Most shows do, even if their ‘heroes’ are despicable human beings. My standard for soap operas is pretty simple – I want to be entertained. I don’t find anything entertaining about Silas, as written or portrayed, thus far.
And most soap parents are bad parents. Most soap characters are terrible people by any real-life standards. I find that utterly beside the point. If Silas were exhibiting any traits to make him interesting, I’d be much more engaged. Obviously all of this is subjective – if you’re enjoying the character and rooting for him, that just goes to show that there’s an audience for pretty much every aspect of this show right now.
Rafe also knew McBain, knew what kind of person he was, and didn’t believe he had any other options at the time. Oh — and John? Actually bothered to ask Rafe what he wanted. Silas, again, is a complete stranger who shares the blood of a lunatic who murdered his mother, and who has demonstrated quite clearly that he doesn’t give a shit about what Rafe actually wants or how he feels.
I understand the concept of a writer or director advancing their own agendas, thanks. But since I don’t think we’re using ‘objective’ the same way, I doubt this conversation is going to go anywhere productive. So let’s just leave it at that.
I just want to talk about a soap-not have a rape rant. Or a “cake” rant. Altho, now I’m hungry for cake.
Cake? Yum!
Ok Morgan, I’ll try to type this real slow so that you understand. CAKE=’C’am+J’AKE” just like NIZ=’N’icholas+El’IZ’abeth just like LANTE=’L’ulu+D’ANTE’ just like LIASON=’LI’z+J’ASON’
I didn’t ask the original question, but as someone who hates mashup names in general, I think marz’s question was more – why do a pair of brothers have a mashup name at all? It’s not as though, say, Lucky and Lulu or Lucky and Nikolas or Lulu and Nikolas have a mashup name. Or Michael and Morgan, or any other set of siblings. Seemed odd enough when Jake was alive, and odder still now that the character is dead.
Yeah, as one who views mashup names with the same murderous glance I do emoticons, I do find this one particularly silly, and hunger inducing.
Anne: I’m not rooting for the character, and Easton has a limited range. The character is wholly unneeded. They’d be better off with him as a Cassadine. The point is that given how Sam has treated the man from the first sec she saw him, what normal sane person wd not think she’s nuts? And, again, Sam badmouthed him even BEFORE he met Rafe.
Tenilly: yes, I am using ‘objective’ according to its dictionary definition. Any other use is subjective.
I don’t think you are obtuse, so I’m sure you realize that the argument people are making is that your commentary is opinion, much like everyone else’s commentary here. To claim you are being objective, like your opinion is somehow more “factual” than anyone else’s here is condescending. We would appreciate it if you would be respectful of other people’s opinions here as we expect everyone else to be of yours. We don’t expect people to agree all the time, but when an offer of agree to disagree is handed out, we’d appreciate it if you’d take it.
The last time we had Sam and McBain’s “instant connection” so I’m guessing RC decided to turn it around into instant “hate”. Anywhoo,,,there is no way that CPS would have allowed Sam, Alexis or McBain custody of Rafe.
Silas as a Cassadine would not work since FV is determined to pair up ME and KeMo.
I’m just glad that someone else finds Silas and Sam to be a “black hole of anti-chemistry.” I LOVED Sam and John (even though I had previously been a huge Jasam and Jolie fan), but these actors just aren’t working this time. Silas is AWFUL and there are NO sparks in his scenes with Sam. I get that the writers probably wanted to do something different this time (no instant connection/friendship), but this is not the kind of fiery hate that veils barely-contained passion. This just sparkless, emotionless hate. I want Sam with pretty much anyone EXCEPT Silas at this point… possibly even Franco, because let’s be real, every time he’s on my screen, all I see is Todd. And as much as I HATED James Franco’s version of the character, at least Frodd is far more compelling than Silas.
I don’t think you are obtuse, so I’m sure you realize that the argument people are making is that your commentary is opinion, much like everyone else’s commentary here.
================
The actions Sam engaged in were objectively stated. What is obtuse is to try to walk around the obvious fact that I was making, which was that what Sam did to Silas was objectively wrong.
If you believe this not so, I suggest you list the steps that Sam took at Silas’s place of business, then do them to a neighbor of yours at their place of business, and see how many minutes expire b4 you are arrested for assault, disturbing the peace, and then charged with slander.
Go to any county in the US, and see how many you could get away with doing such a thing. That is what is meant by objective. That you think that is acceptable behavior is certainly subjective, but then the objectivity would fall on the side of those who would question your sense of fairness, reality, and ethics.
Now, you can define obtuse next, and throw in snark, as a bonus, since we’ve settled that.
We would appreciate it if you would be respectful of other people’s opinions here as we expect everyone else to be of yours. We don’t expect people to agree all the time, but when an offer of agree to disagree is handed out, we’d appreciate it if you’d take it.
==============
I have been. And no one is questioning your right to disagree, but thinking Sam did NOT behave abysmally, while your subjective right, is also on par with believing the earth is flat and Hitler was just misunderstood.
In short, one is free to choose one’s beliefs, but not the reality about them.
Okay, no. When a moderator tells you your tone is condescending and gently suggests you knock it off, doubling down and backing it up by comparing anyone who disagrees with you to Nazi sympathizers? Not really the way to go.
Per our comment policy: “If you’re unable to let someone be wrong on the internet about characters on a soap opera, then it’s time to take a step back from the computer. Or at least from this blog.”
This is an official warning. Let it go, or you will not be welcome to comment here again.