Reverend Ruthledge

Well, Robin was always insecure but she was, at the same time, a fighter (even if her fights were sometimes unwise). It wasn't until the last year or two of her life that her insecurity got out of control and led her to take on an emotionally unstable victimhood mentality. This could be attributed to the writers in the last year of that character but it really started towards the end of Agnes Nixon's writing.

Yes. I remember that. I don't didn't know the actress, though.

You mean feeling like they were a burden to the men of their lives or the men in their lives feeling like they were a burden? Ironically, Robin only felt like a burden to Paul towards the end of her life. Up until then, she wasn't that way. Paul didn't look at her as a burden. Julie, also ironically, felt like a burden to Mike in her early days (and Mike felt that way about her) but that completely turned around towards the end of Julie's life. Mike wanted to get back with Julie but Julie desperately wanted to get away from Mike. Actually, Mike's behavior towards Julie said a lot worse things about men than it did about women. He led her on and used her for sex, was neglectful of her after they had a shotgun wedding when she got pregnant, was cruel to her and raped her during the marriage and it wasn't until she had a nervous breakdown that he started to feel bad about anything. From this storyline alone, I'd think Agnes Nixon was a misandrist instead of a misogynist. But I know that's not the case the way she wrote other male characters. I tend to think in individual characters more than the bias of the writer though. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Always happy to talk about the golden days of GL.

Hey there, I'm just curious as to why you feel that way. Because they both suffered mental illness and both committed suicide?

For some reason, I remember watching a scene between Emily and Jef with my mother and my mother saying out loud to the TV, "You better run, Jef". LOL.

I'd only ever heard of the NYC vs. LA thing from Danfling and I just chalked it up to a neurotic quirk of his. Not anything that that invited a logical debate. I personally don't see any difference between "soap opera" and "serial" in format. I think "soap opera" was just the more common, albeit slightly derogatory, term for the serial. Most dramas and comedy on TV are serials unless they're anthology programs. Most people who watch serials would never admit they watch a "soap opera" though because that term is used to deride what they feel like is melodramatic serials. People that watch serials on TV (most people) don't really consider them or call them serials. Most people don't give a thought to that term. However, if a serial becomes too melodramatic or plot-heavy in their mind, they are quick to say, "It's just a soap opera". And the root of that derisive phrase goes to their unwarranted disdain for daytime serials. I say "unwarranted" because most of those people have never watched daytime serials. Especially not in the glory days of daytime serials which most people are too young now to have experienced. In my mind, there is no difference between a soap opera and a serial except perhaps the daily aspect of the daytime serials. The daily serials have always just been classically referred to as "soap operas". But most people who watched a show like "The Sopranos" or "The Walking Dead" would never in a million years admit that they watch a soap opera.

That's strange because all of the scripts from 1964-1966 have been available to the public for a while. Perhaps they weren't available back in the 80s when those books came out. To me, it sounds like just an excuse. When they started those book series, I imagine they wanted to "hook" readers from the first book and they probably thought (very, very wrongly in my opinion) that the first years of the story were too boring. Or, they figured that most readers in the 80s wouldn't be interested in the origins of the Matthew family as, even by that point, the Matthews had been largely forgotten by modern viewers of the show. It's been so long since I read the S&S books, but, if I remember correctly, they glossed over a lot of the beginnings of the show and went very quickly into the Alice/Steve/Rachael triangle story. Which is, undoubtedly, the biggest and most remembered storyline of the first ten years of the story. As Donna pointed out and, as is the case with most things, making money by appealing to the most people was the goal of S&S and not honoring or staying true to the original story. That is evident in the many, many revisionist errors there were in the books. I only read the GL, ATWT, DOOL and AW books. They had varying degrees of attachment to the original source material and I just thought the AW book series was the worse offender of the lot. I'd like to try the other sources mentioned. I've found Eddie's site to be, by far, the best historical site for the show. I used to eat up those S&S books when they first came out because of the lack of opportunity to learn about the history elsewhere. Now, in 2025, thank God that there are many more resources that we have available and that I'm aware of. I'd rather just read the original scripts. Besides, I hated how cheesy those books were as they were written in the Harlequin romance style. I HATE romance books. People find that hard to believe because I love soap operas but I think it's a misperception that soap operas are all about romance. I think soap operas are about life. Romance is just one aspect of the soaps just as it is in life. It's not ALL about romance as many people who don't watch soap operas wrongly believe.

Thank you for posting this. I found that interview with Beverlee McKinsey really interesting. She's a candid and stimulating interviewee. I wish the interview would have been post-GL so she could have talked about that.

No.

Yeah, but for someone like me who is only interested in the first ten years of the show, skipping three years of that ten years is pretty significant. I was interested in reading the origins of the show.

That's right. Which was 1967. The first three years were completely ignored.

If I remember correctly, the Soaps & Serials AW book series skipped over A LOT of the show's early material.

You're right. I'm sorry. I need to go to bed.

Yes. She died in a plane crash.

That was a great episode and I don't think I'd ever seen it before. I didn't start watching ATWT until the Fall of 1985 and, for some reason, there is a real lack of 1985 episodes available on YouTube. This episode definitely had a back-to-the-basics feel and it's interesting that it was pre-Marland. All these years, I had wrongly credited Marland for bringing Chris and Nancy back. It's great to see Chris in that short gap in between his comeback and his physical and mental decline (which is evident just a matter of months after this episode). I would love to see more episodes from this time period. Especially Chris and Nancy's actual return. Based on dialogue, it must have happened not too long before this episode. So, I'm wondering if the return to the core of the show should be more credited to the producer at the time than Marland or Bedsow Horgan. Does anyone know who the woman in the red dress was talking to Frannie at the Hughes BBQ? I didn't recognize her and, unless I missed it, she didn't have any lines and wasn't referred to. It's kind of hard to see her as she's usually blocked by the other actors. She could have been an extra but it would be weird to just have one extra in that scene. I love this episode as well as it has my favorite Frannie (JM), my favorite Margo (HBS) and my favorite Betsy (LF). It's funny that Lucinda was so against Lily seeing Dusty since when Holden came into the picture, Lucinda was trying to push Lily and Dusty together. That song at the end was sooooo mid-80s. It reminded me of "We are the World".

Thank you, MarlandFan.

I couldn't find it. Whose channel is it on?

Thank you very much for posting this. One Man's Family and The Guiding Light are my two favorite radio shows.

No. The lighthouse opening began in 1954 when the setting was still Los Angeles.

The Guiding Light originally referred to the lamp Reverend Ruthledge put in his window to let people know they could come in for help. It also represented God in a more symbolic sense. It wasn't until the setting moved to Los Angeles that the symbol of the show became the lighthouse. That sort of stayed until the end. When the setting moved to the midwest, as I said, I just assumed they were on the edge of one of the Great Lakes.

I assumed Springfield was located along one of the Great Lakes.

Cool. Thanks.

ICAM. I think James should have stayed dead after Paul shot him.

The male and the female interviewers both seemed like they had just done a line of coke right before the interview. Thank you for sharing a video that would easily go under the radar. This was great to see as I like Kim Zimmer (talked to her once and she was VERY cool) and The Trip to Bountiful is probably my favorite play. I would definitely go if I lived in Raleigh.

He sure had a shiny face.