Here are some questions I hope someone will ask if they are not addressed during the panel discussion:

1. What kind of soap writing do you think is most enjoyable -- breakdown, dialogue, head writing? Why?

2. Do you believe that after a few years of writing on a show, especially head writing, one can "burn out"? How do you know when that's happened, are there ways to avoid this, and what should a writer do when he's burned out?

3. Do fanbases have too much power over storylines today, even at the cost of what you believe to be character integrity?

4. What is the role of social issues and realism in American soap writing?

5. Have any of you seen EastEnders? What do you think of it?

6. Is there a future for the soap genre in daytime television?

7. Do you write with particular demographics in mind (such as "women 18-49"), or do you write to tell a good story that's consistent with the characters?

8. Do you think soaps today introduce too many new characters, instead of using the characters and the history they already have (in fresh, relevant ways)?

9. Do you think there's a place for more serious soap journalism that goes deep behind-the-scenes on shows, analyzes each story for meanings and asks the cast and the writers serious questions like that, and interviews past cast and crew members to go deep into the writing and production process and to highlight soap history? Do you think there's a place for a magazine that takes soaps as seriously as, say "Doctor Who Magazine" takes Doctor Who (a long-running British science-fiction series that started in 1963, around the same time as many of the soaps)?

10. What is the best thing about writing for soaps today? What is the worst thing?

11. Soap fans say they don't want to be talked down to, but sometimes they seem to complain and not get it when a show is being subtle, dealing with important issues, or creative. For example, Ms. Labine, your General Hospital fell in the ratings during Robin and Stone's AIDS story. Your Ryan's Hope also had ratings difficulties. Sometimes it seems like soap fans just want their shirtless men and catfights, and don't want to follow a good story as it unfolds. Are soap fans really smart, or do they just say they are? Be honest -- especially if you're not working in the industry anymore, haha!

Damn, those are some really good questions (especially the ones I highlighted)! Too bad you're not going.

So, how was it? Was anyone there?

I was there, but I didn't take notes...here's some of what was said.

Claire Labine simply outclassed the others on the panel, and of course the other writers deferred to her. She recalled a time when networks didn't interfere with the storytelling and were simply a means of delivering the content to the audience. Despite her pleading over the years, the networks began to interfere more with the day-to-day aspects, expecting longer projections for storylines (9 months). She said, back in the day, they'd write outlines for about 3 months of story, but, when they watched a show and saw how certain actors interacted, they'd see stories developing that they hadn't previously thought of. And they had the freedom to shift midstream and do rewrites. That freedom is limited today, as the approval process has become cumbersome.

Claire also said that audiences don't watch a show for cliffhangers and what-not, but because they wish they could live in the same town as these characters. There's an emotional truth that each soap has to convey to its audience, and that is what will keep them coming back day-to-day. She also says that soaps were better when they were only a half-hour.

She said soaps were better when they had smaller writing teams because everyone was on the same page. The writers all knew the characters well, and moreso, the writers all knew each other well. They had a united vision. In the '80s, the Writers' Guild created the "breakdown writer" position simply to create more jobs for writers. As the decade charged on, the writing teams became more and more bloated, and vision and continuity both suffered for it. Kreizman jumped in and said that economics will force writing teams to become small again and that daytime will be all the better for it.

The one "tense" moment happened when one audience member called out David Kreizman for hiring back vets like Matt and Vanessa and then penning stories for them that were "jerky and disjointed." Kreizman seemed slightly taken aback and defensive, claiming that budgetary reasons keep him from writing for some of the longer-term cast members. He said the first thing they do each week is determine how much they can use certain actors.

A lot was covered...oh yes, when asked about declining minority representation in front of the camera in daytime, ATWT writer Judy Tate (who is black) quite forcefully shot back, "Have you written a letter to the network?" She said that networks only see ratings, and that if ratings don't go up when more black characters are on, they have no incentive to diversify. If people started writing letters saying that they won't support a show's advertisers until they become more multiracial, then they'll listen, she says. She also said that she personally was not happy that ATWT had gotten rid of its black characters, especially considering how many black people watch daytime. She mentioned a nameless exec producer who was watching his show at an airport and was shocked when all the people watching behind him were black. And it's not just black people soaps need to target, she says - soaps need to look at who's home in the daytime. Judy mentioned South Asian women traditionally being at home in the daytime, yet she's never heard of a South Asian character on a soap.

There was also a lot of OLTL stuff that I don't quite remember all of...maybe someone else can jump in here. I do recall that the whole panel grimaced at the mention of the name "Megan McTavish."

Edited June 21, 200718 yr by Faulkner

I'm a black viewer and I must say that I am disappointed about the complete lack of black characters on the show. I'd love to see more diversity on the show. We have a gay character. It would be nice to see more gay characters. it would be nice to see a black family at the forefront of the show. It would be awesome to see a Latino family or a Asian family. And they don't have to be sterotypical.

