DeliaIrisFan

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.

That's a fair point with Pat, although I do think Groome isn't totally wrong that some initial aspects of the character got dropped when Frank survived. The fact that Pat made a strong impression that first year when he was in story limbo was probably largely due to Groome. As far as Kate Mulgrew/Mary, though, I really do think they found just about the only actress who could embody everything the writers wrote for that character. With each recast, they seemed to go with someone who, at her best, could come close to approximating one or more aspects of what Kate brought to the role (some much closer than others). Nevertheless, some other essential element of Mary always suffered. I actually think Siobhan was similar: Sarah Felder, especially in her first year, played an original, three-dimensional character that nobody ever replicated. That Siobhan is probably my favorite soap heroine ever. Alas, Joe and Siobhan became the show's de facto supercouple after Luke and Laura took off, and Siobhan had to become a different character to keep that going. It so happened Marg Helgenberger was really talented and had great chemistry with her co-stars, and became popular playing a character type more in the vein of Margo Hughes/Deborah Saxon or a prototype of '90s Harley Cooper.

Oh, wow, I think I'd drifted away from the SoapNet boards by then. I don't think I ever read this before. That is all so fascinating: different from what aired, of course, but also different from what multiple sources, some actually affiliated with the show, have said was in the original RH bible. I wonder if some of the details were intentionally fudged for the casting notes to avoid spoilers. I really can't imagine Michael Levin's Jack with any of the Faiths (then again, going by all the cast members who said in the book they were shocked to learn his real age and had assumed Jack was supposed to be around 30, maybe they retooled that character a great deal once they cast Levin). And even assuming both the Clem rumor was untrue and Kenneth Castle was unplanned filler they came up with to give Pat and Faith something to do after Frank didn't die, I tend to think Bucky and Pat alone would have been enough to keep Faith occupied that first year or two with Delia as her chief antagonist.

I wonder if AMC wanted Evans to play Gloria? Or were they already hedging their bets for a Natalie recast at that point, instead of offering Kate Collins the moon to stay?

The whole ABC lineup (that still had affiliate clearance) briefly hit the top of the ratings that summer. They all probably benefited from GH and the Ice Princess being the marquis act for the network - and, I suspect, further attrition for their timeslot competitors (I have not heard of anything memorable that the scabs at the other networks wrote that summer). Arguably, RH at that time may have been a better fit for the audience that was waiting to see Luke and Laura than it would have been at any point previously, but I doubt that spillover would have been sustainable no matter what the show did next.

My memory must be playing tricks on me - I thought Jack and Jill were the ones who were supposed to get together while Jack and Mary were on the outs. They had a history prior to the start of the show, I recall.

I've just finished the 1980 section of the book, and I'm about to begin the chapter on the 1981 writers' strike. Ana Alicia and Jose Aleman's interviews—and what they and others had to say about Hannibal Penney—were tough to read, but would be tougher to argue with. That really sucks, for a lot of reasons, including my love for the show and respect for its creators. That is still there, but they could and should have done better by these actors/characters. Not to make excuses, but reading about Penney did remind me of a rumor someone who claimed to have insider knowledge posted on the old SoapNet board: that in the show's original bible, Clem was intended to have an interracial relationship with Faith. I don't know that that was ever totally debunked; as far as I know, it was never verified. And I have learned to be even more skeptical of things I read online in the past 20-25 years, but part of me still wonders... Clem did have that whole backstory with the Coleridges, and the character was named after Claire Labine's then husband; that seems like more attention than a minor, supporting character might get. Anyway, he seemed like a good actor and that would have been much better than anything Faith did in the show's first year or so at the very least. It also sucks that Alicia, in particular, didn't go onto more work—even after her breakout role on Falcon Crest (wasn't her character really popular? I always meant to watch more of that show when it was airing on SoapNet, mostly because of her, but two episodes of RH a day plus whatever soaps I was still hanging onto in real time by then was already a lot to keep up with). From her credits, it seems like she was almost back to square one in terms of casting once that role ended, even after overcoming heaven knows how many barriers to get to that point. Catherine Hicks' candor was a bit surprising, at first, but then not too surprising the more I thought about it. I can see how this was a thankless role for her, but she was still my favorite Faith by a mile. That's cool that she and Alicia and Kristen were friendly on the set.

Oh, I disagree. I think the characters were so complex and unique—partly informed by the actors who created the roles of course—that the show couldn't just go out and find another "type" to replace them. If anything, I think Frank was easiest to recast because he was the least defined at the beginning. My guess is Labine and Mayer had a handle on who they thought Frank was, but the audience was introduced to him in other characters' (idealized) flashbacks. If he had died as planned, I wonder if Frank would have remained kind of an enigma, with all those who knew him remembering him differently. Anyway, no actor had ever fully embodied all those original aspects of who the audience thought Frank might be, so there was more leeway to write to different actors' strengths over the years. Also, for much of the show's run, the Frank recasts may have benefited from audiences having a uniquely positive association with the words, "The role of Frank Ryan will now be played by..." RIP Michael Hawkins, and I know he was dealing with his issues, but the first time those words were uttered a lot of viewers must have breathed a sigh of relief (I know I did when I watched on SoapNet). Andrew Robinson was such an improvement from day one, and most if not all of the subsequent Franks brought something unique and really good to the table as well. Whereas by the time Nicolette Goulet debuted as the fourth Mary inside a year, the audience had to be at their wits' end.

