Mona Kane Croft

I love the way Douglas Marland didn't write character deaths, major anniversaries, or other special events as "stand alone episodes". He always used those important episodes to propel other (sometimes unrelated) plots. He was wise enough to know those episodes might attract former viewers back to the show, and he wanted to get them "hooked", so they would keep watching. Marland loved the genre for which he wrote, and he had more intrinsic wisdom than any other head-writer since Irna Phillips. And by the way, stand-alone episodes are antithetical to the genre of soap opera. Just my opinion.

Thanks, Donna. I wonder what he means by, "since corrected"? Does he mean, that statement was in his book, but he corrected it before printing? And I assume he means the last two statements were not from him (and are not in his book), but Marlena's mistakes. Thanks again!

Sorry, it was not her first paragraph. It was the third and fifth paragraph: Ryan's Hope "was the first soap to be set in a real place (New York City instead of a made-up vaguely suburban hamlet." INCORRECT. Ryan's Hope was the first soap "to dramatize the lives, loves, and trials of a recognizable ethnic culture." INCORRECT. Mary Ryan "was daytime’s first female journalist." INCORRECT. Jeeze Louise!! I just hope Marlena did not get this information from Tom's book. Marlena should have known those statements were untrue.

Did anyone notice Marlena delaCroix made three historical errors re: Ryan's Hope in the first paragraph of her review? I hope these errors were not in Tom's book, but simply mistaken assumptions by Marlena. If those errors are in Tom's book, then I don't even know what to say . . .

Yes, that is Carol Roux from Another World. Surprisingly, her acting skills still seem very strong in 1992. Thanks for sharing this.

Wow. Thank you for all this detailed information. I was not aware that Mignon actually did return. I only heard that had been Lemay's plan. I also did not know she was murdered. I assume Lemay would have used Mignon as a long-term "Iris Carrington" type character -- using her money and influence to interfere in the lives of Travis and Liza for years to come. I doubt it was Lemay's plan to kill off Mignon.

As someone has posted above, Granny stopped appearing about a month after the show premiered. But Janet remained an important character until she was written-off in June, 1966. So Janet made it through the Irna Phillips/Bill Bell tenure, through James Lipton's short time as head-writer, and even six-months into Agnes Nixon's very successful time in the writer's chair. Some soap historians have reported -- when Agnes Nixon wrote-off Janet, it was intended to be a temporary break for Janet, and Nixon planned to bring back the character after a few months. But the actress, Liza Chapman, died in an auto accident. So Janet never returned to the canvas.

Meg Harper's return to Love of Life in 1975. A major character who had been gone 20 years and hardly mentioned, returned and immediately assumed major character status again. Head-writer Claire Labine made Love of Life compelling must-see drama for her short tenure on the show. And Iris Wheeler's return to Another World in 1988. Iris had been gone for eight years, and Harding Lemay plotted Iris's return perfectly. Little did the audience know, she had been involved in a major long-running plot (behind the scenes). Sadly -- if I'm not mistaken -- Iris's return episode was the final episode written by Harding Lemay. New writers took over the next day. Can anyone confirm if I am correct about this?

Thank you! I thought that might be the case, but wanted to see if anyone had more information. Again, thanks.

Can anyone tell me why Heather uses the last name Stevens, when her father's last name is Williams? I'm sure there must be some history to this, but I'm not aware of it. Thanks!!

Does anyone remember if SFT's original opening theme was ever orchestrated? All the YouTube videos I have seen have the organ version. It's possible, I suppose, that SFT's second theme (When Tomorrow Comes) was the first to be orchestrated. Does anyone know for sure?

Hiring former movie-stars into major daytime roles seemed to be a priority of NBC in the mid to late-1960s. NBC had hired MacDonald Carey on DOOL in 1965. And on Another World, Hugh Marlowe was hired as patriarch, Jim Matthews, around 1968. Also on AW around the same time, film actress, Ann Sheridan, was cast as Kathryn Corning. Adding to all this, Dana Andrews role on Bright Promise, one might assume there had been significant pressure from NBC for daytime production companies to reach out to aging movie stars as possible cast members. Although there was some of this happening on all three networks at the time, it seems to have been a larger priority at NBC.

I think Swajeski may have known about Emma because Emma was mentioned during the strike of 1988, when Swakeski was a scab writer. I think they scabs were, to some degree, following Lemay's story projections during the strike. Lemay's notes may have included character names, but still must have been rather vague, because the scabs got many of the historical and character details wrong.

I think the Chancellor set is still basically the same old set, but it has been re-oriented toward the foyer, rather than the old orientation toward the fireplace. It makes the set look smaller, because the living room is narrower with this orientation. I believe this new orientation was done when Jill Phelps was executive producer, and Kathryn was still alive. I dislike this view of the set, because it is too similar to the layout Abbott house. When Kathryn's house was oriented the other way, the layout of the two houses appeared less similar. I wish they would change it back. I agree. And if they are not going to show the front door and foyer of the Newman Ranch, then they need to cast a housekeeper or butler to escort guests to the living room. It's strange when Victor and/or Nikki are sitting in the living room, and guests just walk right in. It's as if they just walked in the front door, through the house, and into the living room without even knocking. With all the security at the Newman Ranch, that is just not believable. A servant to escort and announce the guests would make more sense and be more believable.

