Mona Kane Croft

With all the vodka and alcoholism references, is it possible Claire and Aunt Jordon have something to do with Nikki's past as an alcoholic?  Did Nikki ever kill anyone while driving drunk?  Or hurt anyone in some other way, during her heavy alcohol use?  Perhaps Claire and Aunt Jordan  are connected to Nikki through her addiction.  Who knows??   

27 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

How did the idea of Iris being adopted  come through at the time?

It seemed a bit out of the blue-one of those major plot points that had never been mentioned before eg I forgot to mention that i had been married before until my ex turns up.

I watched the "Amanda is born, and Iris is adopted" episode live, and it did certainly come "out of the blue," with no foreshadowing whatsoever.  At the time, it did seem a bit too plot-driven for Another World, and Lemay's style of nearly plotless writing.   But I think the fans accepted it because we were starving for any kind of real storyline. Just as we had accepted the Sven storyline a few months earlier. "Please give us a real plot, Mr Lemay -- please . . pretty please."  so he finally gave it to us, and we accepted it.  

Within a few weeks , viewers saw how well crafted this new plot was coming along, and suddenly we we were completely engaged.  Who was Iris's real mother? And would Iris ever find her??

20 minutes ago, j swift said:

It has been over a decade since I read Eight Years in Another World (I checked my Amazon purchase and I bought it in 2011), so I didn't remember that detail - thanks @Mona Kane Croft & @Khan

Harding Lemay writing a Jewish mother for Iris in 1978-1979 was a bold move!  That's pretty inspired.  Initially, I thought the idea of exploring Iris's conception (and the later retcon) was unnecessary, but if the plan was based on giving Iris a mother who would destroy her sense of identity, I think it is genius. I cannot imagine a writer taking that kind of risk today. 

The later retcon (in 1989) was unnecessary, and frankly insulting to the long-term viewers.  We will probably never know if the retcon was written by Lemay (who had left-behind his long-term story projections), or by Donna Swajeski (who was credited as head-writer during the retcon explanation episodes).    

Yes, Lemay's idea was genius.  And yes, no writer today would take that kind of risk, because soap operas no longer take themselves seriously.  When was the last time you cried during a soap opera scene?  That's a serious question . . .

33 minutes ago, j swift said:

Speaking of mothers, by modern standards, do you think the character of Sylvie Kosloff was coded as Jewish?

Clearly, as a member of the tribe, I am not speaking derisively.  However, she was from New York, and she worked in the discount garment business which are two commonly coded devices for characters who were probably Jewish, but they never mentioned it on screen.  It would have been an interesting issue if Iris, who identified as an upper crust WASP, had a Jewish mother.  I recall much of the story was plot driven, rather than an opportunity for self-reflection on behalf of Iris.  But, when I read the synopsis, Sylvie's cultural origins were among my first reactions.

Of course, Sylvie was Jewish.  Harding Lemay says in his book that he created Sylvie as a Jewish character, and he wanted to write Iris as anti-Semetic (ashamed of her Jewish biological mother).  But NBC or P&G balked at the idea, so he simply never mentioned the word Jew or Jewish in any of the scripts, but continued to write Sylvie exactly as he had planned.  Sylvie was Jewish, most certainly.    

The problem for TPTB wasn't Sylvie being Jewish.  The big problem was allowing Iris to be anti-Semetic. So all references to Judaism were dropped from the scripts, but Sylvie was written and played as Jewish, and Iris's disgust was obvious but unexplained -- especially during the early months after Sylvie's introduction.   

14 minutes ago, Soaplovers said:

 That's why I bought Rachel's relationship with Carl because 1993 was a year of incredible change/loss for Rachel.  She lost Ada, almost lost Cory Publishing, and then was basically pushed out by Amanda.. so she went to NYC to recharge and had Loretta as a surrogate mom.  Loretta didn't have the history with Rachel that Ada did so even if Loretta had reminded her that Carl was bad news.. Rachel wouldn't have listened.

Also, the only reason I could think of that Rachel was cool with Ada's close relationships with Nancy/Clarice, plus was accepting of her mom's marriages was because Rachel wasn't abandoned by Ada.  She was abandoned by her father so her outlook was different.  In a weird way, Rachel and Iris were more alike then either would admit... both had daddy issues, both had abandonment issues, and both didn't always parent their children effectively.

