A Writer’s Look at Soap Characters – Part Two

Jack Harcourt Devereaux, AKA William Earl Johnson

Days of Our Lives

Portrayed by Matt Ashford 1989-1993; 2001-2008

This character has been portrayed by other actors and has more history than I am acknowledging in this post. I choose to concentrate on what I have seen as a viewer during his first run and ignore the rest.

History: Jack's history, as revealed through action and dialogue on Days of Our Lives, is fairly unique and more complicated than I plan to deal with in one small post. In this and the other two posts, I plan to restrict my focus to questions of motive. Jack Devereaux comes to Salem to visit his father, Senator Harper Devereaux, and to renew his acquaintance with Kayla Brady. For story purposes, that's a good start, but it needs more in order to drive plot development. Turns out, Jack fell in love with Kayla when they met years ago on vacation, which moves him from a minor supporting character in Harper's story to a point in the Steve/Kayla/Jack triangle.

He believes, because Harper and Angelica have told him throughout his life, he is better than most people. He must be a better choice for Kayla than Steve, the drifter with one eye and no job, who seems to do nothing but hurt Kayla's feelings. His experience as a politician's son has given him the skills and morals to use manipulation as a means to get what he wants. The tension increases when Jack learns he is dying. He emotionally blackmails Kayla into marrying him and does not release her from her promise when he goes into remission.

He is saved from becoming an irredeemable villain by his devotion to Kayla. When he has fully recovered but she appears to be suffering a fatal illness, he offers to let her out of the marriage if it is making her sick. He is also willing to wait until she is comfortable before consummating the marriage. Her stated refusal to exit the marriage and implied willingness to be his partner convinces Jack that she is the key to his happiness. He reveals his longing for a loving family when hers welcomes him on Christmas. When he discovers at the worst possible time and in the worst possible way that she has been lying to him and having an affair with Steve, he rapes the woman he loves. That act changes his life forever.

At first, he tries to reset his life, to reclaim Kayla and erase his crime through her forgiveness. Then he denies it ever happened, trying to rewrite history. When that doesn't work, he blames Steve for setting up the circumstances that led to the crime and devotes himself to making Steve miserable in any way he can. While this is going on, he romances Melissa Horton because he needs to be loved and she is another avenue to gain information about Steve and Kayla. It is only when Harper Devereaux is revealed to be a serial killer who has targeted Kayla as his victim that Jack gives up the idea of staying married to Kayla. Harper is the man who defined Jack's character, values, and worthiness; if he is a monster, Jack must be a monster, too.

Attempting to have a career in politics only to have it destroyed by revelations of evil deeds reported by the press makes a great motive to become a newspaper publisher, especially since buying half of the newspaper means burying some stories that put him in a bad light. Revenge against the Hortons for Melissa's public humiliation does not make him feel better, but at least he is being active. Jack takes an active role in the daily operations of the Spectator in order to antagonize Diana, the other owner. He discovers a talent for investigative journalism and editorial writing that surprises those who think they know everything about Jack. In his early days at the Spectator, Jack embraces his status as a pariah and uses the truth as a weapon, the way he sees it was used against him in the past.

He has his first conversation with Jennifer Horton and his life changes again. She is the first person who does not approach him wrapped in fear and/or anger. She could see him as a monster, since she knows what he did to Kayla and Melissa, but Jennifer judges people based on her personal experiences with them. She is his type – young, blonde, intelligent, stubborn, and loyal. She is not in the enemy camp, never actively involved in what Jack sees as unwarranted attacks on his person, character, and reputation. He notices her, especially when she is grateful for his advice and thrilled to be published. He tells himself he can still be the town's truth-telling pariah and be this feisty young woman's mentor. When she is disappointed in his decisions, he reconsiders them. He sees in her the idealist he was before he discovered everybody lies. He wants to protect her from the pain he suffered. He wants to be the person she thinks he is. He wants to keep her for himself, but he knows one day she will see the monster everyone else sees and she will leave him. Everything Jack does from the moment he accepts his love for Jennifer is at least partially based on his longing for her love and his fear she will stop loving him.

Revealed onscreen: Most of the motivations noted in the above text is revealed onscreen through dialogue. Others point out his motives and he either agrees or disagrees in ways that let the audience know he is lying. He is told he is scared of being happy because he thinks he doesn't deserve it or someone will take it away. He admits he is afraid of being a violent abuser like his birth and adoptive fathers; he has no idea how to make a marriage work or be a father.

