DRW50

The Emily Ann stuff was about 1990 I think. I still wonder how people felt about Terrell Anthony temping as Tad Martin.

It's too bad Cathy's character seemed to become defined solely by her role in the Viki/Joe story. I wonder what they were considering when casting Harmon. A return to the days of the show's relevancy campaigns? Or just because she was a lead on another show and they were poaching from NBC at the time?

I mostly remember the scenes with Natalie and Pat, which I thought were very good. In a lot of ways I'm sorry that Natalie and her legacy amounted to just being "Doll."

1985-1987 seems to be the time with the start of the biggest transition and the wandering tone. Back when Soapnet used to run old episodes and they'd show a few glimpses of that time it was very tough to engage. I remember sort of cringing at the episode where Erica had to drive Travis' race car, and cringing at anything with Michael Tylo in that odd role.

Peggy was certainly a superior writer to Schnessel, but I think the show was still in good hands even with him. The stories weren't as sharp, but they featured charismatic and likeable performers, and were treated seriously which made all the difference (and is why the 1988 story was much better than the 1968 stuff, IMO). Renee was a good match for Asa. Gabrielle and Tina were still fascinating, and the show succeeded in maturing Tina while keeping her naughty edge. Max was at his best and the triangle with Gabrielle and Megan worked. Even though Eterna was a very odd decision, to say the least, Megan was a delight - my only complaint is I wish they'd taken a little longer for her to become close to Viki. Sarah was a wonderful ingenue, something that soaps always struggle with, Fraternity Row was fun, the baby switch story was generally watchable and full of interesting people. I do think there were mistakes, but nothing serious. I think it was Schnessel's death which seemed to lurch the show in a more hazy and unpalatable direction.

For me it's the one 1990 episode I've seen that seemed the most alien. Jeremy and Trevor in a brawl at Stuart's museum...poor, delicious Nancy Addison (RIP) in bizarre B&W fantasies about torturing Natalie...Eric the clown. It just seemed grafted on.

It's always interesting to me that Cathy was played by actresses who don't have the usual soap look, are very offcenter, at least until the end, with Jennifer Harmon. For me the Rauch stuff is about the characters, not the stories, even though many would call those years rigidly plot-driven. There were so many strong and interesting characters you could relate to or entertained you. And even with the pervasive misogyny and violence the female characters - what soaps should be about - still had strength and drive.

The early '80s were seen as a slumping time for the show. I'd still like to watch them, but the '60s are what seem to be the most fascinating. Just for the chance of seeing Ellen Holly and Doris Belack...

I guess there were such high expectations for Monty. It does seem like she had to face a lot of bad luck. Phelps is more of a figurehead and Frons/Guza seemed to have total control. It's funny that a lot of the issues in her second run (Geary hating Luke; wanting to get rid of the Quartermaines) ended up sucking the life out of the show under Guza/JFP.

Shockingly, after telling people no 500 times, having absolutely nothing in common with the GOP base, and being a middlingly popular governor beloved mostly for yelling at reporters and hating unions, Chris Christie has said he won't run for President. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65094.html What will the hyperventilating media do now that another of their fantasies failed? I guess they could try to draft McCain 2012. They loved him. Or they could get Sarah Palin. I guess this will lead to yet more stories about elites begging the superstar that is Paul Ryan.

What puzzles me at times are which of Obama's policies most drive the GOP to say he's the worst ever, and bring up Carter, or in the words of Hank Williams Jr, Hitler. The Bush tax cuts that were supposed to be a huge boon to our economy are still there. Obamacare is a milder version of what Mitt Romney, who has led most GOP primary polls for a long time, passed, and continues to defend. The terror policies are basically the same. Bush passed a larger stimulus than Obama ever did, with Republican support. So I guess that leaves muttering over raising taxes on the rich (which will never happen), guns, abortion and gay rights, and a lot of hysteria over climate change. And giving money to people who have been hit by natural disasters, which, until a few months ago, was not seen as a horrible thing.