 

Damn.  Are you Harding Lemay returned from the dead?  You have a great understanding of psychological drama!  Please write me a soap . . .

5 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Here's 2 pictures of Rachel's other half-sister, Pammy. 

 

Interesting.  I wonder if Pamela Toll was still acting throughout the duration of Another World.   She could have resumed in the role.   

34 minutes ago, j swift said:

The mind reels over whether the 1984-1985 plans for Pam Davis were grafted on to another character (like Donna), or just scraped.

Because imagine if Pam was re-introduced as the ex-wife of Carl Hutchins? (mind blown).

Fantasy casting: Sharon Gabet as Pamela Davis, rather than as Brittany Peterson (or whoever she was).  Pam comes to Bay City, a difficult woman who considers herself a failure -- resentful of her wealthy older sister who never offered help.  To make matters worse, Rachel doesn't even recognize Pam at their first meeting.  Relationship off to a great start!!

32 minutes ago, j swift said:

It does make you wonder if any of TPTB ever thought of bringing Gerald or Pammy Davis back to Bay City.  It would have been a good plot twist to have Gerald be Justine’s father and have him plotting with Justine against Rachel.  At least it would have explained the resemblance between Rachel and Justine.

There was a report in the soap press back around 1984-85, that AW was planning to bring Pam Davis to the canvas.  Supposedly casting process had already begun.  But the plans were obviously changed, and it never happened.

1 hour ago, j swift said:

@Mona Kane Croft I am bemused that you still insist Mac was wealthier than Steve three years after you sparked a huge debate on the topic of Mac vs Steve's estimated incomes

Although, at this point I would agree that even though Steve bought Iris's mansion, and owned a big company, his wealth was fleeting and Mac's was generational.

 

Just my opinion but here is my logic:  The people who wrote Steve Frame's return from the dead obviously knew almost nothing about Steve's real history. And I'd speculate, very little about Mac Cory's real history.   So when they tried to say Steve was richer than Mac, it just seemed ridiculous to me, and I had no respect for those writers. They wrote Steve almost as if he was an entirely new character, with an existing name. So when I talk about Steve and Mac and their history, I am usually referring to their history until about 1979-80 -- really their origin stories. And at that point Frame Enterprises was a significantly smaller company than Cory Publishing, which had offices all over the world.  Plus Steve was a self made millionaire, while Mac's fortune went back at least two generations before him.   I do realize much of that was altered by later writers.  There were some idiot writers who even tried to say Mac had been a self made millionaire.  I'm really not trying to insist on anything, I am just old and grumpy.  LOL

2 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Actually, it is kinda strange how Gerald was just left in prison lol 

Yes, especially for such a minor offense, perjury.  And such a shame he never returned to AW.  Gerald was always after Steve Frame's money.  Can you imagine how he would have reacted if he knew Rachel had married the even wealthier MacKenzie Cory??!!

2 minutes ago, j swift said:

I wonder if there was ever a reference to the spin-off characters once they were cancelled?

Does Robert ever reference his family or their business?  Does Ada ever wonder what happened to Rachel's father?  Did Rachel never call the Cushings to see how their marriage turned out after she and Mac counseled them? 

I don't even recall them referencing Somerset or Point Clair as geographical locations after their cancellations.

BTW Point Clair being in Illinois does nothing to solve the debate of which state Bay City was in, (or when it moved), because it was within driving distance for Mac and Rachel either way.

Interesting question about character references.  I do remember Robert often referenced his dead wife and the son they had lost (from Somerset) while he was on AW.  He did this often with Lenore, but not sure he mentioned them again after Lenore left the show.  Regarding Gerald Davis, you probably know he came to AW as a contract character in 1973-74 and stayed for a year or so. And when he left, he was sent to prison. He did not return to Somerset -- at least not in the script.  After Gerald's exit from AW, he wasn't mentioned often -- and soon not at all, at least by name.  In 1979 Rachel and Ada had a very poignant scene about Rachel growing up without a father, and Gerald was mentioned but not by name.  Also, Ada referenced Gerald in 1989 during the Valentine To Singles stand-alone episode (yuck!), but again, she did not say his name.   

I'm confident the Cushings were never mentioned again on AW.  Somerset was almost never mentioned on AW after Cenedela left the head-writing job. Ogden became a nearby city during Hardling Lemay's run on the show, and Ogden was mentioned continuously.  It's likely only Robert Delany and Sam Lucas ever mentioned Somerset while Lemay was writing.   