Interpretations: Jack Devereaux was written into the show as an obstacle to the romance between Steve (Patch) Johnson and Kayla Brady. Judging by the pattern set by other romantic storylines on the show, Jack was supposed to start out as a sympathetic character and transform into a villain to be defeated by the hero and his lady. Had Matt Ashford proven to be a less charismatic actor, the character would have been killed or driven out of town, to return when a villain was needed again. Instead, he was allowed to slowly, realistically evolve into a hero in his own right. He was also part of one of the last true super couples of daytime when he was paired with Jennifer Horton, as portrayed by Melissa Brennan Reeves. In fact, it was the reaction to the chemistry between the characters that convinced the writers to develop storylines showing his changing attitude. Jack's evolution from self-centered villain to dedicated hero was driven by the character seeing himself through the eyes of Jennifer Horton, first trying to change her low opinion of him and then trying to live up to her good opinion. To read more about how this evolution took place and other viewers' interpretations of the character, please hurry to Devoted to Devereaux (http://thedeverauxclan.yuku.com/bthedeverauxclan), a fan site dedicated to Jack and Jennifer Devereaux, as portrayed by Matt and Missy.

My take: I think Jack suffers from cognitive dissonance and bad timing.

The bad timing seems to be a storytelling byproduct. He came to town at the time when Steve as having doubts about his worthiness. He asked Kayla to marry him shortly after Steve found out Jack was really his baby brother. He found out about Kayla's affair less than one day before she was going to tell him about it. He allowed himself to dream of a future as Jennifer's husband the day he killed his father. He pushed Jennifer away at the time she was deciding whether to do a dangerous favor for a friend. He proposed to Jennifer while she was still suffering from PTSD from being held hostage and raped. It got to the point where when Jack said he had a good feeling about something, I immediately expected disaster.

The cognitive dissonance comes from being raised by lying politicians who expected him to believe their lies even when he knew the truth. He was raised by a man who told him the Devereaux family was better than most people, but Jack was still not quite good enough to be Harper's son. He has vague emotion-based memories of life as baby Billy Johnson, enough to have felt loved by his mother and older brother, only to lose them. Camille Harcourt was nice to Jo when she accepted the ring Jo left for Billy and was probably a loving parent, but she died, abandoning Billy like his first caregivers.

Jack learned how to treat people by an arrested adolescent who equated material goods with affection. Angelica Devereaux taught Jack women will not tell you what they want but they expect you to give it to them anyway. She taught him how to flirt, manipulate people and situations to get what you want, and how to throw money at a problem. Jack was taught about ethics, civic duty, and social responsibility by people who gave them lip service to present a positive image to the press. Jack was an insightful child and adult, with a working blarney detector. The people who raised him lied to him with nearly every word and he was expected to believe them despite proof to the contrary. I seriously doubt Justin Kiriakis was Angelica's first extramarital affair. Harper Devereaux did not have a sudden psychotic break and decide to poison Kayla; the smoothness of his actions denotes experience.

Before arriving in Salem, he had taught himself to ignore his instincts and his observational skills in order to believe Harper's words and earn his love. Jack was not comfortable in his skin or in the world because he was surrounded by lies he couldn't let himself acknowledge. He wanted to marry Kayla because he wanted to be part of an honest loving family. She lied to him and he ignored every sign of it until presented with irrefutable proof. He saw the last evidence of human honesty destroyed and lost his mind. He believed in Harper's innocence until faced with incontrovertible proof of his crimes. He believed in Angelica's unconditional love for him until she proved her priorities had shifted by appointing Justin as Alexander's godfather. By the time he fell in love with Jennifer, he had reversed his outlook on life; instead of ignoring the bad in life, he ignored the good.

Young Jack was mostly ignored by his parents, who were busy with life on Capitol Hill. What does life on the Hill teach? Never let them see how you feel. Never let anyone know they have hurt you. Get even, and then get ahead. You're only as good as your last win. Style matters more than substance. Jack never saw evidence of schemes hurting others until he saw Diana on trial for shooting Roman. When he was attacking Salemites, they didn't let him see he'd succeeded in hurting them. Diana did not hide her pain. Understanding his action led to her pain was the first step in Jack's reeducation. By dragging Jack along in every crusade she took part in, Jennifer showed him good people with flaws, people who were trying to live the best life they could. Jack learned not everyone is playing a game, which helped ease his cognitive dissonance and let him use his powers of observation to form opinions about people.

