DeliaIrisFan

I didn't realize Korte was disliked online. I didn't even realize she was still at GH until I tuned in for Bobbie's memorial and spotted her name in the credits. I just assumed she had left with all the other writers who worked with the Labines back in the '90s. I too had goodwill toward her based on that history. Mulcahey's experience as one of the revolving doors of co–head writers at GL gives me pause, but agreed there were other factors. Of course, some of those factors seemingly apply to GH 30 years later. It is curious that GH offered and he agreed. In fact, it's been so long since any "big name" hire behind the scenes at a soap, probably because there are so few left from the genre's golden/silver eras. I wonder to what extent the issues that reportedly drove most all talented head writers out of the genre in the late '90s and '00s are still in play. I can't imagine any networks' daytime divisions are still top-heavy enough for the execs to micromanage the way they seemed to be doing a quarter century ago. And the remaining soaps take so much time hiring or firing any of the last producers/writers left standing (if the dates in this article are correct, Van Etten's been head writer at GH for almost as long as Doug Marland was at ATWT) that I can't imagine the suits are frantically chasing something new every other week to try get the ratings/demos back up to some unachievable pre-modern level. That's probably because the networks have given up all hope, which is no cause for celebration, but maybe that leaves a little room for someone with talent and vision to do something good for however much time they have left. All that is to say, this is genuinely exciting news to me. And I was just thinking during the Bobbie episodes how many great characters (and/or their grown children) are still viable. I'll have to keep an eye on this show, for the first time in decades. Although if GH is trying to get the band back together again, I think Michele Val Jean should have gotten an offer (is she still at B&B?).

Meanwhile, the reference to Monica having a scene with Lois a few pages back was the first I learned that Rena Sofer was back. lol I never thought I'd see that. I went back and watched Lois's scenes from the full episodes that are still available in my Hulu account and Rena is great. But I am grateful for the explanation of the whole SEC story in the first pages of this thread, because the way these characters were going on about it was really WTF. The one thing I'm still wondering is why Lois cares about any of this, least of all who "ratted out" Sonny's ex and Cameron Mathison's character? Unless she's worried about Brooke Lynn's involvement in Michael and Ned's deal or something? If anything, I could see Lois calling the SEC herself on principle, and then all these people who are mad at Cynthia Watros's character turning on Lois for that. Or maybe Sonny overhearing Lois questioning her daughter about why everyone is so mad about reporting a crime and learning the truth that way. Lois may be obsessed with the truth, but not with truth tellers. She was the one who convinced Brenda to wear that wire on Sonny all those years ago, and she exposed Ned's bigamy in front of the whole town and let the chips fall where they may.

Ah. No, that's not okay.

I too thought Hogestyn was fine, from what I remember of Lucas at that time. It's more that I just couldn't really picture him after all these years, and I didn't feel like his character was the focus of the story (not his fault). I don't think I realized Carnes lasted as long as he did last time, or that they recast right after he left. I probably don't want to Google what Carnes had to say about COVID? 😬 I may have assumed Lucas's return a decade ago was headed in a particular direction based on the aforementioned things that creative team had done with LGBTQ+ characters at OLTL. Also, by that point, I could only take their material overall in small doses. I liked Felix okay when he first came on (Lucy's first scene back was with him, right? I think that's what I first tuned back in for) even if the actor was green. Now that I think about it, I do remember the Sabrina character and the lead-up to Robin's return. I must have tuned out by the time most of what was described of Felix's involvement in their triangle with Patrick played out, because it sounds awful but I have no recollection. When I heard Lucas was back a year or so(?) later and started watching his scenes, I didn't mind the idea of pairing him with Felix. They (and Brad) just didn't seem to be getting much airtime. Especially not in comparison to what I assumed a cishet triangle centered around a character who had just learned their long-lost mob kingpin father was alive would have gotten. Maybe it was just a dry spell, because it sounds like they got more material than I anticipated. Alas, descriptions like "Carnes even played Phil Brewer in the flashback sequence in Luke's big psychodrama episode" and "try to force Michael to have sex with him" don't make me feel like I missed anything... (Now, the premise that Lucas likes to watch Golden Girls reruns I could get behind.) FWIW I thought Lucas's scene with Felix at the funeral was well-handled and seemed about the right length given the occasion and how I assume their relationship ended.

