Mona Kane Croft

That might be an idea. No idea how old Stephen was in 1978-79, or how much detail he'd remember. Lemay did a fairly detailed account of the creation and cancellation of Lovers and Friends in his book about AW. He also discussed how L&F was revamped into FRFP and how he was not offered the head writer's role at that point. Plus of course, Lemay said plenty about AW's 90-minute fiasco and how he finally resigned just a month or two after the expansion. I have no idea how much of Lemay's account could legally be used in the new book. But certainly there would be a way to reference at least some of that material. It would be terrible to just ignore everything Lemay said about these topics in his book. Additionally, I believe Tom King is still living. He was an assistant writer under Lemay, and then took over head writing at AW during the 90-minute era when Lemay left. No idea if King worked at L&F or FRFP. I'd love to hear King's experience working with Lemay, and then hear what King was asked to do at AW by TPTB when he took over for Lemay.

This will be interesting, but without interviewing Paul Rauch and Harding Lemay (both deceased) I think it will ring a little hollow -- because those two were the creative forces behind this era on all three shows. Actor interviews will be interesting, of course, but none of the actors will have the inside information that Lemay and Rauch would have provided. Interesting era to explore though, as the 90-minute AW essentially ruined the show's audience numbers and much of its quality.

I can remember two other instances of this: one on ATWT in the early 1990s, there were two Johns -- John Dixon and John Eldridge. Around the same time on Y&R, there were also two Johns -- John Abbot and a lawyer named John. I think his name may have been John Sena, or something like that. There have no doubt been other occasions when this has happened, but those are two I personally remember.

Not sure if this has been posted, but the podcast, "Terror at Collinwood" has recently dropped a 60-minute interview with Jerry Lacy who played Rick Latimer on Love of Life during the Claire Labine era, and he was the final of several actors who had played Rick over many years. I'm unable to post a link. But you can search YouTube for "Terror at Collinwood. Or go to your favorite podcast channel and search for Terror at Collinwood Penny Dreadful. Great interview with Jerry Lacy.

Yeah, they passed it off as, "We're going to wait a year or so before we write the death of Bert -- out of respect to Charita Bauer. " But in reality it was -- "Nobody wants to write Bert's death. It's a no-win for the writer who finally pens it. Nothing good can possibly come of this, so let's just pass the buck. . . Whoever is writing next year can handle it." LOL.

I think I could probably write the predictable meeting of Leo and Steve: Steve is walking through Horton Square, while Leo sits at a table drinking coffee. Leo looks up and notices Steve. Under his breath Leo says, "Hello daddy." LOL.

Does Steve have some connection to Leo? I did not hear Steve mention Leo.

Is today (11/3) the final episode for Marie and Steve? I'd love to see them hang around for a few days and interact with more characters.

And so begins the brief but important return of the Matthews family. Liz, Russ, Josie, and Olivia, plus appearances by Pat (Beverly Penberthy) and Alice (Jacquie Courtney) during the 25th anniversary week. Sadly Donna Swajeski demonstrated little interest in writing the Matthews as important characters. So their resurgence lasted only about two years.

No problem, and I'm sorry I misunderstood. Somehow I thought the criticism had been against the recently posted episode from 1953. And actually, I thought that episode was pretty damned good.

Well to put that style of writing into perspective -- some TV sitcoms were still being written like radio comedies well into the mid-1960s (Ozzie and Harriett, Hazel, and Petticoat Junction, for example). And to be honest, most of those sitcoms were still rather funny. So radio-style writing was/is not necessarily bad writing. Give me Love of Life from 1953 anytime! It can't be as bad as any of the four remaining US television soaps in 2024.

I think Lemay centered several AW characters during his short run in 1988. He certainly made Felicia and Lisa more interesting and believable. He centered Rachel by giving her "bite" back to her. I think he helped center Donna, after the fiasco with Reginald, by strengthening her and making her more of an entitled snob -- as she had been when first created. He probably would have done even more with Donna, had Anna Stuart still been in the role. He made Sam believable as a real artist. He was working more with Marley. And I agree, he did interesting things with Amanda. I could go on and on. I really wish he had stayed on as head writer for at least three or four years.

Both Tom Hughes and Dan Stewart were sorased way to quickly. I read a long time ago they were the two fastest sorased soap opera kids in the history of soaps. But that may have changed since it was published. As I recall, there was some pretty quick sorasing in the 1990s on a few soaps.

How on earth would Jordan or Ian even know who Heather was? And what motive would they have to drive Sharon over the edge emotionally? Assuming their goal is to hurt the Newmans, someone should tell them Sharon is a long-time ex-Newman, and neither Victor or Nikki are particularly fond of Sharon. This head writer continually brings on evil outside forces to make problems for the beloved characters -- time after time. Doesn't he know the best drama comes from characters creating their own problems? Y&R really does not need a constant parade of mustache-twirling villains. What the show needs is some believable human drama and some romance.