7 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

@j swift   

1. The way things work here is if you do not wish to engage with another patron, you put them in a killfile, known as "Ignored Users". It is not the responsibility of the other party to "not connect with your content". 

2. Because you threw such a fit I have attempted to follow your wishes. 

3. As I do so, you have begun a campaign of taking potshots at me. 

4. This simply will not do. You either cease & desist or all bets are off. 

Yes, the "Ignore" feature has been misunderstood by many (or at least by me).  The Ignore feature here is not a true "Block" option, as you might have on other sites, or even Facebook.  The Ignore option here simply means you will not see the ignored person's posts.  But they will still see your posts, and can still comment.  Anyone who expects "Ignore" to function as a "Block" option will be disappointed.   I'm just trying to clarify, without stirring-up trouble.   

When it comes to listing "firsts" on various soap operas, it seems people have the attitude, "If I don't remember something, then this must be a first."  When in many (if not most) cases, it isn't a "first" at all.

I don't remember any divorced women on soap operas before Lisa Hughes, so I'm going to publish that Lisa was the first divorced woman on a soap.  LOL.

12 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

What did MdL say about Ryan's Hope that was wrong? (I did not see her piece about that show.)

She said RH was the first soap opera set in New York City, and the first soap opera to be set in a real location.   Both incorrect.  She also said the Ryan's were the first identifiable ethnic family on a soap opera, and that Mary Ryan was the first female journalist on a soap opera.  Also both incorrect.   When MdL starts spouting out "firsts," she really seems to go off the rails.  She needs an editor or a researcher.   

42 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I understand that your opinion is based on your analysis of various interviews or podcasts or the like. 

And, sure, we can stop, but I did want to be clear that I EVEN do understand what was said. 

Was Bay City ever said to be in Michigan?  Is Marlena monitoring this message board and cursing those who disagree with her?   LOL.

17 minutes ago, j swift said:

Certainly, we can give VW the grace that after devoting decades of her life to AW, it must have been tiring to work year after year with new actors and writers that were still learning the ropes while she was trying to perfect her craft.  The old canard about soaps being a training ground is all well and good, until they go off to a prime time show about forensic detectives in the 1800s, and you're stuck in Brooklyn.

 However, much like the Ryan's Hope book, we only know one side of the experience.

Which is why I prefer to discuss memories or what we actually saw on the screen as opposed to backstage stories that always feel like I'm listening to a stranger's office gossip, it doesn't affect me, and I just don't care.

I completely agree.  And by the way, was AW's Bay City ever said to be in Michigan?   LOL.  

I really don't think Marlena is monitoring your responses.   Really.   

19 minutes ago, j swift said:

It's ironic that I've never really considered what Victoria Wyndham was like to work with.  The only resource I've consumed was Lemay's book, and I don't recall him having anything negative to say about her a s co-worker.  But, Amy's story and the recent insight from Cali Timmons suggest she might have been a bit of a pill as time went on. 

Truthfully, I doubt Wyndham was any more difficult than other soap stars of her era -- Slezak, Luci, Courtney, Fulton, Seaforth, etc.    Although I do remember a couple of print interviews with David Canary upon his exit from AW, in which he said the "star" of the show was a very unhappy person who made life in the Brooklyn studio difficult for most of the other actors --and that he was happy to have been released from his contract.  So, there's that to consider.   Does anyone think Canary may have been referring to Doug Watson??  

8 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I have no need to re-read what you said.

As it happens, I just asked Dano a question yesterday about Robin Christopher. It was a real question I would love to get an answer on but that probably won't happen. I wouldn't create some artifice to bring up Victoria to her.

I can think of many people where Dano might protect them in certain situations. It doesn't make sense to me for the reasons I said that this instance would be Victoria. 

I join you in loving those people. 

What does Robin Christopher have to do with anything?  

You obviously don't even understand the basis of my statement.  So let's just stop.  

20 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Well, Charles & Victoria routinely rewrote their scenes. And, Victoria wrote some for the show, whole storylines. I don't see how it would be them. They were so involved in the writing that they'd be happy with it, if you see what I mean.

So, what do you base your opinion on?

