DeliaIrisFan

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.

That's an interesting perspective. I agree the show might have been more sustainable with the balance of Ryan/non-Ryan elements that they originally planned, but once Frank lived it threw off the pacing of most of the other stories for me. For me the show coalesced when they started narrowing the focus to the Ryans in 1976; starting with Delia and Roger's affair and Nell's life support, the momentum really picked up early in the year. By the time Andrew Robinson debuted, all the stories seemed organically connected. Frank was the only weak link, and suddenly he was being played by a really good actor. For me the show continued firing on all cylinders for a year or two, and never quite replicated that success (1983 came close, except for Delia being sidelined). On paper, many of the "excursion" stories (that's a good way of describing it) in the '80s seemed intriguing, but the pacing was off and the show seemed all over the map. With all the '80s trends ABC chased and all the failed efforts to graft new characters onto RH, I wonder when exactly Cheers took off and if anyone at RH ever considered emulating that and expanding the focus through some of the regulars of the bar. Some lost soul with no connection to any of the long-term stories could have found refuge from their drama at Ryan's and confided their troubles in Johnny, unknowingly putting the family in danger.

Right, but the promo was written as if "Ken" was a major character the audience was invested in. If I'd been a longtime viewer and had missed a few weeks, my reaction to seeing this ad would have been, "Who is this Ken?" Although I might have been intrigued seeing Barbara in danger and hearing that Kim was involved. I just think the focus should have been something along the lines of, "Is Kim's stalker a mysterious man from her past, and is Barbara in danger next?"

I've just finished the 1983 chapter. Shirley Rich returned, at Labine and Mayer's insistence, and cast Geoff Pierson (and presumably Felicity La Fortune, who did not participate in the book). I'm not sure how long Rich's initial involvement with the show lasted, but assuming she was gone by the time most of the original cast members under 30 left in the first contract cycle, I wonder if she might have had better luck with some of those recasts. I realize that's probably an oversimplification...whoever was responsible for all/most of the Mary recasts must have also been responsible for discovering Sarah Felder. But still, I can't help but wonder. Interesting that Cali Timmons said she got to know Claire Labine better when she (Timmons) was living in LA and Labine was writing GH. I wonder how/why. I still want to know what the original plan was for Charlotte Greer after the McCurtain vendetta story concluded. That can't be what Labine and Mayer originally planned, although the book makes me wish more of fall 1983 was online. And I'm trying to remember Charlotte's erotic fantasies about Frank that almost got banned. The Kirkland era remains an enigma. While I always sided with the creators and original cast members when I read about that interlude, I appreciate the multiple perspectives the book offered. Although I tend to think Geoff Pierson's take, as the new guy who had no horse in the race, was the most persuasive - he was watching the show after he was hired trying to get up to speed and couldn't figure out the title or how his character would fit into the show, because Hollis Kirkland seemed to be the patriarch. I found myself feeling oddly sympathetic for Kelli Maroney, who must be a good actress because she played such a negative, hateful character but seems to be a lovely person, and who got caught in a backstage tug of war that was much larger than her character/story. Also Mary Ryan Munisteri, who clearly loved the show—including the original vision, which centered around a character named after her—and was no doubt in an impossible situation when she got promoted to head writer for those few months. There's an (archival) quote from Labine that's included in the book about how she wished she'd taken a break when she sold the show to ABC, let them try to do what they wanted, and perhaps come back someday while it was still "salvageable." She said something similar years later in the We Love Soaps interview. I can't help but think what might have been with a better planned and timed handoff to Munisteri. I really don't understand the brouhaha about Michael being killed off. And I had forgotten many of the details of the Egyptian tomb story - even that Gordon Thompson's character was tied to the mob element. I'm also struggling to remember what the story with Maeve that Tom Aldredge came back for was, if it even aired on SoapNet.

Whoa re: Marie and Tad Channing. So I guess Iva's reference to having been in New Haven wasn't just a red herring - she actually was (in)directly tied to that whole story. How long was Marie on the show, and when/where did she manage to hook up with Tad? I didn't think he actually appeared on canvas until after Doug had died. And did Iva and Doug ever share a scene together? The subplot with the card was featured in the Christmas Eve episode that was on the DVD. John was the one who sent a card, to Lisa, that was identical to the one Kim got from her stalker. Ellen suspecting Lisa of being the stalker sounds amazing! This is the rape whistle promo. Whoever put it together apparently didn't watch the show. Ken, the guy who wanted to give Barbara a message for Kim and might "face conviction" couldn't have been on the show long enough for even a soap-length trial. Ah, what does it say about the genre that someone who worked in soap PR assumed that the protagonist—whose fate the audience was supposed to care most about—must be the character whose menacing behavior prompted someone else to blow a rape whistle? I believe Ken was the one who worked with Doug and Marsha at the restaurant and knew Kim back in her lounge singing days, so he became the first suspect (in the stalking, not sure about the murders). Come to think of it, didn't he also have a thing with Marie?