That's a really good point. In fact, wasn't Drake Hogestyn's son even playing Lucas during the coming-out "story"? Agreed, you wouldn't know that watching this past week. I too want to echo all of the praise for Ryan Carnes's Lucas, and share some personal reflections on this character. Now seems as good a time as any, when realistically we may not see the character ever again. I was actually a little surprised at how meaningful Lucas's scenes were for me this week. I think I've checked out GH for almost every incarnation of Lucas in the past ~20 years, and always promptly checked out soon enough for the reasons others have discussed above. A big part of the affinity is personal for me, because the character and I have had a few things in common. Lucas came out not long after I did, in the grand scheme of things. However, it was a few years later, by which point I was definitely an adult—and, frankly, I had enough distance from the genre in its then state—so I had some perspective. I wanted to tune in but didn't have high expectations, and I was disappointed but not too surprised with how the show (mis)handled most of it: from Bobbie's initial reaction and then how quickly that was resolved, to the lack of any real exploration of Lucas's sexuality, to say nothing of how I heard they had killed off Tony a few months later as part of the "climax." Ultimately, though, I just turned the TV off again and hoped someday GH would revisit Lucas's character and do a good job. I'm still hoping for that last part, but agreed it's unlikely at this point. I also personally appreciated that Lucas's type 1 diabetes—something else I have in common with the character—has been referenced at appropriate points as (just another) part of who he is since childhood. And the show has generally treated diabetes realistically, for at least 30 years on and off that I've seen (I have not seen his original diagnosis as a baby). Then this week brought a really random and momentarily disorienting coincidence for me: Bobbie's (retroactive?) birthdate listed on the placard outside of the funeral happened to be the same as my own mother's, who has been having some health problems recently. I think they cut to Lucas's return immediately after that shot of the sign, or at least it felt to me like they did. I almost lost it right then. All to say, I have long related to Lucas (or at least tried to) for various reasons, but seeing the reactions from others makes me realize it's not just me projecting. I think this speaks to how powerful legacy characters can still be, even when soaps seemingly do everything they can to sabotage them. In a parallel universe where those in charge of soaps were willing to try slightly more modern takes on what has worked best throughout the history of the form, Dr. Lucas Jones would have been a frontburner character for decades. He should have had multiple love interests that were important plot- and/or character-wise, with at least one long-game soulmate who was also a core character and had his own sexual/romantic detours in that time (Dr. Tom Hardy, Jr., perhaps)? And Lucas deserved a rich, on-screen adult relationship with Bobbie and Tony over the years, who in turn deserved age-appropriate, perhaps at times supporting but still substantive material of their own throughout that time. Even in this world, it's not too difficult for me to tilt my eyes a little and see some of that in the collection of crumbs GH threw over the years, especially because Carnes is so good at filling in the blanks in the script.

Wow. I must have missed that news a couple of years back. Thanks for filling me in. Sending good vibes, etc. for Leslie.

Oh, dear. I wish Leslie well, too. I vaguely remember Willow from some scenes earlier in the week, but I fast-forwarded when the conversation veered from Bobbie and didn't recognize the actresss without hospital scrubs. I gathered she was married to Bobbie's grandson, but I assumed Michael must be long-gone and Carly had another son with AJ or Jason, based on his personality. Michael lives with the Quartermaines now - progress?

Thursday's show was really good. I believe this was the first full episode of a current soap I've watched in years: maybe since the Prospect Park AMC and OLTL reboots, and GH around that same time for the 50th anniversary festivities. The veteran soap actors whose deaths affected me the most in recent years had primarily starred on shows that were no longer around to give them on-air tributes, and/or their characters had already been killed off. I happened to be home recuperating from some dental work on Friday and had read the tribute to JZ was happening, so I watched much of the week. Agreed that the dialogue on Monday/Wednesday was hit or miss, but at worst it was innocuous, and again Thursday's payoff was worth it. I also give them credit for the human trafficking story, and not just the good intentions. It was well-done (mostly, aside from the aspect I mentioned in the potential spoiler). It was awesome how with just a few lines of dialogue they corrected the record on Bobbie's back story as it had always been presented - not discounting what had come before, just stating the obvious that we all should have known better. I was impressed that they even managed to acknowledge Ruby and Luke's roles, while holding space for Bobbie's genuine love for them. I agree the pacing was weird and the time jump jarring to see on a daytime soap, but it didn't bother me too much because I wasn't particularly interested in continuing to watch/fast forward through the rest of the show long enough to see it play out in real time. The "to be continued" on Wednesday and lack thereof on Thursday helpfully signaled that Bobbie's story had been wrapped up and I didn't need to keep watching. I just can't help but think it defied some of the fundamental conventions of the genre (make them wait...). I have a Hulu subscription so it would have been easier than ever for me to tune in a bit longer to see the resolution (compared to when I figured out how to program a VCR as a preteen), and theoretically I could have been drawn in by something else the longer they had my attention. Even the Cornelia actress seemed better in her few scenes than many of the contact ingenues, and this certainly would have been a powerful way to introduce a new major character with no blood ties. 🤷‍♂️ The passing reference to Monica being too sick to attend the funeral was very distressing. Have I missed any recent updates about LC? (And who was that character who provided that exposition? Has Emily come back from the dead, or Dawn?)

