Mona Kane Croft

I was watching during the time of Holly's on screen exit from OLTL, but my memory is very foggy. Here is what I remember. Can someone please correct anything I remember incorrectly, because I'm sure some of my details are wrong?? As I recall - Carla was away for a lengthy period, and when she returned she was suddenly an attorney, which surprised me because I don't believe the character had shown any interest in the law previous to her hiatus. Making her a lawyer seemed to me a sad attempt by TPTB to give the character something to do, since they appeared uninterested in writing anything regarding her personal life or romance. At that point, Carla sort of assumed the role of "town lawyer" dispensing legal advice when someone needed it, but without much else to do. As her exit approached, I believe Carla was involved in someone's murder trial -- either as one of the attorneys or the judge. Then in a very awkward turn, Carla decided to leave town right in the middle of the trial. So her role in the trial had to be replaced by another character. This was very strange in my opinion, and I recall thinking they could have easily waited a few weeks and kept the character until the end of the trial. I do not remember any good-bye scenes for Carla, but I have recently found one or two on YouTube, so at least the character did get to say good-bye in a few scenes. Those are the foggy details my memory brings up regarding Carla's on screen exit. Can someone with a better memory please tell me if most of my recollections are correct? And what have I left out or gotten wrong? Also, didn't Carla's exit take place around the same time as the big storyline with the group of teens (including Jon Hensley) who were somehow involved with Ivan Kipling at a mysterious cabin in the woods? And wasn't this entire storyline (including some of the teen characters) completely dropped mid-plot and never mentioned again?

Glad you brought up this book, Donna. This is a great read. Every chapter written by people who take soap operas seriously. Much more academic than anything in the soap-press, even in 2011. I heard an interview with one of the authors (I think it was Sam Ford) around the time the book was published. That guy really knows what he's talking about. Too bad he's not in the daytime business -- at least I don't think he is/was. Not sure if the book is still in print, but anyone who likes to look at soap operas from the serious side, should read it.

Don't forget the issue between Matt and Mitch after Matt Crane assumed the role. This was while Harding Lemay was head writer in 1988. Some of the Frames were back in town, and they blamed Rachel for Janice's death in 1979. Matt already knew that Mitch was his father, but he didn't know the circumstances or that Mitch had conspired with Janice to poison Mac before Janice's drowning. Some how Matt convinced Liz Matthews to tell him the entire story, which surprised and angered him. When Rachel and Mac found out, they both completely disowned Liz, and Liz was estranged from the Cory family for a few months. Matt rejected Mitch (yet again) and turned to Josie with his confusion and hurt. So that is certainly one more chapter in the Matt/Mitch saga. By the way, if my memory is correct -- this is the first and only time in the show's history when Mac actually turned away from Liz and rejected her. The scene in which he does this is rather gut-wrenching. Douglass Watson plays it like his heart is breaking, rejecting his old friend and kicking her out of his home. Irene Daily plays the hell out of the scene as well.

I completely agree, it was wonderful multigenerational material refocusing the show on the Corys, the Matthews, and the Frames. And as you said, it finally established Rachel as the show's new matriarch, which AW really had not had since Mary Matthews. This era also finally established the Corys are the core family, with Matthew as an adolescent, Amanda as a young adult, Jamie as an established professional, and trouble-making Iris on her way back. Others may think the Corys had been the core family since years earlier, but I don't agree. It's just my opinion though. And as you alluded, the only fly in the ointment of this era was the Frame farm mess.

Thanks for those videos. I remember seeing those episodes back in 1987-88 and thinking, "What the hell are they doing to the show's established history?" Oh well. The most pathetic thing about this entire relocating the Frame farm debacle is that it was so badly botched that even Harding Lemay didn't attempt to correct it when he took over as head writer. He just went with it, and left it alone. And he was the writer who had created Steve Frame's history, most of his siblings, and the farm in Oklahoma (he did not create the character of Steve). Lemay must have been very frustrated at what DePriest had done, but it was too complicated to undo. Poor guy.

None of the first generation of siblings owned a farm near Bay City. Although Steve and Alice's house was out in the country and did have some acreage. But it was never said to have been a farm. Just a large new house on several acres. They could have had Jason buy Steve and Alice's house to get it back into the family, but then they would have had to rebuild the set which they probably did not want to do -- that set had not been used since 1979. And it was clear in the dialogue in 1987-88 that Jason had not purchased Steve and Alice's old house.

