Q&A with Michael Logan

Logan: OK, Mr. Eplin, let's discuss this very interesting character evolution of yours.

Tom Eplin:They've really tried to make Jake more stable and less needy. For example, a needy Jake would have pressed the subject of sex, and it's really been his idea to abstain. I keep [comparing] this to what AW did with the character of Mac Cory. Jake is very Mac-like. They're heading him towards a more virtuous path. He's becoming the polar character of the show, instead of the loose cannon.

Logan: And you like this?

Tom: As long as they don't eliminate the other elements. He reminds me of a character whose fuse is now a lot longer. But I don't want to see them forget that he's still connected to a bomb. He has got to be able to come apart on some level, where he has to deal with his old emotions, his old temper. I'd like to see it come to the surface and have him deal with it in a different way than he has in the past.

Logan: In your mind, would the Vicky/Jake romance not have played as well if AW had acknowledged the past?

Tom: I'm not sure about that. I know there are people online who are upset about it. I think that they're making a little too much out of it, because today's Vicky and Jake are different people. If I were to suddenly run across somebody I knew in high school, someone I'd been with romantically, we'd have a different relationship now. You bring your life experience to the table, and when 10 or 15 years have passed, I think you become a different person, and it's just not the same relationship.

Logan: Yes, but if two people got together romantically after many years apart, they would still mention that prior relationship here or there. There would be some references, like, an occasional, "Gosh, it's so different this time around." Something would be said. So it's interesting that AW has chosen not to refer to it. Nobody's denying the past, but nobody's mentioning it, either.

Tom: Like you, I'm not sure it would have hurt to mention it. I do think I could have played that. And it wouldn't have to be a big written deal. I could play that by walking into a room. I wouldn't need lines to play that. I'm not so sure that we haven't derailed ourselves a bit by my not playing that. Two or three scenes and people would go, "OK, that's what Jake is thinking, that's what's going on." And I just didn't do it. I just didn't do it. Although I don't know how or if it would have altered the fruition of the story.

Tom: You're talking about something that happened five or six regimes ago. It's a fine line to walk. We're aware of the online banter and by no means intend to trivialize rape. But I think this show has been responsible. Back when Jensen took over the part, we had scenes where they basically said, "It's time to heal and move on." Also, after the rape itself, Jake went into counseling. Jake was in denial, and Marley put the matter right in front of him, and he decided to get help. But the problem may be that [the counseling] happened off-camera. But to bring that back in a big way? I don't see how it would weave into the love story they're trying to tell. I'm not so sure how valid that would be. In fact, I think it would be almost damaging. We're doing a soap opera. I just don't see the dramatic value of bringing it up once a character has admitted it. Now, originally, they could have chosen to go another way. Jake could have remained in denial and that could have been the story. But that's not what they did back then. The response is a little confusing to me. We have very outspoken fans and whenever the show seems to get on any kind of roll, it gets derailed by things like this. The Powers That Be get nervous and back off a story. I think we need to take the Bill Bell approach -- not bow to the pressure from the audience and just go through with it.