Jack has values, holdovers from Harper and Angelica, such as the need to accumulate wealth and the inclination to lie his way out of trouble. Other values he learned from life as a Horton-by-marriage, such as if you see a problem, do something about it and family is the top priority. These conflicting values that motivate Jack's character and influence his actions can drive any number of plots.

A Writer’s Look at Soap Characters – Part One

When you learn how to write research papers, one of the first things you are told is to find what the experts have written on the topic. Doug Marland was "one of the greatest head writers ever" according to professionals in the industry. His advice is fifteen years old, but still relevant.

 

How Not To Wreck A Show

 

By Douglas Marland Watch the show. Learn the history of the show. You would be surprised at the ideas that you can get from the back story of your characters. Read the fan mail. The very characters that are not thrilling to you may be the audience's favorites. Be objective. When I came in to ATWT, the first thing I said was, what is pleasing the audience? You have to put your own personal likes and dislikes aside and develop the characters that the audience wants to see. Talk to everyone; writers and actors especially. There may be something in a character's history that will work beautifully for you, and who would know better than the actor who has been playing the role? Don't change a core character. You can certainly give them edges they didn't have before, or give them a logical reason to change their behavior. But when the audience says, "He would never do that," then you have failed. Build new characters slowly. Everyone knows that it takes six months to a year for an audience to care about a new character. Tie them in to existing characters. Don't shove them down the viewers' throats. If you feel staff changes are in order, look within the organization first. P&G [Procter & Gamble] does a lot of promoting from within. Almost all of our producers worked their way up from staff positions, and that means they know the show. Don't fire anyone for six months. I feel very deeply that you should look at the show's canvas before you do anything. Good soap opera is good storytelling. It's very simple. Douglas Marland is considered by many as one of the greatest head writers ever. Marland was a former head writer of As The World Turns, Guiding Light, and General Hospital. He worked as a writer on Another World and co-created Loving. He won multiple Emmy awards and Soap Opera Digest awards. Marland, a former actor, loved daytime. He passed away on March 6, 1993. This article was published in the April 27, 1993 issue of Soap Opera Digest. Thanks to SEW for providing a copy of the article.

 

I don't write for soaps. I don't plan to write for soaps. Why do I care whether or not the industry is meeting the standards set by the late Doug Marland?

"Good soap opera is good storytelling." Good fiction is good storytelling. When I watch the soaps and I see what is working and what clearly isn't, I can apply it to my own work.

What I am studying now is character. Character drives plot. Motive drives character.

Soaps are good venues to study character. Most of the shows have characters that range from believable to ridiculous, from transparent to mysterious, and from paragon to pure evil. They can be compelling in the hands of good writers and painful to watch in the hands of the uncaring.

My personal favorite characters are the ones with identity crises. Show me a character who is a stranger to himself and you have a viewer. How do you show aspects of a character and keep them hidden from that character? How do you let the viewer know what drives a character and leave the character in the dark or in denial about his motives? How much do you leave to the viewer's imagination?

Questions, questions, questions. How I love to speculate.

In the next sections, I will speculate about three characters whose identity crises caught my attention. From Days of Our Lives, I will examine Jack Devereaux, as portrayed by Matt Ashford. This character was onscreen for a long time, but is presently off the canvas. From One Life to Live, I will examine Victoria Lord Davidson, as portrayed by Erika Slezak. This character has a long rich history and a major mental illness that is often used to generate plot. Also from One Life to Live, I will examine Jessica Buchanan Brennan, as portrayed by Bree Williamson and formerly Erin Torpey. This character grew up onscreen and is presently central to an ongoing storyline. I will look at their history, what was revealed onscreen, how others interpreted the narratives, and how I would shape their motives if I were writing for them.

This is a thought experiment. I do not own the characters, nor do I wish to make any claims.

A Writer's Look at Characters in Soaps

I read a lot of message boards devoted to commentary on television shows. When a new character appears, there is excitement and hope. We want to be entertained. Soap operas have a loyal fan base, since most viewers are second or third generation fans, so there is more tolerance and patience than viewers show for primetime dramas. When hopes for a new or returning character are dashed, some viewers blame the actor for not having the talent to play complex roles and others blame the writers for how the character comes across on screen.

