Mona Kane Croft

Donna, that is the most creative metaphor I have ever read. LOL. I think I want you on my writing team.

Yes, now my memory is returning. LOL. But none of this could have happened unless Charlie died.

If you are on a Guiding Light message board and expecting GL fans not to talk about Ed Bauer, I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle. Seriously. And nobody is saying Ed Bauer was leading man material. But he was a fan favorite, middle-aged and assuming the patriarch role of the show's core family, which had been largely abandoned by the powers that be. And yes, we're going to discuss him here. Alot.

It seemed clear to me at the time, Charlie was killed-off as a plot device to get Rachel out of prison, so her storyline could go forward. If I recall correctly, Rachel was temporarily released from prison to attend Charlie's funeral (do people REALLY get released from prison to attend funerals??). And then while she was out, something happened -- I think she ran away, or something like that. Anyway, Charlie's death got Rachel back on the canvas so she could remain center-stage without playing all her scenes from a prison cell. They needed a big event that would get Rachel briefly released, and Charlie was sacrificed. It was embarrassingly transparent. That's the long and short of it, in my opinion.

I remember a couple of the soap magazines suggested Gil Gerard was being considered as an Ed recast. But I have no idea what his physical condition (and appearance) was at that time. It may have been a rumor or someone's wishful casting, but I did see it in print. David Forsyth had the acting chops, but he seemed to young to play Ed, in my opinion.

I'm not an expert on Rick's history, so it this Diana the same character as Diana Lamont? If not, it seems odd the show would have two different characters named Diana at almost the same time. By the time I started watching daily, it was the Labine era and Diana was married to Charles Lamont and I believe having an affair with Jamie Rollins. Also regarding Rick's son Hank -- you mentioned he was born around 1963, but if I remember correctly, by the late-1970s Hank had not appeared as an adult. Is that correct? That is unusually slow for a soap opera legacy character to grow up.

I agree. Rick really wasn't permanently connected to any other characters, except his son Hank. So he was sort of a lone-wolf cad who could float from one family or group of characters to another. So I suppose that made him rather versatile in terms of serving the storyline(s). And luckily, no writing-team ever wrote him into a corner by having him murder someone or commit some terrible crime which would send him to prison. And of course, many soap opera cads are eventually murdered themselves, which luckily never happened to Rick. Again, I see Rick as similar to John Dixon on ATWT, who had an even longer run -- but was also a long-term cad with few real permanent connections to other characters. Rick and John sort of fulfilled the same role, in a way. Very few soaps had a long-running character like Rick or John. The only other example I can think of is Roger Thorpe on Guiding Light, who served a similar function to Rick and John.. But I'll admit Roger was more over-the-top in his behaviors, and he was absent from GL for long periods several times over his run. I don't believed either Rick or John ever left their respective shows during their long runs, until Larry Bryggman was written off in the mid-2000s.

OMG, Bill Hayes' choking-up at the end of the episode really got to me. That wonderful man was practically sobbing. My tears started flowing right along with his, and I don't even know what he was crying about. I haven't cried watching a soap for years, but it used to happen almost weekly -- back when soaps were more about romance and emotion. God bless Bill Hayes.

Wow, that is amazing. Almost 20 years.

It's interesting that Love of Life had rather few permanent legacy characters, leaving much of the casting budget for new (or rotating) characters who would come in and out for particular storylines. Edge of Night was similar in that regard, but it was more understandable on EON, because it was a murder/mystery soap and and needed new characters for each murder plot. EON was more plot driven than Love of Life. I believe it was head writer Claire Labine around 1974-75 who expanded LOL's base of permanent legacy characters when she brought Meg, Ben and other characters who surrounded them back to the show more or less permanently. Another thing which I am continually surprised by in terms of Love of Life's cast is the length of time Rick Latimer appeared on the show. He began appearing no later than 1964 (possibly earlier) and I believe the character was still on the show until near the end in 1980. Aside from Van, Bruce, and Sara Dale, Rick was probably the 4th longest running character. Rick was recast several times, but the characters survived. He was a cad, but not an out right villain - vaguely similar to John Dixon on ATWT and Roger Thorpe on GL.

Any idea why there was no head writer for such a lengthy period? Was there a strike?

Interesting. I had no idea that all occurred with no head writer.

Wyndham seemed to enjoy playing occasional scenes in which Rachel showed a bit of her old feistiness (or should I say nastiness?). It must have been boring playing Rachel as a saint for almost 20 years. I'm not a fan of amnesia storylines, but if you're gonna do one, do it right. When Rachel had amnesia around 1985 (and she even forgot she was married to Mac), I think it would have been fun if she reverted completely back to the old insecure antagonistic Rachel for a couple of months. That would have been a shock to the other characters, especially since very few of them had been around when Rachel was the show's main villainess. It would have been especially fun to see her interacting with Alice and Ada with her new/old persona. I remember there was one scene between Alice and Rachel where the writers seemed to toy with this idea, but it was only one scene. It could have been so much more, had they taken it further. What if Rachel thought Steve was still alive? What if she thought Alice was still a nurse, and refused to respect her as a doctor? What if she goes after Mac just for his money (one of Mac's biggest fears, back in 1974)?? Of course this could only go on for a very limited time -- a couple of months tops. There was so much material laying right there for the writers to pick up. Oh, well . . .

