Mona Kane Croft

Well, the action in New Orleans was always intended to be temporary. It was just setting up the family history of the Sentell and Tourners. Do you remember when Martin Tourner returned to New Orleans on a business trip or something, and hooked=up with an old girlfriend who was a prostitute, and she was Jo's doppelgänger? Played by Mary Stuart. It was wild, watching Mary play that character. It may have been Mary Stuart's first scene in bed with a man. Not sure about that.

I would love to go back and watch the Corrington's work on SFT again. Especially their early months, when they were transitioning the show to their vision. I remember enjoying it and thinking they had added new life to the show. And the voo-doo stuff didn't go too far. It didn't go truly supernatural. I always felt the Corringtons left enough doubt that the audience could either believe it, or not believe it. I think that type of story should always be handled that way on soaps, unless we're talking Dark Shadows. A "normal" soap opera should never go truly supernatural or sci-fi, but they can toy with it along the edges, as long as they leave room for doubt. Remember the Corringtons were the creators of Texas. They were hired to create the new show, because of what they had done on SFT. But their plans for Texas were totally screwed by NBC, P&G, and Paul Rauch with his insistence the Beverly McKenzie become the star of the show. I think what we saw in the early months of Texas was nothing like what the Corringtons really wanted to do, and would have done without network interference.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Nelson Aspen. He has said positive things. Even though I am aware he truly did know her and worked at SFT, he still comes off more like a fan than a colleague. The funny thing is, if Mary's costars hated her, that's perfectly okay. If they were indifferent to her, that's okay. If they loved her, that's okay too. But why be so cryptic about it? It just seems fishy.

Just the typical vague brief comments that everybody else tends to use, when asked about Mary. It's almost comical how evasive people are, when Mary's name comes up in interviews. Almost like they've taken a vow of silence (I'm exaggerating a little. LOL). I've heard former colleagues be very open about working with other soap stars -- John Bernadino, MacDonald Carey, Susan Lucci, Connie Ford, Susan Flannery, etc., etc., etc. But when Mary Stuart's name comes up, it's a quick, "Oh, dear Mary" (or something similar) and that's it. A couple of years ago, I was engaged in a Facebook conversation with a former SFT actor, who is very accessible to fans on social media. We had several pleasant exchanges over a couple of weeks, and he/she seemed eager to discuss career related memories. Then I ask her/him to share a few memories about working with Mary, and I got a three or four word response. Nothing negative, really. But negativity was implied in the brevity. It was clear she/he was uncomfortable with the topic, so I dropped it. By the way, I want to say that I am a huge Mary Stuart fan. I think she was an amazing talent. That's the real reason I've been interested in hearing more about her. Then I noticed how ominous discussion of her seems to be. It's very puzzling.

The episode in which John Randolph saved Alice and then died in the fire was actually the second 90-minute episode, March 6, 1979. The first was March 5, and as I recall, it heavily featured Mac and Rachel. And regarding the ratings, it's been my understanding AW was #1 in the ratings during the Sven storyline, and then settled to #2 after that plot concluded. Then stayed at #2 until March when the show expanded to 90-minutes and the ratings plunged to number 8. It was said at the time that AW lost half of its audience because of the 90-minute expansion. I supposed we'd need to see month by month ratings for late-78 to at least mid-79 to verify any of this.

Tom King seemed to have learned a thing or two from Lemay, and he was pretty good at writing for Rachel, Mac, Ada, and Iris. But he didn't seem to understand Pat, Liz, or any of the remaining Matthews family, or the Perrini family, or just about any of Lemay's other characters (Blaine, Elena, Willis, Sylvie, etc.). Plus, King was terrible at creating new characters. Nearly all of his new characters were terrible failures and really harmed the show, Additionally King hurt the show by introducing such a strong element of crime, police drama, and the mob. For a couple of years, it seemed like half the cast was involved in plots that belonged on Edge of Night. King's only real successes were with Mac, Rachel, Ada, and Iris.

I can't remember. It was well known at the time, which actress took the role on DOOL, but I just don't remember now. Maybe somebody else will. I remember one of David Forsythe's lines on the DOOL episode was extremely insulting to AW fans. It was all very indirect, of course. But the end of his line was something like, "Why don't they just get over it?" It was the beginning of the 90-minute episodes when the ratings took severe plunge. From #2 in the ratings all the way to #8, I believe. The 90-minute transition was a fiasco, even with Lemay writing. Lemay didn't lose his touch, but the 90-minute thing just didn't work. Shortly after Lemay left in April 1979, the ratings fell further to #9 and then never got above #9 for the final 20 years of the show.

I think VW also pulled out of DOOL because she realized the dialogue was going to be campy and make fun of the genre and even the fans. Back to David Canary's comments about AW -- he also said the atmosphere in the studio was toxic, and he was glad when he was released from his contract. And he implied that VW was difficult as well as unhappy. He basically said his experience at AW was a negative one, but that AMC was the opposite.

--in a 1983 SOD article Warren Burton (Jason Dunlap) called AW 'horrendous' and 'the most awful time in my life, in the business"-- David Canary said similar things after his run as Steve Frame on AW. One of the things he said specifically was "the star of the show was a very unhappy woman", or something along those lines. --There's a reason VW never worked again in daytime-- I'm not sure I agree with your speculation about VW's post-AW career. I think she was ready to retire from acting. Being the star of a soap that was on the downhill-slide for twenty-years was probably exhausting and discouraging.