With the filibuster, one of the 60 senators terminally ill, another (Franken) not seated for months due to a court battle, and another (Lieberman) a senator who had divided loyalties, at best, I don't think it was ever total control. I think Obama should have pushed harder while he had more of a chance. But he wanted to be friends with the GOP, and wanted to be above it all. The problem is that the GOP said, outright, that they were not interested in bipartisanship. Mitch McConnell said their main goal was to defeat Obama. I don't ever know why Obama or anyone else ever goes along with the fantasy that bipartisanship is possible. I think Obama did, mostly because of delusions or to make himself look good. Only recently has he really changed this. Probably not very much. I mostly wonder if things would be even worse.

John McCook is a handsome guy but I can't say I ever found him sexy, or his pairings on the show to be sexy. He just doesn't have that spark, for me. The only guy I ever thought was hot on B&B was Scott Thompson Baker. I remember an episode where he and Karen were going to have sex and Sally and the gang walked in just as his shorts were flying across the room. Keith and Kevin weren't much at all. I don't even remember it played as any type of attraction. Keith looked out for Macy and clearly cared for her, but I don't think it was reciprocated. Kevin was just there to make some appearances for PSA reasons. He was also fond of Macy. Sly was just kind of a fun guy, a bit oily, but charming, sometimes. He was more of a rascal. It wasn't until the end that he became, inexplicably, a monster. 1996 was the beginning of the end for B&B.

Betsy looks very mousy. I still wonder if Chandler would have been best in another role, maybe a long lost son of Rick's or something.

Thanks for the article. I find it interesting that she uses the word "negativism," as this is the word Al Rabin used when he went on a firing spree at DAYS around this time. Was she having a dig at him, or was this some common term in the industry? I've wondered for a while why viewers so quickly dropped GH during Monty's second, very woeful run. GH had such a loyal fan base, but many just seemed to have enough.

Thanks for sharing this. It's overwritten, as typical of Hinsey, but I agree with most of what she said. They did use Karen very badly, and Sheila was a fun character in these years. They dropped Keith and Kevin very quickly. It's a shame. But a good example of why I don't think B&B has ever been what it could have been. They always take the easy road.