That's absolutely right, and I'm glad you saw the subtlety in Rachel's transition. Although Harding Lemay mellowed Rachel significantly, he didn't completely reform her. As long as Lemay was writing, Rachel's nasty side occasionally popped up. Even when Lemay briefly returned in 1988, we saw bits of the "old" Rachel. Most fans forget it was actually later writers who completely reformed Rachel and turned her into almost a complete heroine/saint. But she always remained feisty and a bit antagonistic under Lemay's pen.

I just remembered, someone posted a list of all the Daytime Emmy lifetime achievement award winners somewhere online just a couple of months ago. It was either here on the SON Board, or maybe in a Facebook group. I remember looking through the list out of curiosity, but I can't remember if Irna was on it. I don't know where the poster found the list originally.

I hope this is correct, but I don't remember it at all. That is the kind of thing I believe I would have noticed. Maybe I'm getting old and just forgot about it. LOL. Were the Daytime Emmy's broadcast in 2017? I usually try to watch, but I missed it this year.

Did Irna never receive a Lifetime Achievement Emmy? That is a crime. Somebody at the Emmys needs to wake up. Irna essentially invented daytime. Other than gameshows, I suppose.

Oh boy, I bet his writing really pulled in the viewers. What a foolish thing for a soap opera writer to say. No wonder soaps are failing.

It's all case by case. Sometimes writers ask about character histories, and sometimes they don't. Some actors speak up if they see a historical error, and others get tired of doing so and they just give up. Depending on the atmosphere in the studio, most of the time it's not considered bad form to speak up, but ultimately the decision is made by the executive producer and/or the writer. Convening a panel of fans to monitor continuity would be cumbersome and inefficient, and I don't believe that has ever been done. In the old days -- like pre-1980, continuity was considered more important and many shows had a person on staff who would look for continuity errors. But after most shows transitioned to the 60-minute format, monitoring continuity became more difficult with so many characters and divergent storylines. And as soaps began to take themselves less and less seriously (some to the point of practically making fun of themselves), TPTB pretty much quit caring about accurate history and just began to write whatever they felt like writing.

The Cory estate had stables almost immediately after the set was introduced around 1975. Mac bought an old estate and hired Steve Frame to remodel the house for Mac and Rachel to move into. This was while Harding Lemay was head writer, and he's the same writer who wrote the scene in which Rachel said she used to walk past the mansion on her way to school. So Lemay created the location as both a huge estate, yet still somewhere between wherever Rachel and Ada supposedly lived and the school Rachel attended.

Interesting. So a 33 year old had a 19-ish year old son. Hmmm.

You are correct. But I remember Jamie was sorased rather quickly. He was born around 1970, and was a young adult by 1978. So that confused several character ages (particularly Rachel, Alice, Dennis, Michael and Marianne, etc.). Does anyone know for sure how old Victoria Wyndham was when Tim Holcomb assumed the role of young adult Jamie in 1978? Or Richard Bekins took over the role in 1979? I would assume VW was no older than around 35 -- maybe younger.

I'm surprised Lemay didn't have access to character histories in 1971, when those things were taken more seriously on soap operas. It's too bad, because the existing characters on AW at that time all had detailed histories which could have been mined and woven into Lemay's plots. And I remember, he did do that to a degree with Pat, Lenore, and Rachel. Off topic a bit, but still pertaining to changing history for the sake of plot -- Does anyone else remember in the mid-1980s on Guiding Light, when Pam Long wrote an umbrella plot that declared that every major family in Springfield had been in town for generations, when the only two that had been were the Reardons and possibly the Chamberlins?? While any fan who'd been watching GL for more than 8 or 9 years would have known that the Bauers, Spauldings and Lewis's all moved to town on-screen post-1966. I liked the Pam's plot, but hated the major rewrite of the families. With a little effort and creative thinking, she probably could have made the plot work, while still respecting history.

Yes, that would have been a way to send the same sentiment, while using more accurate established history.

Most people probably realize the Micheal/Rachel childhood (or high-school) connection contradicts Agnes Nixon's established history that Ada and Rachel moved to Bay City after Rachel had finished high-school. Actually I believe Harding Lemay was the first AW writer to contradict Rachel's original origin story, when he wrote that Rachel remembered walking past what became the Cory mansion on her way to school. Again, Rachel didn't even live in Bay City while she was in school. Of course, character histories are revised all the time on soap operas, but I've always felt that was unfortunate and unnecessary.