Thanks for the comment, Contessa. Sometimes I get my hackles up when I perceive someone is hoping to crack-down on spoilers in a discussion group for historic cancelled soaps. You are a soap opera historian and I am too, perhaps to a lesser degree. And in these discussions of cancelled soap operas (some cancelled decades ago), I want to read and learn as much about a particular show's history as I can -- spoilers be damned. On the other hand, I can understand why someone might want to avoid spoilers. But as I said in my previous post, avoiding spoilers should be the reader's responsibility, not the responsibility of the other posters -- especially for cancelled soaps. Many of the AW related details you and I have discussed over the past years could have never been shared, if we were expected to avoid historical spoilers in our discussions. Can you imagine?? I may have misunderstood Maxim's intent when spoilers were mentioned. But I just don't want these Cancelled Soap threads to become spoiler free. Because in discussions about history, avoiding spoilers is deadly to the conversation. Of course this is all my opinion, but I've experienced groups that became spoiler-free, and they all withered-on-the-vine almost immediately.

Who is HE? I believe not discussing spoilers for any television show that has been off the air for five-years or more is silly. It only serves to kill conversation. Can you imagine trying to have an intelligent conversation about Dark Shadows while avoiding spoilers? It would be ludicrous. How about discussing Edge of Night in 2024, but avoiding spoilers?? That would be a dead conversation. How could we possibly have a thorough conversation about Agnes Nixon's work on Another World without divulging spoilers? Or how about discussing Harding Lemay's time at AW without divulging spoilers. It would not be a discussion at all. And 90 percent of the people on this message board would have left years ago for lack of interest. Avoiding spoilers should be the responsibility of the reader, not the posters.

Swajeski is probably in my top 5 AW head writers. My earlier post may have sounded very negative, but that's because I do see a lot of her faults. But I feel generally positive about her work. She did write complete plots (for the most part) with a beginning, middle, and an end -- which I appreciate. I think she needed more guidance from somebody, because she was very green and had some bad writing habits that could have used some critique. Maybe a more experienced co-head writer, or an executive story consultant with enough influence to guide her for a couple of years. And I agree, Ann Heche really brought some talent and fire to the younger cast. That woman could play anything and make it believable.

I have mixed feelings about Swajeski. It seemed she did a pretty good job while she was following Harding Lemay's storyline projections. But as soon as she used that up, the stuff she created on her own was very mediocre. And many of the new characters she created were created around a gimmick. Derek Dane was "beauty and the beast", Frankie Frame was a psychic private eye, Lucas was a reformed gangster, etc, etc. She often gave her characters a gimmick that made them less believable. Some of the characters out-lived their gimmick and became believable despite Swajeski (Frankie for example), but most of them did not. Sawjeski certainly wasn't AW's worst head writer, but she was far from the best. At least she stayed with the show for a relatively long time, and slowed down the merry-go-round of head writers that preceded and followed her. This is all just my opinion.

Does anyone remember how and under what circumstances Lucinda Walsh arrived in Oakdale? Did she originally intend to move there permanently? Or did she visit for a while, and decide to stay on? What was her first storyline? And which head writer created the character?

Yes, exactly. And Rauch probably replied, "I'll think about it." LOL.

I believe in some interview (video or print) , she actually stated it was Michael Nader. But even then, I sorta thought it was just wishful casting on Joan's part. I really never believed Michael Nader had been cast, or even seriously considered. I'm not even convinced Roger's return was seriously considered. I think Joan may have taken a conversation with Paul Rauch too seriously -- while to Rauch, that conversation may have been nothing more than "thinking out loud."

Courtney would have been a great recast as Hope, as long as Don Stewart's Mike was never intended to return (otherwise, Courtney and Stewart were contemporaries). I think Courtney could have convincingly played Peter Simon's niece (without explaining their similar ages). And more importantly, Courtney could play a mix of sincerity and strength that Hope needed, plus she would have been a good foil for Ron Raines' Allan. She also had experience playing a P&G legacy character, giving her the perfect Bauer Power. Sadly, this was a road not taken.

I am very excited for this new forward step in daytime! Fans have had too many depressing years lately. We all need to support this new venture.

It is my understanding that a couple of formerly reputable soap opera websites have recently been purchased by larger companies whose existing sites have a history of being very sensational and exploitive. I don't recall the names of the soap opera sites. But when I read the announcements, I recognized the sites as ones I have visited in the past. So I think we can assume we will see more and more of this type of "gossipy" postings on soap sites that we have relied upon for accuracy in the past.

When Vanessa and Henry joined GL, did they move to Springfield from somewhere else? Or were they said to have always been in Springfield? Were they already acquainted with some characters? Or did they have to be introduced to everyone (in the script dialogue) as if they were new in town?