Does anyone know the age difference between Jacquie Courtney and Bibi Besch? I've sometimes wondered if Bibi Besch would have been a good replacement for Courtney as Alice on AW. She had a look similar to Courtney, and often wore her long hair in a similar style. Besch wasn't just a "blonde actress", but she had demonstrated acting skill in daytime, and had played emotional material well. I can't imagine Besch would have been any worse than any of the other Courtney-replacements -- and she likely would have been better than most. And another question: Has anyone ever heard which other actresses auditioned for the role of Alice, when Susan Harney was cast? I can imagine they auditioned dozens of actresses, many of whom were probably well known in daytime. I'd love to see the list.

I tend to dislike psychics on soaps if they are permanent characters. I find that stretches believability too much for me. But I'm okay with psychic characters, if they are temporary -- brought on the show for that purpose, and then written off when that function has been fulfilled. My favorite soap opera psychic was Tante Helene from Search for Tomorrow, one of the Corringtons' creations in the late-70s. Tante Helene was quite over the top, but I found her believable because of the storyline, and because she was a temporary character. I also found Sylvia Brown's appearance (playing herself) on Y&R about 10-15 years ago to be believable. Again, mostly because it worked with the plot, and she was on the show briefly.

Agreed. Frankie was an obvious rip-off of Luna Moody. And I also agree, copycatting on soaps has led to the near demise of the entire genre. That all seemed to begin in the early 1980s, when many soaps tried to copy (in one way or another) the success of General Hospital's Luke and Laura and over the top unbelievable plots. Nobody wants to watch an afternoon of soap operas that are all nearly identical. Before the 1980s, every soap had its own unique recognizable identity. Thank God soaps were not copycatting one another in the 1960s -- otherwise, every soap would have had vampires, witches, and werewolves!

Frankie's early time on AW is a good example of Donna Swajeski's inability to create engaging new characters. Swajeski did a fairly good job of writing for existing characters, but the new characters she brought to the show were often burdened with cliched (at times cartoonish) characteristics. For example, Frankie had the ESP nonsense; and Derek Dane had the "beauty and the beast" vibe. Swajeski often added some characteristic to her creations that she believed, made her characters interesting and quirky. But to me, those characteristics just made Swajeski's characters unbelievable and irritating. Later, as you mention, Alice Barrett softened Frankie and made her believable and likable. And why didn't Swajeski just have Barrett play Molly Ordway? Because she probably didn't even know Molly existed. Obviously she knew almost nothing of the extended-Frame family history.

Thank you for finding the citation, Donna.

I don't want to start and argument, but -- actually, I am sure it is Sally Stark from Love of Life. It is definitely her, and she went on to a role on DOOL after leaving LOL. Perhaps you are thinking of the first actress to play Kate on LOL. She and Sally Stark looked nothing alike. There are probably other photos of Sally Stark online, if anyone wants to compare. But I recognize her, and even her voice is the same. This is the actress who was playing Kate, when I watched Love of Life. Again, not trying to be difficult, but I'm sure it is her.

What's up with all the flash-backs? Jeeze-Louise!. For the past couple of weeks, it seems there are four or five flash-backs per episode. Typically there might be one a month. I can say for sure, the audience does not need flashbacks to put current scenes into context. We aren't children, and we don't need to be spoon-fed the story. Does anyone know why this is happening? It's ridiculous. Maybe just lazy writing??

What year was Harding Lemay head-writer at SFT? Wasn't it around 1981? So I assume Travis was still alive, and the Kendalls had not yet arrived in Henderson. Is that correct? I've read one of Lemay's plans was to bring Mignon back to the canvas. That makes sense, because she was the type of neurotic controlling character that Lemay loved to write. It would be interesting to know what other plans Lemay had for SFT. He liked to write for troubled characters who, to a large degree, created their own problems. He also enjoyed writing for characters who had historical conflicts that he could exploit for future plots/scenes (Jo and Stephanie, for example) For those of you who were watching, did you see any sense of Lemay taking the show in that direction?

I thought Mignon and Martin were brother and sister. Is that incorrect? And was the General Mignon's father or Rusty Sr's father? Did any of the Sentells or Tourners ever meet the Kendalls? Other than Jo and Liza, I mean.

Here's another question about Laura: I've never watched the entirety of Laura's first on-screen visit in 1967. But what I have seen seems like a rather bare-bones storyline without a lot of details about the origin of the Phoenix creature. But her visit in 1897 is full of interesting details and possible back-story (although she still is not fully explained). So were the Egyptian elements of the plot in 1897 also part of Laura's 1967 visit? Or did the writers add the Egyptian stuff in 1897 to further flesh-out the Phoenix legend?

Interesting. But she was in the same body. Wasn't she?