There were several times in the show's history, when Mary asserted TPTB were trying to phase-out Jo. The last was during the final couple of years of the show's run, when Mary thought they were elevating Kate McCleary to take Jo's place. Over the years, Mary seemed a bit paranoid about it, perhaps justifiably. It's interesting none of the former SFT actors ever says much about Mary in interviews. Typically there's some sort of evasive vague generally positive statement like, "dear Mary" or "Oh yes, Mary." But never anything specific -- no stories about her, no memories that include her in any detail -- nothing. The longest discussion of Mary I remember in an interview was John Aniston briefly taking about traveling with her to promote the show's move to NBC. But nothing specific about whether he enjoyed working with her, their relationship, etc. It makes me wonder if they all disliked her, but don't want to admit it. Or if perhaps she was really a problem at times, but again they don't want to admit it, because she was such a fan favorite. I did one time read online a really terrible criticism of her, but the source was undisclosed. So I have no idea if it was true. It would be interesting to know how her colleagues felt about working with her. She's been gone long enough, they could be honest without facing much backlash. I have heard a couple of positive comments regarding Mary from some Guiding Light actors. I believe one was Michael O'Leary.

I believe you are right, the Stewart house on ATWT was almost certainly the oldest set on daytime (probably around 45 years) until the Horton house on DOOL surpassed it. Both had been rebuilt several times and gone through a few minor changes, but essentially were the same for all those years.

Wasn't Ross Marler's house previously Roger Thorpe's house? Before Roger fell off the cliff. I think you're correct about Ed's living room -- that's the last time we saw it. But the kitchen was used for years after that.

Meta wasn't on the radio show at the very beginning. So must not be reviving the show from the very beginning.

It can only mean one thing. But it's hard to believe. Maybe some employee at WB is just trying to get a rumor started. Who knows?

Iris, Dennis, and Elliot were the first of the Carrington/Cory family to move to Bay City. Followed by Mac at least a year later. Steve was still alive when Mac and Rachel married, and Frame Enterprises was the construction company Mac used to remodel the mansion he bought for Rachel. Steve didn't die until summer 1975.

I was watching at the time, and you've described their "friendship" perfectly.

I'm pretty sure Lily's entire adoption storyline was created by Doug Marland. And if that's true, Liz wouldn't not have been aware until he became head-writers, and decided to take the characters in that direction.

As I recall, Iris and Rachel were somewhat friendly pre-Mac, because Iris wanted to make sure Steve Frame and Alice reconciled, in order to get Alice away from Elliott Carrington. At the time, Iris was desperate to reconcile with Elliott. But Steve was married to Rachel, which prevented he and Alice from getting back together. Iris pretended to be friendly with Rachel to get information about her marriage to Steve, and perhaps to break them up. I think Iris even took Rachel to New York on a shopping spree. But she secretly criticized Rachel behind her back. I think Iris eventually openly betrayed Rachel in some way, and that contributed to Steve and Rachel's split, allowing Steve to go back to Alice. But yes, their sons were best friends for years.

No, that never really occurred in the 1970s or early 80s. But I guess it illustrated their strange relationship, and the ways Mac almost always forgave Iris's tricks.

The house that Kim is in is the same house she and Bob lived in during the Marland era and beyond. But it had a little remodeling after their marriage. I believe the foyer and staircase were enlarged and a fireplace was added to the living room -- I think the fireplace replaced a large white tile stove. Years ago some posters were convinced Kim and Bob had moved into Chris and Nancy's old house. Nice to know for sure, they moved into Kim's existing house. Finally some evidence of that.

Picking-up a sudden speech affectation in adulthood is a sign of emotional instability. I'm not saying that's the reason VW did it, but any other reason I can think of is even more disturbing.

Did Rachel lose the accent? I don't remember that. But that accent was weird as Hell. What in the world was VW thinking? Nobody picks up a British accent in middle-age. Didn't that show have any directors? Also, Ada dating her high school sweetheart was a continuity error, because Ada and Rachel hadn't lived in Bay City until they moved there in 1967-68. Ada certainly didn't go to school there. In fact originally, Ada was from the South and even had a southern accent briefly. Although I wasn't watching, if you read the scripts, she seems a bit like Opal Gardner during the first few weeks. But then the writers began to write to Connie Ford's strengths, and she made the character her own.

Something seemed strange about the Carolyn Crawford murder mystery, and perhaps you have just explained it. Marland was famous for always knowing who the murderer was, before one of his murder stories even began on-air. And his murder mysteries were always well plotted -- until this one. CC's murder dragged on for months, and involved too many new characters who the audience didn't care about. Since it wrapped up not long before Marland's death, I have always wondered if perhaps his health was failing, and he just wasn't up to his usually writing zest. Or perhaps he had turned-over the end of this story to one of his assistants, because of his health. Whatever the cause, the CC murder mystery certainly didn't seem like Marland was at the helm.

The show may have been more entertaining under Pam Long, but it was still just a normal soap opera set in Houston. Even Pam Long couldn't give the audience what it was promised -- a daytime version of DALLAS. So I was always disappointed in Texas, from beginning to end.

Texas probably should have begun as a 30-minute show. P&G and Paul Rauch clearly did not know how to launch a new 60-minute soap in a compelling way. It seemed their first priority was introducing all the characters, and NOT providing compelling storylines. It should have been the other way around -- use the characters needed to start the show with interesting attention-grabbing plots, and then introduce peripheral characters later. Texas seemed like it was being run by a committee. And we all know that NEVER works on a soap opera. The writers, Paul Rauch, NBC, P&G and God knows who else, were all trying to influence the action. They should have left the creators/head-writers (the Corringtons) alone, and let them use their vision. The Corringtons were very good at utilizing regional details in storylines and characterizations (as they had done so successfully on Search for Tomorrow), and that would have been perfect for Texas. I'm sure their version of the show would have been compelling. But we will never really know what their version was. Paul Rauch pushed Beverly McKenzie on them at the very last minute, and they had to retool the entire show. What was publicized as a daytime version of DALLAS, was nothing like DALLAS. It was really just a normal soap opera set in Houston.