When Jason first bought the farm, before Sharlene returned to town, he and Rachel talked about it being the Frame family farm where the siblings grew up, and Emma's farm. Jason and Rachel even implied that Emma was dead, without literally saying it. And I believe when Sharlene first arrived she and Jason had similar conversations. So my impression is it was supposed to be the original Frame farm that had previously been in Oklahoma. But as I mentioned, later writers tried to back-peddle a bit by making the farm's origins more vague and by saying Emma still lived back home in Oklahoma. But the damage had been done, and it was never truly explained away. I even tried to think of ways the whole situation could be re-explained and undone. I had a few ideas, but none of them really worked, unless those early conversations could be totally forgotten and contradicted.

I agree with you. I don't think there were implausible retcons to Sharlene's history, especially since she had been away from Bay City for 10 years in real time (more like 18 years in soap opera time). And I thought Holbrook's Sharlene was a more flexible character, because she didn't seem to have the fears and neurosis the original Sharlene was plagued with. At least they were not on the surface. But Holbrook's Sharlene was connected to one of the most egregious retcons in daytime history -- the mysterious relocation of the Frame Farm from Oklahoma to Bay City. That retcon was completely implausible and went completely unexplained, even after Lemay returned as head writer after the strike. Later writers made small attempts to correct Frame family history, but it had been botched forever with the farm no longer being in Oklahoma. Wasn't the Frame Farm in Bay City introduced during the strike, and written by scab writers? That might explain the mistake in continuity.

I think a lot of fans assumed there was going to be a romance between Pat and John. And I think I may have even read somewhere that was the plan. But I suppose nobody knows for sure what the the original plan was. It must have been curtailed pretty quickly --almost at the last minute -- because they taped the promo-commercial about it, and it aired only about a week before the anniversary episodes began. Regarding Sharlene -- yes the original Sharlene was very different from Anna Holbrook's version. The original version was very insecure and tentative about everything. When Sharlene returned in 1988, she was much more confident and secure, and she dressed and acted more like a traditional farm woman, growing a garden, making preserves, etc. The original Sharlene seemed happy to be away from the farm, and dressed more like contemporary suburban woman.

Yes, it was months after Lemay had left AW, but Swajeski was still following some of Lemay's storyline projections. So I assume there were plans for Pat to stir up some kind of trouble with John and Sharlene, but like so many plans at that moment, the change likely occurred because of Douglass Watson's death. I believe the entire cast and crew just had to push through their shock and grief to get through the anniversary episodes, while acting (on camera) as if nothing had changed. Swajeski also followed through on the reveal that Josie was Russ Matthews' daughter, and I'm almost positive that development came from Lemay's projections.

Very true. In most cases, compelling characters will get a soap opera through a period of bad writing. Donna is correct, the glue absolutely is character character character. But a problem arises because it is fairly typical for bad writers to also get rid of a lot of characters the audience loves. In that case, previously loyal fans will abandon ship PDQ.

Did Irizarry and Beecroft have many scenes together? I'm surprised they'd have much conflict otherwise.

First of all -- this Wikipedia statement is WAY to general to likely be accurate. Think about it; for this to be true, the storyline (which I believe was Bert Bauer's cancer in the early to mid-1960s) would have had to have occurred before The Doctors, General Hospital, or any of the earlier hospital/doctor based soaps premiered. Additionally, it is difficult to believe there had been no health-related plots on any of the other soaps earlier than Nixon's time as HW on GL, even if those soaps were not hospital/doctor based. In other words, no character had ever been sick on any soap before Nixon got to Guiding Light. Hmmm. Why didn't the Wikipedia poster give the year? Identify the storyline specifically? This makes the statement almost impossible to prove. It's just a bizarre general statement, stated as truth. I do think there is historical value to Nixon's writing Bert Bauer's cancer storyline. If I'm not mistaken, it was cervical cancer or uterine cancer. And it was as much a "social issues" plot as it was a medical plot. It was controversial at the time, and should be documented as important. But the Wikipedia statement is simply worded too generally, which makes it blatantly incorrect. My opinion only.

I wasn't referring to anyone on this message board, I was referring to professional soap historians who have written books, numerous articles, taught classes, etc. That's why I used the word "true." Maybe I should have used the term "professional." And I do still believe that any professional historian of soap operas would likely agree that Penny and Jeff were daytime's first super-couple. But like most things I post, that is my opinion only.

I was watching at the time, and I always thought Emily was supposed to be the "bad-girl" who would keep Holden and Lily apart for a while. Similar to Rachel/Steve/Alice on Another World. But after Holden and Emily split up, she got over Holden pretty quickly and left their orbit almost completely. I think Emily could have caused a lot more difficulty for Holden and Lily, but Marland decided he had different plans for her.

I agree with that. And any true historian of soap operas would likely agree.