PS: I was sorry to hear Eleanor Labine declined to be interviewed. I hope she does tell her family's story (or write it herself) someday, when she's ready: not just their work on RH but also GH, and anything else she wishes to share. So much TV history.

Awww thanks for the shout outs. I just watched the Locher Room video, and I can't wait to read the book - should be arriving today. What Durham said about Claire Labine was fascinating, although I believe she softened on the subject of Dakota over time. She said in an interview in the '90s that the fallout from that was one of her five favorite stories, on any show she wrote. Not only did I not watch RH during its ABC run, I also skipped 1984-86 on YouTube. With that major disclaimer, I think there were a few issues with the way the interim writers introduced Dakota: 1) No moral judgments about Johnny having an affair from me, but it does seem completely out of left field for the character. How was he not racked with guilt every time he and Maeve lay awake at night fretting about Frank or Pat breaking someone's heart because they couldn't keep it in their pants? As long as they were going for a soap cliche, I think the long-lost son should have been Sean Ryan, the youngest (I think?) Ryan sibling, switched at birth with another infant who had died. 2) Speaking of cliches, of all the ways to reveal a long-lost, illegitimate son of a core family member, he just happened to be the guy his sister-in-law hooked up with while she had amnesia? For a show that had avoided so many soap opera cliches, did they need two for the price of one (three, if you count the character name)? 3) Did Maeve and Johnny even get much material out of the actual reveal? I do remember watching that scene they discussed on Youtube, with Johnny moving out after Maeve said Dakota was no longer welcome in their home. It was amazing, but I remember being surprised to realize THAT must have been the story Labine had been talking about in the aforementioned interview—not devout Catholic Maeve's actual reaction to learning Johnny had had an affair in the first place. And Dakota's mother was already dead, right? If they were going to do this story, they should have cast a stage veteran to play her, at least briefly, and/or used Dakota as a bridge to introduce members of his other family. Anyway, in the later episodes I saw Durham did make a great villain. And he (and Ilene of course) still look amazing.

I of course would have welcomed either actress back as Iris. I'm not sure if I knew at that point that McKinsey had originated the role either, but even if I thought she was Alexandra, that wouldn't have been a bad thing either. That said, if someone actually went to all that trouble to try and get Beverlee back but she was unable for medical reasons, they should have pivoted and ended with a recreation of Carmen's intro: a freeze frame of Rachel answering the doorbell and exclaiming in disbelief, "Iris!" without actually showing who was there. If Iris had returned for the finale, I assume it would have been a cameo like Mark Pinter/Grant anyway, so why not? That way, anyone watching could have imagined her as they remembered her.

I believe Claire Labine would have done well at just about any soap prior to 1995-96, before the networks and production companies got scared and/or got taken over by people who didn't understand soaps and wouldn't give writers more than 10 seconds to tell a story and develop characters and build to an earned payoff. The biggest what-if for me where Labine is concerned would have been ATWT when Doug Marland died, around the same time she came back to daytime after almost 5 years (to GH). I know she was offered that ATWT job a few years later, but again I think she would have had problems after Trach had been replaced by Fitts (and then MADD), plus the ratings across the board had everyone spooked. Anyway, the tone Marland had established—family drama and socially relevant stories—which seemingly would have been right up her alley, had already changed by the time she almost became head writer. She had never written an hour show before so I'm sure she would have streamlined the cast post-Marland, but that probably would have looked a bit different than what happened, i.e., probably not Iva and/or Lyla. AW in the early '90s would have been interesting for Labine. I could easily see her writing for many of the characters, now that I think about it. I just wouldn't think of the show as a whole being her cup of tea, structurally, by that point. There was nary a strong core family intact, with most of the stories and couples islanded. Not that GH was much different in that regard, but I think of the Quartermaines at that point as being more robust than even the Corys. Maybe Labine would have introduced her own families in Bay City and/or rebuilt one or more that had been phased out. I could see Emma coming back and having deeper conflicts with Frankie over their different world views, a la early Siobhan/Maeve.

Thanks. I couldn't find it on YouTube - most of the last couple of weeks of January are absent, and now that I think about it, I have a vague recollection of SOD issues being post-dated. Although I did notice some B&W flashbacks in episodes around that time featuring James Rebhorn's child molester character and his mother from back in the day, which I couldn't bring myself to watch. Maybe someone in the wardrobe department had negotiated a good deal on a bulk purchase at an estate sale?

Oh yeah, I was referring to June/early July, when AW was still in the top three (and briefly the highest rated P&G show), but then—as you said—really cratered while ATWT at least stagnated.