GL Oldtimer

I totally get why some Guiding Light viewers didn't like the pairing of Roger and Holly as a romantic couple or understand fans that enjoyed them together. For me, I think it helped that I didn't watch the show in the 70s when the rape and abuse happened. I imagine if I had, I wouldn't have wanted them together. It wasn't just the chemistry between the two actors or the attraction between the characters that sold me on them as a couple when both characters returned to Springfield in the late 80s, it was the vulnerability that Roger had when he was around Holly that I really liked. He wore his heart on his sleeve around her and while his feelings for her certainly didn't keep him from lying to her, I do think he felt bad when he did lie to her. It was an interesting dimension to his character, a contrast between good and evil. It's what made him more than just a cookie cutter soap villain. It's also what allowed me to feel sympathetic toward him. That was a feat considering all of the lives he tried to ruin. When things were good between them, they were so good. The characters had a nice maturity about them and they had some great scenes in 1994 when they were working through some things regarding communication and trust. I think there was a relatability about them during that time. I think it also helped that I'm a big fan of both of the actors. Maureen Garrett and Michael Zaslow were my favorites on the show so seeing their characters together was the icing on the cake during the time that I originally watched the program. Like every soap couple, I knew they weren't going to last. But the way the writers handled their breakup still gets to me, especially since Holly went back to hating Roger, despite how far they had come as a couple. As a fan, it was hard to watch it all unravel, and the chance for them to rekindle their relationship or at least get back to a better place ended when Michael Zaslow was pushed off the show. I feel like their journey together as a couple was accompanied by a lot of missed opportunities and premature endings. Annette

Donna L. Bridges, thank you for the information regarding the petition to award a Posthumous Lifetime Achievement Award to Beverlee McKinsey. I have added my support to it. Mitch64, you make some interesting points about how Bloss took over the character of Blake. I never looked at it like that, but I agree with you. I do like both Keifer and Stringfield in the roles. I can't really say that I have a favorite, but I just noticed in revisiting the episodes from the early 90s how much different the character is from Stringfield to Keifer. For those of you that are in the know about these things, what was the overall reception from Guiding Light fans to the pairing of Fletcher and Holly? As a huge Roger and Holly fan, I still find it hard to rewatch the episodes of Roger and Holly's breakup and Fletcher and Holly's pairing. Nearly 30 years later it still bothers me :). Annette

Now that I'm revisiting episodes of Guiding Light that I haven't seen in over 30 years, it's interesting to see how much of an impact recasting had on certain characters. I didn't notice it much when I was a teenager, which is when I originally saw the episodes from the early 1990s. I like both Sherry Stringfield and Elizabeth Keifer as actresses and I appreciate their approaches to the character of Blake, but their portrayals of the character couldn't be further apart from each other. I do think something was lost when Stringfield left the role. Blake lost her edge, her shrewdness, and her sexiness. However, I appreciate the softness and sweetness that Keifer bought to the role, and I really enjoy her bond with Maureen Garrett's Holly. I think the same can be said for Beverlee McKinsey and Marj Dusay. I have respect for both actresses, but I absolutely love McKinsey's Alex. Her work during the Alex/Mindy/Roger triangle is just incredible, especially when she publicly humiliated Roger at the country club. Those scenes are soap opera gold! I recently rewatched parts of that storyline and she is just incredible. I don't watch soaps these days. For those of you that do, is recasting still done to the degree that it was done 30 years ago?

Thank you for the warm welcome. In response to the discussion about building a plotline around Michael Zaslow's ALS diagnosis, I think it would have been a groundbreaking opportunity to tell a multifaceted story. Zaslow was a highly respected daytime actor dealing with a devastating disease. If he was willing to share his journey with the audience, I think a lot of his fans would have supported him sharing that journey through the lens of the camera. There's no doubt there would have been some difficult days as Mitch64 pointed out when Zaslow wouldn't be available to work. Overall though, I think the creative time could have figured out a way to make it work. From what I've read, Zaslow and Maureen Garrett were close friends. I also remember reading that both of them loved acting together and the love/hate relationship of Roger and Holly. Combine all of that together and I imagine the scenes shared as Roger's ALS journey is told would have packed an emotional punch never seen before in daytime. I don't think there's enough adjectives that could describe just how heart-wrenching, beautiful, and loving this could have been. And then there's the character of Roger. A flawed man who loved his family deeply, but also loved power and money. These desires were often at odds, and his quest for power and money oftentimes destroyed the relationships he held most dear. I could imagine him finally realizing as he faces his death that it's not the money and power giving him love and comfort, but those that he's always loved. There could have been some beautiful moments around that realization as Roger sought redemption. Television just wasn't as brave then to share this sort of journey. I think there's a chance that it would be shared today though as I think television is more willing to take risks. I will always think about what could have been.

I'm new to this community and wanted to say hello :). I started watching Guiding Light when I was 13 years old. Specifically, it was the 1989 Josh and Reva wedding at Cross Creek that got me hooked, but it was the love/hate relationship between Roger and Holly that kept me interested in Guiding Light over the years. It's been wonderful seeing this show brought back to life thanks to some very committed fans who have posted full episodes of the show via YouTube. I'm having a blast rewatching the years that I originally watched, while also discovering new ones. I was a big Michael Zaslow and Maureen Garrett fan in my teens, and now that I'm older and wiser, I can see all of the layers and nuances they brought to their work that I didn't appreciate as a teenager. Whether apart or together, they still light up the screen for me, and are simply magic together. It has been painful to watch some of the 1997 episodes when Michael Zaslow started exhibiting symptoms of ALS. I know at that time he wasn't yet diagnosed with ALS. I can't imagine what that time must have been like for him. My heart just breaks watching those episodes knowing now what happened to him. In regards to Maureen Garrett, I remember thinking her Holly was just the coolest character - the woman I wanted to be when I grew up. She was fascinating to watch all of those years ago and still is today. I stopped watching the show in 1999. I had a tough time staying invested after Michael Zaslow was pushed out and the writers turned Holly into the nursery rhyme stalker. That was it for me. Once I discovered this discussion thread, I went back to the beginning and read all of the posts. I sure wish this board was around when I was first watching the show. I've enjoyed reading all of your comments.

I've been reading all of your posts since the beginning of this overall thread and I've learned so much. It's been fascinating!