Interesting. I was watching both shows at the time, but had forgotten the chronology. Funny, but I do recall an interview in which Harding Lemay claimed that both the Ewings of Dallas and the Carringtons of Dynasty had been named because of his characters on AW. I guess Lemay's ego got in the way yet again. LOL. But I still love him anyway.

Well, Lahoma Vain Lucas would be an earlier example of this from AW. She was a humorous character who had dramatic material also. And, although I'm not an expert on early All My Children, I'm confident Agnes Nixon used humorous characters (who also had dramatic storylines) on AMC before 1975. We'd need someone who knows early AMC to provide the specifics. And even before Nixon, there had been humorous characters. Just because I (or you) can't name them does not mean that Clarice was the first. But the opposite is not necessarily accurate either. Just because I might not remember a humorous character on daytime earlier than Clarice, does not mean I should go around claiming she was the first. Or maybe I don't remember a soap opera matriarch earlier than Nancy Hughes. But that doesn't give me the license to post that Nancy Hughes was the first matriarch on a soap. Being a soap opera "first" has nothing to do with someone's memory. It should have everything to do with the truth -- not just what I remember. But I have come to believe that is what people are doing. Another example -- I don't remember a female journalist on a soap before Mary Ryann. So I'm going to post online that Mary Ryan was the first female journalist on daytime. That is just crazy thinking. I guess what I'm saying is: In my opinion, if a person is going to post something as fact, it is that person's responsibility to prove they are correct. It is not everyone else's responsibility to prove them wrong. But that doesn't seem to be how it works with soap opera history. Again, crazy.

Oh boy -- Here we go again with another incorrect "first!" What is it with all these claims of daytime "firsts" that are just plain wrong?? Clarice was certainly not the first continuing comedic (I prefer the word humorous) character on daytime. By the way, I am not blaming Xanthe for this false information, Xanthe merely shared it with us. The blame should go to the person who wrote the original article. There have been continuing humorous characters on daytime since day-one. And by 1975 (the year Clarice was introduced) there had been dozens. Particularly, Agnes Nixon's version of AW contained ongoing humorous characters, not to mention the humor Nixon later used on All My Children. And please never forget, while Harding Lemay was writing AW, Clarice was as tragic as she was humorous.

I just watched a few scenes in the posted episode. Yes, the set has been painted and the furniture and curtains are nicer than Ada had. I think the lattice work may be new, as I don't remember that feature when it was Ada's set. Generally the entire set is brighter and less drab than when it was Ada's living room, when it looked a lot more worn and working-class. But the Shea's were also working class, so not sure where they got those fancy curtains. LOL. If anyone wants to do a more thorough comparison, there is a lengthy scene somewhere on Youtube in Ada's living room from 1979, between Ada and Rachel. It's a well known scene when Ada tells the story of hearing Rachel cry at night missing her father, and Ada admits she could not give to Rachel what she really needed -- her father's love. In that scene, you'll get a good look at Ada's version of that set. Not to mention, this 1979 scene should have won Emmy's for both actresses and the writer. If you are a long term AW viewer, this scene just might make you cry. There used to be two versions of this scene on Youtube -- a short edited version and a long version. The long version is better, of course.

Wow, that's kind of weird. Connie Ford must have felt a little strange, walking around her own set and pretending it was somebody else's. LOL. Or it is possible Ada helped the Shea's off camera, so the audience may have never seen Ada actually helping inside their house. Who knows?

I don't think they did. I don't remember it, anyway. But the set used for Harry Shea's house was actually Ada's livingroom. And this was while Ada and Nancy were still living in Ada's house. Strange, huh? By that time, we only saw Ada in her kitchen, and I guess TPTB thought no one would remember her livingroom. So they gave it to the Shea family. LOL. But it was exactly the same set.

I had always hoped they would recognize Bay City as being a real city, by putting it officially in Michigan. Especially since they had used a map of Michigan a few years earlier as part of a storyline. So when Julia announced she was headed to Illinois, I was disappointed. After that, it seemed Bay City kept getting closer and closer to Chicago. And by the time Reginald Love arrived, he stood on the balcony of Tops restaurant and said he could see the Chicago skyline from there. So at least for a short time, Bay City must have been a suburb of Chicago. Later writers dropped that, I think.

Hmm. If Jacker was head writer when Julia Shearer was introduced, then it must have been Jacker who officially put Bay City in Illinois. In one of Julia's early scenes, she mentioned she was on her way to Bay City, Illinois. That was the first scripted mention of Illinois as AW's location. Another of Jacker's bad decisions.

Some of us were watching when soaps were good. So our expectations are too high for 2023. But that's the way it is.