I don't know about philosophy (even what little I've seen of Lemay's work - and a heated debate about Immanuel Kant was about the only thing that wasn't used as filler in that first 90-minute episode). From what I've read, you could make the case that more melodramatic things happened to the Matthewses in the first 10-20 years than most other soaps' core families, namely, so many of them were killed off. And you could argue that the core families were successively replaced by increasingly "exotic" families, as in more ostentatiously wealthy (Matthewses --> Frames (well, Steve) --> Corys --> Loves), and/or by chosen families. Just some guesses, but, for sure, it's an interesting choice of words.

Ah. Which reminds me, at some point just before (or possibly during?) Kim's stalker story, she was attacked by some thug(s) who were after the jewels Shannon and Earl were smuggling? Or at least Shannon blamed herself when she confessed her real identity, but maybe she was mistaken and Doug or Marsha was responsible for whatever happened to Kim that time as well? Again, I'd be really curious to see how all those story threads gelled.

Watching that episode when Iva came home (thank you again for the link, @MarlandFan) right after binging everything else I could find on YouTube from the Doug Cummings saga made me wonder - was Iva a red herring in Marie's murder/Kim's stalker mystery at some point? When Emma asked Iva where she had been all those years, I caught that she listed a city in Colorado (Denver?), where Doug took Frannie and Kim hostage, as well as New Haven, where Marie claimed she was leaving town to go back. Of course, Lucinda was also getting mysterious phone calls at the time. I'm not sure how obvious it was that Iva was responsible, and/or if it might have seemed possible that the same person was calling Kim and Lucinda. And in one of Meg's early scenes arguing with Emma, she asked obnoxiously, "After all these years, how do you even know she's really Iva?" Again, I'd be fascinated to see how all those mysteries (and everything else at the time) played out alongside each other, day to day.

Thank you!

Thank you. November 11 must be the one I was thinking of, but I can't find it on YouTube now.

Agreed, especially before gentrification and the erosion of small businesses. I can even buy the homogeneity of most of the (original) main characters. Although there was a missed opportunity to make the show more multicultural over time, especially when the cast turnover started and they eventually gave up the ghost on recasting some core Ryans for years at a time. I posted the other day about Ana Alicia's (and others') recollections in the book. While she deserved a more fulfilling role, for me the saddest part of what she had to say was the part about how they wanted her to "do" an accent when she first debuted and she pushed back, to no avail. I know they were never going to have Alicia supplant Mary as the main heroine, but I wish they would have tried to give even a supporting character the dignity she deserved—and the realism that the show could be so good at in so many other aspects. Not to mention, that they'd trusted the actor and her lived experience (or, in this case, her self-awareness about what she might not be able to represent). I still love RH, and I actually think the writers made a great deal of progress in this area in their later careers. But I appreciate that the book documented everything that was available about the history of the show: good and bad.

I would add the fall of 1985 to that. I am going down a similar rabbit hole, mostly because I started rewatching what's available of the Doug Cummings story. I certainly want to keep going in 1986 and at least the start of 1987, but I also would just as soon go back and soak up everything I can of Kim's stalker storyline. Did CBS once re-air an episode from later in 11/85 (after Marie's murder - not Holden and Lily's first meeting and not the Halloween costumed party that stretched into early November) in the '90s/Aughts, or was it on YouTube and it got taken down? I seem to remember seeing an intact episode at some point, but now I can't find it.

Eleanor Labine declined to be interviewed, but Matt Labine actually died not long after his mother. It was very shocking to read at the time. As far as I know, her only other son, John, never worked for RH or any other soap. I agree the Mayer sisters really helped contextualize the book, and Eleanor's voice has been the biggest absence so far. I can only imagine she might not have been ready to revisit all of that, which had to be difficult to disentangle from the loss of her mother and brother. I think I said it earlier in the chain that I really hope she tells or writes her family's story one day. John Labine, too, depending on what he remembers - he was a bit younger, right? But I can respect that this was not the right time for them.