There is something compelling about a soap character. He is the combination of the writer who created him, the actor who portrays him, any other actor who portrayed him, the past and present story he drives or supports, and the interactions with other characters (and the actors who portray them) in his world. Chemistry between actors can affect the direction of storylines. Chemistry between characters can transcend bad writing. Some actors have the talent and charisma to dominate every scene, with or without dialogue.

How would you write for characters dependent on so many outside factors? I think writers may need to change directions in a story because it is not working out and knowing why it isn’t working would ensure the next version will work. There are only two ways to write for characters with so many variables. The first option is to base storylines on character history and traits that are constants and let the actors find ways to make the stories work. Most major problems occur when characters act out of character for no apparent reason. The second option is to make brainstorming character-driven stories a team effort. Bring in the actors involved in the potential storylines, sit them down with the writers who know their histories and work out the details before the scripts are written. Actors who have played their roles for decades know what their characters would or would not do in any given situation. New actors might appreciate direction from veterans.

I know that’s a lot of work, but the finished product is a show people are dying to watch.

A Writer's Look at Writing for Soaps

I watch daytime dramas. I don’t watch the same ones year after year. I watch a show that catches my interest and I will follow it until whatever caught my attention resolves, dissolves, or evolves into something I can’t stand to watch. I watch as a writer. How did the writers construct this storyline? How did they coordinate the intertwining storylines so that two disparate characters are going through the same kinds of problems without being repetitive? How did such a fresh, innovative idea go so wrong?

To my knowledge, daytime dramas have a head writer, an on-site writing staff, and off-site freelance writers. The head writer meets with the on-site writing staff to share ideas for future storylines. The head writer chooses witch storylines to use and writes an outline for the next 6-12 months. The on-site writing staffs flesh out the outline to a detailed synopsis and timeline. Once the synopsis is approved, the writers then develop expanded summaries for each storyline and decide who writes what storyline. Once the assignments are handed out, the writers work on scripts for each day their story will be on the air. A lot of writers are touching each script before the show airs. Unsurprisingly, mistakes happen.

As a writer, I look at the stories played out and I think of what is wrong and how to fix it. All good stories are character-driven. No exceptions. If someone is acting out of character, there must be a reason and the reader or viewer must know what it is, or at least have that fact acknowledged. Readers and writers have a contract; the reader agrees to suspend disbelief and the writer promises to present a good story with consistent rules. These rules govern character, plot, setting, and genre. If you promise your reader a love story and your main character kills his love interest, you have broken the contract. If your main character is the chair of her local chapter of PETA and she wears a fur coat to dinner at a steakhouse, you have broken the contract.

Writing for soaps must be challenging, in that the daily scriptwriters have incredibly tight restrictions on what they can or can’t write in order to not contradict previous and future scripts. Soap audiences appear to be more lenient and accepting of these restrictions. The problem is leniency should not be a loophole in the contract. Shows have bibles, books that give complete histories of each set and character, past and present, as well as complete detailed storylines from the show’s inception to present day. Each bible should be accurate and up-to-date. Each writer should own a copy, as should each actor. Take a weekend and read it. Use it as a reference. The writer responsible for making sure the scripts work together should also make sure they don’t contradict the show’s bible, like newspaper fact-checkers do before a story goes to press.

A writer lies for a living. The contract states the lie has to be believable.

What is 'A Writer's Look'?

I have stories in my head. They are constant background chatter from the moment I wake up until I fall asleep. The stories I dream are gone before I am awake enough to get them on paper. I am a storyteller by nature. When I look at the world, I see it as a writer. Everything I experience has story potential, from the way the barista at Starbuck’s wears her hair to the traffic pattern between my home and the local high school.

A large part of writing is editing. Seeing the world through a writer’s eye is also revising and editing for content. When I look at written stories, go to the movies, or watch television, part of me is breaking down what I view into its component parts: setting, character, and plot. I evaluate it as though it was a story I was asked to edit. What works in the story? What needs improvement?

People have mixed feelings about seeing movies with me.

I thought I would share my thoughts on aspects of stories I have seen as well as those I have read. I will be writing about characters and storylines I do not own or have any rights to change. These are thought experiments and their purpose is to tone the muscles of my imagination.

They may also be fun to read.