A writer should be able to give depth to ALL characters regardless of their race, sexuality, or ancestry. Unfortunately I don't think thats the case with a lot of these writers.

Claire also said that audiences don't watch a show for cliffhangers and what-not, but because they wish they could live in the same town as these characters. There's an emotional truth that each soap has to convey to its audience, and that is what will keep them coming back day-to-day. She also says that soaps were better when they were only a half-hour.

She said soaps were better when they had smaller writing teams because everyone was on the same page. The writers all knew the characters well, and moreso, the writers all knew each other well. They had a united vision. In the '80s, the Writers' Guild created the "breakdown writer" position simply to create more jobs for writers. As the decade charged on, the writing teams became more and more bloated, and vision and continuity both suffered for it. Kreizman jumped in and said that economics will force writing teams to become small again and that daytime will be all the better for it.

WORD!

I agree with her that the writing teams for soaps have gotten way too large.

The once "tense" moment happened when one audience member called out David Kreizman for hiring back vets like Matt and Vanessa and then penning stories for them that were "jerky and disjointed." Kreizman seemed slightly taken aback and defensive, claiming that budgetary reasons keep him from writing for some of the longer-term cast members. He said the first thing they do each week is determine how much they can use certain actors.

LOL! Priceless.

I do recall that the whole panel grimaced at the mention of the name "Megan McTavish."

LOL.

Thanks for this report, Faulkner! Really appreciate it!

Why was Megan McTavish's name mentioned?

Claire Labine simply outclassed the others on the panel, and of course the other writers deferred to her. She recalled a time when networks didn't interfere with the storytelling and were simply a means of delivering the content to the audience. Despite her pleading over the years, the networks began to interfere more with the day-to-day aspects, expecting longer projections for storylines (9 months). She said, back in the day, they'd write outlines for about 3 months of story, but, when they watched a show and saw how certain actors interacted, they'd see stories developing that they hadn't previously thought of. And they had the freedom to shift midstream and do rewrites. That freedom is limited today, as the approval process has become cumbersome.

I don't think it's such a bad idea to have longer projections for storylines. It's only a problem if that means they can't do rewrites midstream without cumbersome approvals, as she claims. It seems to me I see too much "changing on a whim" writing and too many dropped stories, rather than too much long-term projection of stories.

Claire also said that audiences don't watch a show for cliffhangers and what-not, but because they wish they could live in the same town as these characters. There's an emotional truth that each soap has to convey to its audience, and that is what will keep them coming back day-to-day.

I agree with this, but I think cliffhangers are important too. I want to feel the emotional truth throughout an episode, but I also want a memorable last scene that will leave me gasping for more. A cliffhanger doesn't have to be a hanging plot point, but the end of an episode should still have some oomph to it.

She also says that soaps were better when they were only a half-hour.

That may be. My favorite soap is 30-minute soap EastEnders.

She said soaps were better when they had smaller writing teams because everyone was on the same page. The writers all knew the characters well, and moreso, the writers all knew each other well. They had a united vision. In the '80s, the Writers' Guild created the "breakdown writer" position simply to create more jobs for writers. As the decade charged on, the writing teams became more and more bloated, and vision and continuity both suffered for it. Kreizman jumped in and said that economics will force writing teams to become small again and that daytime will be all the better for it.

This is fascinating "backstage" information I'd never heard before! However, as a labor supporter, it's disappointing to me to read Claire Labine blaming the union.

The once "tense" moment happened when one audience member called out David Kreizman for hiring back vets like Matt and Vanessa and then penning stories for them that were "jerky and disjointed." Kreizman seemed slightly taken aback and defensive, claiming that budgetary reasons keep him from writing for some of the longer-term cast members. He said the first thing they do each week is determine how much they can use certain actors.

Jerky and disjointed? I feel like a statement like that applies to what GL has done with Blake lately, but not to Matt or Vanessa. It's too bad GL hasn't had enough of a budget to write more for some of the longer-term cast members.

A lot was covered...oh yes, when asked about declining minority representation in front of the camera in daytime, ATWT writer Judy Tate (who is black) quite forcefully shot back, "Have you written a letter to the network?" She said that networks only see ratings, and that if ratings don't go up when more black characters are on, they have no incentive to diversity. If people started writing letters saying that they won't support a show's advertisers until they become more multiracial, then they'll listen, she says. She also said that she personally was not happy that ATWT had gotten rid of its black characters, especially considering how many black people watch daytime. She mentioned a nameless exec producer who was watching his show at an airport and was shocked when all the people watching behind him were black. And it's not just black people soaps need to target, she says - soaps need to look at who's home in the daytime. Judy mention South Asian women traditionally being at home in the daytime, yet she's never heard of a South Asian character on a soap.