A May 1992 SOD critique of GH, by Donna Hoke Kahwaty Acting B+ Humor A Troubleshooting B Couples C Casting A- It's been a bumpy ride for GENERAL HOSPITAL. GH had a firm grip on second place in the ratings, despite many changes in leadership, when the announcement came that Gloria Monty was returning to the show's helm. The press touted her return as the "Second Coming," predicting that she would restore GH to the glory days it had experienced during the reign of Luke and Laura. Perhaps GH would even reclaim its number-one spot. It wasn't to be. What went wrong is anybody's guess. Many people claim that Monty's first mistake was getting rid of too many characters foo fast. (And the producer wasn't exactly dealt a full deck - several of the most popular departees left of their own volition). Monty also caught flak for bringing back Tony Geary, not as Luke, but as his boring blue-collar cousin with an equally lackluster family. (Again, it may not be fair to place the blame wholly on Monty. Word had it Geary wasn't interested in reprising his old role.) Whatever the reason, GH's ratings didn't rise; they plummeted. A year later, Monty left the show. Now, GH is in a state of recovery, and it's hard to say what the show is "about" right now. While GH has made great strides, there is still room for improvement - largely because, in the midst of its reconstruction, the show lost Finola Hughes (Anna) and Tristan Rogers (Robert), two of its standout performances. GH has always had a talent for capitalizing on breakout characters (Luke Anna, Robert, the Quartermaines, Duke, Lucy); they gave the show a larger-than-life quality it now lacks. Without these characters, too many people in Port Charles are clones of people on other shows, with the exception, of course, of the Quartermaine family. No other show in daytime or prime time has a family like the Quartermaines. That eccentric, over-the-top family has remained witty, fresh and biting, thanks in large part to the talented actors who portray its members: David Lewis (Edward), Anna Lee (Lila), Stuart Damon (Alan), Leslie Charleson (Monica) and Jane Elliot (Tracy). Wally Kurth as Ned is an excellent recast and, now, GH has seen fit to add another dimension to this versatile family by aging the Quartermaine kids and casting likable actors who really look like brothers in the parts. Watching Alan and Monica contend with wayward A.J. is a new treat. From the Quartermaine camp comes GH's only successful story of the moment, the Paul/Jenny/Ned/Tracy quadrangle. This story works because the Quartermaines are involved and because it has a lot of mileage in it. We can understand why unloved Tracy would want to have handsome Paul at her side, yet we sympathize with Paul's predicament. Unfortunately, other couples on the show aren't working nearly as well. GH was quick to recognize that Mac (John J. York) and Dominique (Tawny Fere Ellis) lacked chemistry, and replaced Ellis. But the new Dom, Shell Danielson, while more seasoned, has no more chemistry with York than Ellis did. Part of the problem is Mac - brought on as a sexy rogue, he's become completely domesticated. If recent scenes between Holly, Mac and Bill are any indication, GH seems to have recognized Mac and Dominique's flaws and is moving in the direction of a Bill/Holly/Mac triangle. It's a move that would certainly capitalize on the rapport between Emma Samms and Tony Geary, but would it be in the best interest of GH? Tony Geary is turning in powerful performances as Bill; in his hands, the potential for the character is virtually limitless. And Emma Samms is even lovelier and more fetching as Holly than she was last time around. But Bill and Julia were a strong couple; they were on their way up. Why break them up just because Bill and Holly might be better? Crystal Carson (Julia) is too charming to be sacrificed. Emma Samms could probably be appealing with just about any leading man; Geary is equally capable of making almost any leading lady look good. So why throw Samms and Geary together as one super couple, when separately, the show could have two wonderful couples? Make that three - it's just a matter of time before Mac is paired with the right woman. Are we going to see Holly torn between her dead husband's brother and her ex-lover's look-alike cousin - a second-hand Robert, a second-hand Luke? Hopefully, GH will concentrate on forging ahead, not re-creating the past. On the other hand, maneuvering Scott (Kin Shriner) into Julia's life in a business partnership is clever - these two could be a lively pair. The wonderful Shriner hasn't been used nearly enough, and the departure of Lynn Herring (another devastating loss, which left Tracy without a foil and Scott without a love interest) could diminish his role further. And on the teen front, Robin's crush on Jason Q. - in the hands of the capable Kimberly McCullough - gives GH the first real teen love storyline it's seen since Laura Vining and Scott Baldwin. The fancy footwork to keep Robin on the show after her parents' death was worth it. Still, the show needs more young people in the twenty-something age group. Ned and Jenny are the only front-burner characters in this category, though their union has brought a resurgence of activity for the corresponding back-burner players - Sheila, Eric and Meg, and, arguably, Amy (although Ms Vining is certainly no longer twenty-something, she'll always look, and act, as though she's right out of high school). Amy is the perfect person to be at the center of a rare GH social issue story concerning breast implants. When it comes to back-burner players in general, GH has always had a strong supporting crew. Performers like John Beradino (Steve Hardy) and Norma Connolly (Ruby) could certainly carry a story of their own, but they remain back-burner, lending depth to GH's everyday scenes. Unfortunately, Sean (John Reilly), who used to be a dynamic leading man, has been reduced to a caricature savior. Perhaps as police commissioner he'll be put to better use. It's almost as though being part of Sean's storyline is the kiss of death: Witness Tiffany (the enjoyably flamboyant Sharon Wyatt), and now Connor (Michael Lynch). Once the poor guy was revealed to be Sean's son, his story went nowhere. GH is in something of a holding pattern as the new direction of the show crystalizes. Obviously, the powers that be are responding to viewer displeasure and are hard at work rerouting characters and stories. As jarring as the loss of several major stars must be to fans, it could prove to be a blessing in disguise. GH is full of seasoned, talented and charismatic performers who remained idle while Robert and Anna took center stage. As their characters are developed, good stories will follow. GUIDING LIGHT learned its lesson when it lost Kim Zimmer's Reva: Other characters had not been sufficiently developed and the show suffered - initially. But the show identified its weakness, spread the wealth and has emerged as one of daytime's finest hours. GENERAL HOSPITAL has the tools and talent to do the same.

