Khan

McKay's! And Erica's old nose! I never thought I would see either again so soon!

IA, Carl. The music is dramatic without being overly so, and the clips for each show speak for themselves. If it were a promo for an NBC soap, chances are their department would've edited the [!@#$%^&*] out of it and made a whole bunch of something out of nothing.

Rosanna wanted Carly? That's sorta kinky.

AFAIK, it hasn't. But maybe someone here knows more? I don't think ABC owned GH initially, no.

I think P&G made at least two attempts to sell ALL MY CHILDREN -- one, to CBS; the other, NBC -- but neither network had the space for it. Nixon, though, took that as a sign that the material wasn't strong enough and infamously put it away in her drawer until ABC asked for another show after ONE LIFE TO LIVE's initial success. However, in the past, Nixon has said she left P&G for two reasons: to own her own soap (which she ended up doing at ABC), and to write stories featuring more diverse characters.

Awesome article on Ms. Quinlan! Thanks for posting!

Actually, I think it'd be a great twist if Mark, and not Ellen, were diagnosed with pre-senile dementia.

I'd like to know what moron thought CS would hold more weight advertising-wise than "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.".

See, that's the problem with Rauch's ONE LIFE TO LIVE: even the better stories don't hold up to scrutiny.

Brian Frons envisioned ALL MY CHILDREN as daytime's answer to "Sex and the City;" and really, if he had bothered to watch the damn show, or talk to people who did, he'd have known AMC wasn't that kind of show at all.

Let's be honest: before Ellen Wheeler came back as Marley-and-only-Marley, Vicky had pretty much absorbed her own twin sister.

OLTL tried their best to keep Powell on canvas, but I feel they had enough on their hands already with redeeming Todd. Redeeming two rapists simultaneously? I don't care how good Michael Malone or his team might've been. That's simply too much work for one soap opera to accomplish. OTOH, it might've been nice if they had given the third rapist, Zach Rosen, some semblance of humanity. I didn't need him to be a tortured soul like Todd, or a wet-nosed puppy dog like Powell, but I definitely needed something more than the one-dimensional, unrepentant bastard he was even when he returned for that ridiculous "Todd wasn't the only rapist!" history lesson from RC.

Speaking of Rita, am I the only one who believes GL missed a golden opportunity in not putting her in a triangle with Ed and Mike? Especially once it was clear Holly and Ed still loved each other?

Anything is possible, Carl. You just have to take the time to get us there.

Carl? If I ever get to write a soap opera, you are definitely joining my staff. You have my word.

I think the years away did Holly (and Maureen Garrett) a ton of good, although I doubt either would have returned, had it not been for Michael Zaslow and Nancy Curlee's efforts. By 1989, Roger and Holly were "ancient history" to GUIDING LIGHT. At the risk of sounding again like a Marland apologist, though, I feel MG was a trifle impatient -- but, I must concede, not totally unjustified -- for leaving GL when she did. For one thing, Marland had said at the outset that he needed to beef up GL's younger set as well as introduce a blue-collar element (namely, the Reardon clan) onto the canvas. Was it unfortunate how some characters, including Holly, got lost in that shuffle (some more permanently than others)? Definitely. In fact, I can't recall the exact interview or quote, but I know I've read somewhere how Marland would have loved to have written more for all the existing characters. However, when P&G had tapped him to replace Bridget and Jerome Dobson, it was with a mandate that he'd make the show more competitive with GH, a show that, under Marland's own pen, had acquired a younger audience with faster-paced stories featuring younger characters. (And before anyone questions Marland's own veracity, bear in mind how P&G subsequently passed down similar mandates to Pam Long and Jeff Ryder, telling the two to de-emphasize the Bauers and Reardons, as well as many characters from Marland's term, and go after both GH and DALLAS/DYNASTY fans, as well as displaced TEXAS fans.) Moreover, MG was coming off a major story and triangle (that of Holly/Roger/Ed) that had been front-burner for the past two years, if not longer. In fact, I'd argue how that story -- and in particular, MG's chemistry with MZ -- had come to define Holly's and MG's place within the show. With Roger and MZ gone, though, and the triangle kaput, where did that leave Holly, and MG? I wouldn't say Marland had no idea what to do with a Roger-less Holly. If anything, judging from actors who had benefitted from his work, I think MG was the sort of performer Marland loved writing for. But I do believe most HW's would need a little time to figure out what to do with a character who had been part of a huge story for such a long period of time. And who knows, once Marland had set up what he needed to, he might have come back to Holly, along with some others he had to neglect in the meantime. Of course, by that point, MG was long out the door (and over at RYAN'S HOPE), so now, we'll never know.

Re-reading Marlena's column about THE CITY, it struck me how she commented about Darnell Williams overacting, something many ALL MY CHILDREN fans noted years later after he (and Jesse) had returned.

I'll say this much: Tom Cudahy might have been "boring" in TPTB's eyes; however, in the long run, you need characters like him on a soap. You cannot have a soap filled with just eccentric characters and villains; otherwise, everything is off-balanced, and no one is there to serve as a virtual advocate for the audience.

Actually, I thought he was...?

Or worse, suggest there are two Roger Thorpes running amok in the world.

Once upon a time, I compared Ross to the character of "Stage Manager" in Thornton Wilder's play, "Our Town." I think that pretty much sums up how I looked at him.

It's been, what, three years? And still, I find it so difficult to talk about this show I loved with all my heart. I'm afraid I can't add too much more to Carl's comments re: Roger & Holly's relationship. Would I have minded if GUIDING LIGHT had paired them romantically again (which is where I suspect they were heading at one point)? Not really. After all, the show had actually done the work of convincing me, and others, that a full-fledged reunion, while not entirely believable, was certainly logical for these two, without once whitewashing or minimizing their turbulent history. Moreover, as Carl mentioned, R&H had years of push-and-pull before the rape. That, plus the fact that they had conceived a child, made any sort of relationship they might've had deliciously fraught with history, tension, and complication. To put it another way: even if R&H had been able to move onto other partners, they'd never be entirely out of each other's orbit, rape or no rape; and truly, that was the best part of their dynamic. On another front, although I fully understand how many might look at someone like Reva as "hokey," I must admit, I loved that part of GL just as much as I loved Roger and Holly. In fact, I loved all of GUIDING LIGHT -- well, not all. I could have done without Johnny Bauer's cancer.

And that would be so, so sad.

Well, my Jersey slang is downright corroded.