Wow, I never thought I would be moved reading something about Black and Stern. Then again, I didn't watch ATWT regularly or at all when they were there. I agree nobody was likely to succeed at ATWT in that moment. I wish an LGBTQ+ couple had gotten to co–head write soaps to great acclaim for a long career. Alas, Frank Provo and John Pickard probably would have been the most likely candidates, and we know how that turned out.

This is an interesting perspective, and probably not wrong from what I've seen. I'm slowly working my way through 1986 ATWT and I agree it's got an energy that I've never gotten watching Marland's later work. I think it's also probably true for most head writers after shows expanded to an hour, so I'm not sure if some of that is burnout. What's interesting with Marland is ATWT's ratings were actually better (at least relative to other shows) toward the end of his run. That's probably due in large part to attrition: GH being dethroned after 10+ years in the top two and the other mid-range shows losing their way. Although of course Marland's GL was the highest-rated non-ABC soap for the entirety of Luke and Laura's heyday right out of the gate. I still can't help but wonder what might have been if he'd been hired at ATWT long-term in 1979, when the show was just a year or two away from being #1 in the ratings, if he'd managed to introduce a story that successfully drew in younger audiences while perhaps luring back some lapsed viewers.

I don't know that MADD, or whoever was actually in charge by that point, had a singular vision of what they wanted the Labines or anyone else to do at GL. No sooner were they out than Reva was time-traveling through paintings, which was pretty much the polar opposite of what I imagine anyone would have thought to hire Claire Labine to write. And then only a few months after that, the tone completely shifted again: to family/medical drama. Incidentally, the main plotline in that next phase borrowed heavily from at least one classic soap story originally written by—checks notes—Claire Labine (arguably two. My understanding is she wrote daytime's first story about taking someone off life support on Ryan's Hope in 1975, although it's just as likely the 2002 GL story was directly "inspired" by more recent entries like ATWT). Of course, Labine's experience (especially everything that's been written about Love of Life) was a perfectly good fit for what GL should have been in the 21st century. And of course she and Rauch were doomed to be a terrible creative match, but I suspect the larger issue by that point was that CBS/P&G were never going to stay out of any head writer's way long enough for them to succeed. See the past few pages analyzing the weeks/months' worth of material generated by the half dozen or so configurations of writing teams in the subsequent year or two. I'm sorry Labine wasn't given the chance to do what she did best.

As far as asking one of the other writers what the original plan was, didn't Mulcahey essentially state in print that initially there was no firm commitment as to whether the Carly character would be good or bad, or what her agenda was - they just gave her different types of scenes to see what stuck? His words were more gracious than I am conveying—I recall he meant it as a compliment to SJB, saying they basically figured out who the character was based on her performance and all the layers she brought—but that was my takeaway. I think it's kind of similar with the Cassadines, no? In hindsight, 1996 GH was a lot of interesting ideas with mostly good casting, but not much follow-through. Culliton got a lot of blame at the time and my teenage self certainly partook in that, but by all accounts he's been very successful as a staff writer since, i.e., executing a(nother) head writer's vision. If there was a long-range story in place at GH with characters he clearly wanted to keep on, I feel like he would have followed the contours. Unless Guza had a brilliant, multi-year story outline that he refused to share with anyone else on the writing team, and never came close to replicating in his career. Didn't he write a crossover story for Faison on Loving in the early 90s that is largely considered a flop? I can't help but think that's illustrative of what the '90s Cassadines might have been with a lesser (cumulative) writing team and/or a weaker foundation to build upon.