There was some criticism of Y&R during the Bell years for lack of stories intersecting. SPW praised Kay Alden for integrating stories. It did bother me a little at the time, but nothing serious. I can see the idea of too many possibilities, but I think that was a good thing, because it showed characters had chemistry with each other. The only time this started to annoy me was the time when Bill Bell had written out Hope, wasn't doing Victor/Nikki, yet was going to try Victor/Christine. Thankfully he dropped this, which his daughter in law and others never would have had the integrity to do.

Please share the B&B article. I don't notice continuity too much but that's a good insight. I was surprised at the part about how a villain isn't good enough if you don't ever root for them, and that David could never be redeemed. In a lot of ways I think that was David's appeal - that he wasn't someone we were supposed to secretly love. That type of pointless ambiguity has killed Y&R.

As long as he never said "We're a part of each other," I'm happy.

Obama spent years playing BFF with Republicans. The Republicans said at the start that their only goal was to make sure he lost re-election. If anything he's been too cordial about them. This is a party that spends more time investigating "fraud" in school lunches than they do in solving problems. If Clinton had been elected people would say they should have gone for Obama. Given her support for the free trade policies that destroyed a lot of the economy, I doubt things would be different.

I agree about the lack of heat, although for me that's true for them in most of their roles. I do like the idea of the story - Lily thought she was growing up only to realize her fantasy was a nightmare. I just wish they'd had a little more time and they'd done more with Derek's sister and father. It was very refreshing to see Charles Keating not hamming it up.