I base my response on viewing their responses to questions over the years in online forums, Facebook groups, and a couple of podcasts.  I won't retype my earlier comment, but go back and read it.   If you don't believe me, ask Dano about Wyndham, or ask Cheatham about Mary Stuart. Let's see how they respond.    

And by the way, I love Wyndham and Stuart. Also adore Dano and Cheatham.  

18 minutes ago, Errol said:

Click on your name at the top right-hand corner where your avatar is and do the following:

1. Click on "Ignored Users"
2. Add a person (username/display name) to ignored list
3. Save

 

As everyone can see, I ignore no one. Haha.

Off topic, I know.  But how do I block another poster on this message board?  I've tried everything, but I'm sure there must be a way to do it.  Help, please . . .

7 minutes ago, watson71 said:

Who is the AW actor that Amy Carlson mentioned in her podcast with Linda Dano at @17:20 who didn’t like the scripts and didn’t want to play scenes a certain way in rehearsal ? Linda cuts Amy off and says do not mention the person’s name, and Dano doesn’t mention the person’s name either.

I’m guessing it was either Victoria Wyndham or Charles Keating…

It was Wyndham.  Dano protects Wyndham the same way Maree Cheatham protects Mary Stuart.  And that is by simply never mentioning their name(s).  But when either is pushed into a corner and must acknowledge either Wyndham or Stuart, the response is always -- "Oh, dear Vicky" or "Oh, dear Mary" with little additional comment.  It's an unusual kind of protection that I'm not sure I understand. But I have noticed it many times with both Dano and Cheatham.   So go figure. . .

Wow! Marlena De Lecriox has lost my respect as any sort of soap opera expert or historian.  Remember the historical misinformation about Ryan's Hope she tried to spread on her blog a couple of weeks ago?  Well now she has moved on to Another World with her historical falsities.

In her most recent blog, Marlena states the following: Another World "was the first soap to be set in a real place – Bay City, Michigan – and the first to portray authentic working-class life."  Both claims are false.  First, AW's Bay City was never officially said to be in Michigan, although most fans assumed for years that Michigan was its location (until, in the early-1980s, when AW's writers officially placed Bay City in Illinois). And even if Michigan had been AW's canonical locale, AW still would not have been the first soap ever located in a real place.  And second, Another World was not the first soap to portray working-class life. Although the word "authentic" is too subjective to even include in the conversation. Who gets to decide what authentic means on daytime drama?  There were certainly well-written working-class families on some soap operas before Another World.  

Although Marlena's blog posts are often enjoyable and right on target, why does she feel the need to throw-in all these historical inaccuracies (first Ryan's Hope and now Another World)?? She clearly has strong opinions about the genre (most of which I agree with).  But she also needs to check her facts before she posts things that are untrue.

51 minutes ago, Khan said:

the silver mine that the Hugheses and Stewarts co-owned

The very idea that the Hughes family owned a silver mine (despite their history as firmly middle-class) is/was ridiculous.  Can you imagine Bill and Bert Bauer owning a silver mine? Joe and Ruth Martin owning a silver mine?  Jim and Mary Matthews owning a silver mine?  Mike and Nancy Karr owning a silver mine?   Seems to me, the Dobsons absolutely lost their minds when they became head-writers at ATWT.  This kind of crap might have worked on Santa Barbara, but not on ATWT.  Dear God in Heaven!!!

11 minutes ago, NothinButAttitude said:

I don't think I stated he needed to do a stand-alone episode. I simply stated that I assumed that Frannie/Penny weren't in the funeral episodes most likely b/c they probably had Sierra/Tonio filming in spots that should've been for them. I understand as writer what he was doing; however, Penny/Frannie were needed more than watching Sierra & Craig pine for one another and Tonio browbeat Craig. I'm just thinking it would've been nice to see them mourn alongside the Hughes clan. Regardless, the memorial of Chris/Don MacLaughlin was done too perfection. They were just missed. Furthermore, the "b storyline" with Lucinda/Lily/Iva/Tad was good enough to combat the episode's "a storyline," which was the funeral. 

Overall, '86 was a defining year for ATWT. I just wish that all of '86 and '87 were accessible on YouTube. I hate that majority of the Doug Cummings murder trial in June was removed. 

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you were in favor of stand-alone episodes. I was just speaking in general terms about my dislike of stand-alone episodes, and how Marland used special events to draw back former viewers and "hook" them with ongoing plots.

I do agree that Penny and Frannie are missed in this episode.