Agreed completely. I just don't think Guza staying would have changed much of any of that (except Katherine's involvement). I believe the Faberge egg contained a computer virus - which, while terribly executed, was as logical an endpoint as any for a character who was presented as holding an epic vendetta against a woman his family had trafficked and an entire community they had tried to eradicate, literally. Either these Cassadines would have eventually shown their hand and been dispatched of like '80s short-term villains, or proven to be not as bad as their relatives - which would have had to involve making a definitive break from them. (Or some combination of the two, i.e., Nikolas realizing his family was as bad as everyone said just as he was put in a position where he had to kill Stefan to save Laura, perhaps with Laura even trying to take the rap to protect him like her mother had done for her.) I really don't believe there was ever a long-term story plan or character arcs, just a lot of mood and dialogue that was probably better than it had a right to be.

Oh no, not uncommon for the era at all. I was just surprised to see MP's name invoked as an example here, given what it's most remembered for. Was Amanda really friends with anyone? I think MP was able to get by with the most OTT/campy elements of soaps without the emotional investment in characters or relationships for a few years during its heyday because it was only on once a week - every episode was the Friday cliffhanger, basically. That's a good point, and again I was not suggesting that TC should have had a teen story. Like I said, the concept for TC was more my fantasy than the heteronormative, milquetoast teen stories other most other soaps were grafting on. Although didn't Reilly's first run at DOOL supposedly dominate 12-17 as well as 18-34? Isn't that why Passions was greenlit? I wonder what would have happened if all the Loving characters who moved over to TC (plus maybe Jeremy or one of the other victims as a red herring) had moved to NY a few weeks early—for the same reason Ava left Corinth, to get away from the serial killer—and begun their new stories, only to be lured back home for the murderer reveal? It would have been an interesting cinematography experiment, if nothing else: the transitions from scenes taped in traditional soap opera style to what TC was going for. Bringing on Linda Gottlieb in whatever capacity for the end of Loving, as opposed to TC, was such a bizarre move. Unless the ABC brass recalled she had once pitched a story in which Viki's alters killed off all the Lords and Buchanans, and wanted to get their money's worth while ensuring she couldn't sue them... Anyway, didn't even Gottlieb's first few months at OLTL have actual stories? They were just sped-up and didn't involve characters the audience cared about, right? I think SoHo had already emerged by then. I don't doubt Fairchild's character or even Tracy Q might have lived there, but I agree the others wouldn't have been able to afford to live in their building. To bring it back to MP, it seemed like they were trying to set her up as a Heather Locklear clone. By that point, Fort Greene or maybe DUMBO still might have been accessible for middle class young professionals moving from Pennsylvania, which would have been close enough to downtown Manhattan by subway that you could maybe imagine at least some of them hanging out there. There could have been an interesting dynamic where Angie and Jacob were friends/acquaintances and still neighbors with the other Corinth transplants, but tended to hang out in Brooklyn more.

The scenes from the first few months of the Cassadines' return in 1996 were exciting, and did manage to fit into the more grounded show GH had become by that point. But I question whether that ever could have been sustainable, even if there hadn't been another writing turnover. A lot of dramatic (and well written by Val Jean, Mulcahey, et al) confrontations with most everyone in town could only go so far. Eventually the Cassadines, who(se family) had once tried to freeze the world, would have to show their hand and actually attempt to do whatever they really came back to town to do - and every other character/story on the show at the time would have had to exist within that same universe. And the friction between Laura and the men/boys in her life also seemingly had a shelf life, before they would have to get to the uncomfortable (especially given her history with Luke) gist - they blamed her for being sexually trafficked and/or how she reacted to becoming pregnant as a result. I actually wonder whether Guza or anyone else actually knew what the emotional and/or mystery climax would be. Never mind that ABC had just been bought by Disney, and the network seemed to be a lot more involved from that point forward. Not a lot of long-range umbrella stories like this was shaping up to be (didn't the Cassadines even buy the hospital or something?) really got to play out as originally planned from that point forward, even if the credited writers stayed put.