January 1992 Digest critique of Y&R, by Donna Hoke Kahwaty. Continuity A+ RIsk-Taking B Character Development C Acting A Realism C There's a reason why THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS remains number one week after week. In fact, there are several reasons. For starters, THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS has the distinction of being the longest-running daytime series with a single, focused voice at the helm - William J. Bell, the show's creator and executive producer (if it wren't for sister soap THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, Y&R would be the only show to enjoy such consistency.) The benefits of such a stable soap environment are apparent. There are no massive overhauls, no housecleanings that obliterate storylines and actors, and no wild shifts in storytelling perspective. The result is a well-constructed show that wins viewers with its steadiness. Because Bell knows every nuance of every story that went before, he rarely overlooks history in favor of a sensational plot. Bell has too much invested in every character he's created; he wouldn't sacrifice one for the sake of story. Viewers may not like certain things in a story, or they may find themselves having to briefly suspend disbelief (Really, how could Sheila switch those babies?), but they'll never find huge loopholes, storylines will never be dropped right in the middle and characters won't suddenly switch personalities to facilitate a story. Although viewers complain about long, drawn-out storylines, long arcs actually contribute to the show's stability. Because Y&R's plots take considerable time to resolve themselves, the show can make corrective changes before anyone's noticed the story has gone awry, and without leaving obvious, annoying loose ends in its wake. In addition to storyline stability, viewers enjoy actor durability. Actors stay on this show for years and years, providing a comfort level that other shows just can't achieve, no matter how many past favorites they lure back to the show. Viewers who have watched Genoa City's residents for years feel as though they know these characters - perhaps as well as they know their own family members. When this bonding between character and viewer occurs, small moments like the reaction of Traci's father to her marriage are just as compelling as the high drama that other shows create to generate quick interest. When Jill knocks on Kay's door, viewers can't wait to see what will happen when Kay answers it; that level of anticipation, generated by a seemingly insignificant act, is the result of a thorough knowledge of the characters. Families on YOUNG AND RESTLESS act like families - they're alternately combative, loving or jealous - which provides a frame of reference amid Y&R's signature glamour. As long as the characters on YOUNG AND RESTLESS remain in Genoa City, viewers will continue to care about them - and watch them - without fires, earthquakes or gimmicks. Much of the credit for character continuity goes to Bell, who is very protective of the actors, he casts. Hit or miss is not a game that Bill Bell plays. Since stories are in place before an actor is hired, Bell knows what he wants and casts accordingly. There are so few miscasts that YOUNG AND RESTLESS boasts a strong and immensely talented cast all the way from young Heather Tom (Victoria) to stalwart Jeanne Cooper (Katherine). As a result, there are few of the jarring recasts other shows implement to make a character fit a story that's just been written (ALL MY CHILDREN is a prime offender in this regard; SANTA BARBARA ran through three C.C.'s before it latched on to Jed Allan). There are times on Y&R, as on any show, when recasts are inevitable. And newcomers to this show are required to make the grade. If there is a criticism to be made of some of the major recasts - Jess Walton as Jill, Brenda Epperson as Ashley and Peter Bergman as Jack - it is only that these actors are less quirky than their predecessors. With this group, Jill is less neurotic, Ashley is more wholesome and Jack is less acerbic. While all are wonderful, appealing actors - two have won Emmys - their less distinctive styles have taken away a bit of the show's individuality. The remaining unique characters, such as Eric Braeden's Victor, Jeanne Cooper's Kay and Victoria Rowell's Drucilla, have become that much more important as the Abbott family has become more mainstream; Y&R's lighter moments, such as Leanne's crazy stunts, or David Kimble requesting to look like David Hasselhoff (ex-Snapper) are also more integral, because in general, Y&R characters do not have a great deal of depth. Instead, they have rich pasts. What is Paul William's like? He's a detective with a sullied past and he thinks about Lauren. (And, for a sexy and popular leading man played by the talented Doug Davidson, he's very underused as of late.) If Nikki goes into a room and Victor is there, she thinks about Victor. Many of the key characters on this show are defined by their significant relationships in the past, as they relate to their significant relationships in the present. Viewers always wonder if characters are in love with the person they are supposed to be in love with, or if they're still pining for the person from the past. Does Nikki still love Victor? Does Ashley still love Brad? Does Paul still love Lauren? Is it impossible for Jack to help Nikki, simply because he's not Victor? Although it's refreshing not to have a writer's point of view shoved down our throats, there is such a thing as too many possibilities open. Because its characters (with several notable exceptions) tend to be shallow, &R's latest attempt at creating a villain of substance failed. David Kimble was a cardboard fiend. The fact that he was evil was his only motivation. Never once did we root for him to succeed in his villainy, something that must happen in order for a villain to endure. Kimble could never have been redeemed and, in the end, Y&R had no choice but to kill him off. Because character focus is so tight, characters seldom have conversations with anyone outside their storylines. There is no finely woven tapestry on Y&R; rather, stories seem to stand alone. Even Lauren's tragedy is not drawing Paul as much into the fray as it should. Unless a classic ripple effect is in place, one story doesn't generate interest in another. But these criticisms ironically also explain why YOUNG AND RESTLESS stands out. It's uncomplicated, and it boasts a straight plotline that never convolutes. Some may say that Y&R's slow pace and repetitive dialogue mean the show doesn't take chances, but those who watch the show know this isn't true. Teens having sex, "KILLER" carved in a forehead and babies dying are stories that risk offending viewers, but Y&R knows they're more than that - they're stories about humanity. Victoria's story of teen sex was excellent; it was surprisingly realistic, and demonstrates that a certain degree of realism can work withing YOUNG AND RESTLESS's glamorous context. Y&R is careful not to go too far. It's grittier social situations - like crack addiction and AIDS - often end a little too perfectly. Yes, Cricket, Julie and Danny went to see crack babies, but Julie conveniently miscarried before she gave birth to one herself. Alcoholic Nikki was always impeccably dressed. She even escaped from an alcohol rehab center to dress up in a Phantom of the Opera costume. Reality whitewash also comes in the form of luxurious clothes and lush sets. It's not real, but that's precisely what many viewers look for in a soap. Y&R is the perfect escape.

What bothered you?

It's hard to believe they did all this planning for a story no one cared about, with a new and pointless character as the killer. I wonder if they even plan now.