That's it, they should make Judy Tate headwriter of ATWT! There was a South Asian character on GL a few years ago as Alex's assistant for a few months, but that's all I've head of. She is so right that daytime could use a South Asian character and it would make sense audience-wise too.

There was also a lot of OLTL stuff that I don't quite remember all of...maybe someone else can jump in here. I do recall that the whole panel grimaced at the mention of the name "Megan McTavish."

Heheh.

Anyway, thanks, Faulkner, for the writeup! I'm glad the panel was so informative, and I think it's great that the writers took time out to come to it. Hopefully the audience showed their appreciation for that.

Also, thanks, SpiritualJunkie for liking my suggested questions ... Maybe one day I will get to ask them at some other panel.

I'm a black viewer and I must say that I am disappointed about the complete lack of black characters on the show. I'd love to see more diversity on the show. We have a gay character. It would be nice to see more gay characters. it would be nice to see a black family at the forefront of the show. It would be awesome to see a Latino family or a Asian family. And they don't have to be sterotypical.

A writer should be able to give depth to ALL characters regardless of their race, sexuality, or ancestry. Unfortunately I don't think thats the case with a lot of these writers.

Agreed. ATWT needs a lot of work in this regard.

I think Kreizman is making great strides by bringing on Natalia and Rafael at GL though. Mel and Remy have also been getting more airtime lately, and we just need to see them interacting more with their mom and dad again, as well as Leah.

Why was Megan McTavish's name mentioned?

Leslie Kipnow said that McTavish had rejected one of her sample scripts back when Megan was head writer of OLTL. She at first didn't want to mention the name of the writer, but she said, "Oh, who cares? She'd never hire me for anything anyway."

One hopes she'll never be in a position to hire anyone again.

Oh, did Claire Labine say anything about Kreizman and about what she thinks of GL today, since Kreizman worked under her, Labine's last soap job was GL, Kreizman was on the panel, and GL just won the Emmy? Did Kreizman share any stories about working under Labine? I am curious, if you remember and you have time to share. Thanks either way!

Edited June 21, 200718 yr by jfung79

Oh, did Claire Labine say anything about Kreizman and about what she thinks of GL today, since Kreizman worked under her, Labine's last soap job was GL, Kreizman was on the panel, and GL just won the Emmy? Did Kreizman share any stories about working under Labine? I am curious.

Kreizman said that he no longer has to submit long-term projections to the network, to which Labine responded, "I hope I had something to do with that." Everyone was very congratulatory toward Kreizman's Emmy win, including Labine.

There didn't seem to be much time for the Q&A, by the way. Mostly, the panelists talked about how they got started in the business and how others can, too.

Kreizman said that he no longer has to submit long-term projections to the network, to which Labine responded, "I hope I had something to do with that." Everyone was very congratulatory toward Kreizman's Emmy win, including Labine.

Thanks. I hope he is still writing long-term projections even if he doesn't submit them.

There didn't seem to be much time for the Q&A, by the way. Mostly, the panelists talked about how they got started in the business and how others can, too.

Ooh, and what *did* they say about how others can get started in the business?

I promise not to keep asking you what happened after this, sorry, lol.

Ooh, and what *did* they say about how others can get started in the business?

No worries.

Shelly Altman was the most pessimistic about people getting into the business. She said it's a small industry, etc. and that she's "not giving up her job" to make room for one of us. But she said that people do retire every now and then, and the networks are definitely looking for fresh, YOUNG, new, ethnic writers. She directed people to ABC's writer development program website (http://abctalentdevelopment.com/writers.asp).

The others said to send in writing samples (anything except sample scripts for the show - they are legally prohibited from reading such material unsolicited). Kipnow said that people can send in short stories, non-fiction, etc. Anything that proves you can write and have a sense of dramatic structure can get your foot in the door.

To his credit, Kreizman seemed pretty helpful. Just overhearing him talking to people one-on-one, he gave people some good pointers and even directed one young lady to submit her resume to the GL production office.

Thanks for your account, Faulkner. I love reading people's stories from events like this.

Did Claire Labine say anything about Paul Avila Mayer (who she created RH with, of course, and worked with on "Love of Life" and "Where the Heart Is")? And did she say anything about their time on LoL? A lotta old school soap fans sing the praises of their LoL and, from the one episode I've seen from it, they really had it going on.

Faulkner, thanks for sharing your experience at this writing panel. I have written Y&R twice to complain about the lack of storylines for Neil and Devon since Dru died and I'm not seeing any results. I'm going to include a list of their advertisers that I plan to contact with my complaints in my next letter. I have given up on seeing diversity of B&B and ATWT is determined to use gorgeous Elena Goode as prop for Jennifer Landon.