This commentary on the Loving murders and the transition to The City is fascinating - especially Kane's blog, which I am just now reading. It's been a long time since my college humanities courses, and I have my doubts that Esensten and Brown were intentionally drawing from Greek tragedy, but the Gwyn/Medea parallels are striking. I was still in my 30s when I first watched the serial killer storyline on YouTube during COVID: so, I guess, the tail end of ABC's target demo for The City (just a few decades removed thanks to technology). And I agree completely that the most interesting material got resolved (or was left forever unresolved) in Corinth, and the stories they were setting up on TC paled in comparison. Did anything ever come of the business with the dead body in the carpet, or was it just a cold open? One thing that's interesting about demos is that there were NO teens on TC. In that sense, the show had at least the potential to be a more mature contrast to some of what the rest of daytime was prioritizing. I was an adolescent at the time, and I actually checked out TC at first after seeing the publicity. As a closeted teen, what the show billed itself as was probably much closer to my escapist fantasy than the heteronormative teen stories that other soaps were offering up in the mid-late '90s: growing up and moving to NY. But even at that age, I was quickly able to discern that those characters' lives were much less interesting than the ads. In any event, I wonder, when did the 12-17 demo (officially or unofficially) become the holy grail for soaps? Did TC maybe even die by its own sword in part because it was SO specific in its youth focus? Also, this is off topic, but was "found family" really the draw of Melrose Place? At the beginning, I know that was the focus, but once they revamped it, I have no recollection of any specific scenes focused on friendships (other than Matt, as a supporting character). I suppose the few characters who didn't become completely cutthroat still hung out together at the bar sometimes, but I feel like that was mostly for plot purposes. Again, sorry to go OT.

So sad. If Ellen's OLTL material is almost all lost forever, at least her long form interview a few years back exists for posterity (apologies if this has been reposted since the news, but I didn't see it): https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/ellen-holly#interview-clips Clearly the Times obit writers didn't read her book - if ever there was a time soaps deserved to be savaged in the mainstream media, this was it, but instead they make it sound like OLTL was a largely positive experience for her. I may go watch some of her recurring run on GL in the early '90s - even in a supporting role, she created a three-dimensional character who made every scene more engaging.

I wonder what Mary Ryan Munisteri could have done as head writer at a better time, and/or with a co–head writer who brought some complementary skills to the table and possibly an outsider's perspective (perhaps the aforementioned Martha Nochimson, but Horgan would also have been interesting, going by her very brief stint at Prospect Park's OLTL). MRM got promoted only after Labine and Mayer each left at different times in a matter of months, and her predecessors had already begun introducing the Kirklands - when clearly their hearts weren't in it. At least if the network had given a new head writer a mandate to create a new, wealthy family, they could have had the chance to develop characters they actually believed in. Also, RH had already veered off-track (and lost momentum) by 1982. Mary's murder might have been a better turning point for a handover behind the scenes, especially if Kim was going to be central to the new direction, since she was the one who could identify the killer. Maybe that would have been the time to go all-in on Kim, including her newfound family.

Yes, thank you. That is a lot of material this family burned through in a few years...and some of it very dark, even for the '80s era. Wasn't one of the hallmarks of the "supercouple" formula that the disapproving relative finally sees the antihero's gruff charm and has a change of heart? They kind of had to live long enough to do that. And how old was Steve supposed to be, that he was Kim's brother-in-law? From the footage of Nick and Kim that I've seen, which admittedly wasn't all that memorable, I didn't get the sense that there was an age difference. It's interesting that Steve had already been to prison for drug smuggling, and that he was introduced in a story with a pre-Dobson character.

Oh, my alternative soap history was pretty much pegged at 1983-84, and Marland would have been in lieu of Falken-Smith. My guess is Delia would have stayed in San Diego for however long he was head writer, probably no more than 2-3 years, which by all accounts would have been better than Robin Mattson's brief run. I imagine the Coleridges would have still had a place on a Marland canvas, like the Stewarts on ATWT, but the focus would have been on the Ryans and (probably) a new, more ostentatiously uppercrust family that actually had stories directly connected to the main Ryans. Most likely, via a daughter who was switched at birth at the same time of one of Maeve's pregnancy losses (I know, I know, the dialogue was very specific that Maeve's only stillbirth was Sean, and the rest were miscarriages. But unless ABC would have allowed for the introduction of a gay male or trans Lily Walsh prototype who longed for the simple life at Ryan's Bar—which would have been amazing—I suspect Marland would have found a way to fudge that detail). Oh, it still definitely would have been a departure from what RH had been, not least because of the dialogue. I just think it could have been interesting story-wise, without damaging the core of the show, and might have led to the introduction of characters/elements that Labine/Mayer would have had fun with later. Kind of like how Claire Labine seemingly went with the ridiculous aging of Ryan and John Reid in her last return, even if she probably never would have pulled that trigger so quickly (and, I suspect, would have mined their on-screen childhoods to "create" more interesting adult characters for them than the interim writers did). And maybe it could have bought the show a little more time?

Fair points about Marland. I doubt it would have been his most successful soap gig, but he maybe could have provided new energy and maybe appeased the network somewhat without decimating what RH had been. And Falken Smith couldn't have come cheap at that point, so whatever else there was a point when ABC was willing to spend money on RH.

Ah, thanks for sharing the Thanksgiving episode. This Tom recast didn't last long... Also jarring to go from Brian proposing to Juliet (just before) Thanksgiving to Brian/Barbara by Christmas, not least because I can never quite watch Pinter as a romantic lead without thinking of his Grant Harrison on AW. Was Maggie still on the show by the time Marland became head writer? I can't remember seeing her in those episodes. I liked what I saw of her in these episodes, but I couldn't follow what was going on with the wedding(s) of Diana/Cal/Maggie/Frank. Near as I could tell, the judge was giving baby Jill to anyone who was married (to anyone) in time for the custody hearing(?) - like she was a honeymoon sweepstakes prize. I also can't keep track of the Andropolouses. I found myself wondering if Steve's father (whom I always assumed was Kim's ex, but I guess that was Frank's father/Steve's uncle?) was still living in Greece when Steve got arrested.

Oh wow, I didn't recognize the name. That would make sense that this was not her first published TV commentary. Nochimson was also the only one interviewed to mention James Reilly's stint on the writing team, and not favorably. Was his time on The Doctors considered spotty at the time? I've read that those who watched on RetroTV preferred his predecessors, and that Liz Hubbard said in later years she did too, but I thought the relative success of TD was what got him the GH job. It doesn't seem like anyone who came after him had better luck, and the same with Loving. I know soap writing isn't cookie cutter and you can't just cut the recipe in half, but Marland managed to keep so many characters frontburner on hourlong soaps - I can't help but wonder if he could have been the one to find the right balance and successfully fit another core family into RH.

The Christmas Eve 1984 episode has been (re?) posted on YouTube. The stories don't seem that engaging, the holiday spirit is a bit anemic compared to later in the decade, and Nancy and Chris are still in Arizona, but Calhoun/Bedsow-Horgan are clearly trying to right the ship. It was interesting seeing Cal (and hearing about Jay, from Julianne Moore's predecessor) pre–Douglas Cummings. I can't believe Cal lasted almost a year after this episode. Was the audience supposed to root for Diana firing and evicting him on Xmas (Brian urged her to do so, and they were going into business with Lisa, so that was my guess), or was Cal meant to be at least somewhat sympathetic? I could have sworn this was the same Xmas episode that used to be on YouTube, when Kim had one of her "open houses" pre-Marland (I had totally assumed that expression wa one of Marland's touches, but I guess it was something people actually said in conversation at the time. I remember when I first started watching ATWT holiday episodes on YouTube/DVD, I had to Google "holiday open house" once I realized Kim wasn't selling her house). I do remember Kim and Bob were a couple in that other episode, whatever year that was. How long were they together in the '80s before their wedding? The stuff with John and David saving Dusty from the mystery disease also seems familiar—I would have figured that was the same episode I was thinking of—but I definitely do not remember the ending with Kim and Bob thinking they heard Santa's sleigh. 🤦‍♂️

I was finally able to finish the book over the long holiday weekend. Post-1983 was way less interesting for me on-screen and off, but reading about the show's low point in the mid-'80s was way more compelling than trying to watch any of those episodes. And there were some interesting stories from Claire Labine's final stint/nice memories from the finale. Martha Nochimson was the most fascinating interviewee to emerge from the '80s era. She joined the writing team under Pat Falken Smith, but was definitely not in agreement with everything that regime wanted to do to the show—and she had stories to tell about her former boss. I can't help but wonder what Nochimson would have done if they promoted her (although rationally I know an inexperienced writer being moved to the helm of a show on the brink of cancellation would have probably had no power at that point). Relatedly, I really don't get Joe Hardy, the one who hired and championed Nochimson. Is it unusual for an executive producer to hire staff writers against the wishes of the head writer, or should I say was it at the time? Hardy was so proud to have a writer with a Ph.D. on staff, at a time when the writing was at its all-time lowest grade level. It would make sense if Hardy were trying to undermine Falken Smith on principle because they wanted different things for the show, but it's not clear what Hardy did want. Maybe that's why ABC kept him around for so long, even as the network's "vision" for the show kept changing drastically... As far as Falken Smith's unfortunate tenure, I still say if ABC wanted a former GH writer who had left the network on bad terms, why not Doug Marland? His style would have made for an interesting interlude for the show, but not necessarily at odds with the show's identity. In fact, I bet Labine and/or Mayer when they returned again would have had fun picking up some of the character/story threads he would have left behind.