Sorry to hear that about John Sanderford. I thought he was the second best Frank Ryan, after Dan Kelly. He was a bit younger than the others, I think.

Ilene in a recent interview said he was good but whoever she was interviewed with did not mention him as one of the best Franks - they praised Kelly, Geoff Pierson, and Andy Robinson (who i thought was all wrong for the role).

One of the actors in the book criticized Sanderford for being too Hollywood - when he got there, he was concerned about how he was being lit, and that wasn’t a RH-type thing to do. I think Pierson was popular with his fellow actors, so I’m sure it was a tough environment to come into.

On 11/5/2023 at 4:44 PM, Soaplovers said:

I grew up in Chicago.. and in a lot of ways Chicago was similar to New York City in terms of their being various neighborhoods within the city.  You tend to stay in your neighborhood for various things such as shopping, bars, and sometimes even places of employment.

So I could buy Ryan's Hope being so narrow in focus because the family had immigrated to America, open their bar, and had regulars that had coming into Ryan's Bar for decades.  That is how urban areas.. or were at that time.

I hadn´t considered that. I like near a smaller size city and briefly hung out a neighborhood bar so I got that kind of vibe. I do think the show always felt more vibrant though when they explored the other aspects of the city (Kimberly´s attempts to become a Broadway star, Delia purchasing the Crystal Palace, the mobsters out in Sheepshead Bayy), while I also recognize that a lot of those ¨excursion¨ type stories, for lack of a better term, may not have been what most people wanted. 

On 11/5/2023 at 5:26 PM, DeliaIrisFan said:

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´ve only purchased the book yesterday and read some parts a few days back on Google books (it is a limited preview). Ana Alicia´s comment were disappointing, but not surprising. In thinking about how the show was developed, with Mayer and Labine writing intense backstories for those key characters, I can see why they were key to keep those core. With that said, they could have revisited whatever they had in mind for the Ramona Gonzalez character who never had anything to do. 

On 11/5/2023 at 6:44 PM, Khan said:

I agree that the show's focus could be too narrow, especially in its' earliest years, but probably not in the same way you thought it was. 

For me, the issue had nothing to do with the setting, but more with the fact that Claire Labine and Paul Avila Mayer just seemed so reluctant to stretch the canvas even a little bit so that it didn't feel as if every Ryan sibling was always hooking up with another Coleridge sibling, and vice-versa.  I mean, you expect every soap to be incestuous to some degree, but my God!

That's why I welcomed new additions to the cast like Rae and Kim, Michael Pavel, the Kirklands, Bess and Maggie, the Greenbergs, even Joe and Max Dubujak; because, at the very least, their arrivals potentially meant new story opportunities for the core characters.

I think the narrowness in the setting though played into the narrowness in the story. Not only were the Ryans and Coleridges sleeping with each other, they were all working together as well. If they had expanded their worlds a bit career wise, it would have provided more opportunity for story. Those early days are heavy on the intense emotional family drama from all the interconnections, but often the career elements weren´t always utilized to their full potential. With that said, they could have had the characters in different careers and it would still have been narrow if they didn´t actively work to expand the canvas.

I really enjoy 1980-1981 becasue it seems to try and attempt to balance the more brazen storytelling of Labine and Mayer from earlier in their careers (¨Where the Heart Is" and ¨Love of Life¨) with strong domestic drama they had come to be known for during ¨Ryan´s Hope.¨ In reflecting on 1981, I can definitely see how the show pushed some of the core characters to the edge while the elements ABC wanted (Joe/Siobhan, Michael/Kim/Rae) eclipsed what the show had been about from the beginning. 

I haven´t rewatched the show from the beginning in many years, but my teenage self, on the first go around on SoapNet, loved the first seven months, and then struggled to maintain consistent interest in the next couple of years that followed. I became much more interested around late 1979 when Faith started boozing and Kim decided to pursue Seneca and so on. It was probably the third viewing before I ¨got¨ why people thought Mary and Jack were so special. I felt that first year presented some very raw characters that had their edges shaved down over the years in order to present an idealized version of the Ryan clan. I felt some of that edge came back in the early 1980s, but not with the characters it probably should have. I was very pleased that the recently published book mentioned how unlikeable people were allowed to be, but I struggled because of the lack of consistent accountability by the family for their own.

On 11/6/2023 at 7:09 PM, Soaplovers said:

What I didn't understand was why didn't the show revist Jack/Jill during the time when Frank was off the canvas between fall 1981 to early 1983.  Jill barely did anything during the time Frank was off the show.

My mom was a hug Jill fan.. how she was a lawyer, independent, etc... so when I watched the reruns.. I said 'how can you admire a character that settled for being the other woman, and waiting for Frank to get his ass in gear'.  My mom said 'well I just loved the actress.'.

At least Faith was given different stories during the times when Pat was off screen.

I think Jack and Jill would have been interesting as well. I just have to wonder how well Michael Levin and Nancy Addison Altman would have done with each other given that they both seem like such strong personalities. 

On 11/6/2023 at 6:09 PM, Soaplovers said:

What I didn't understand was why didn't the show revist Jack/Jill during the time when Frank was off the canvas between fall 1981 to early 1983.  Jill barely did anything during the time Frank was off the show.

 

It was because of that slow late 1981 to early 1983 that Nancy Addison said she decided if another prolonged period without much to do happened again - --  she would leave the show. And she did after she had been on the backburner for 18 months (married to Frank and pregnant) when she left in January 1988. 

Edited November 12, 20232 yr by safe

Do posters think Tovah Feldshuh would have been a good Mary Ryan replacement? 

Those who have seen her as Martha McGee would have an idea.

2 hours ago, dc11786 said:

I hadn´t considered that. I like near a smaller size city and briefly hung out a neighborhood bar so I got that kind of vibe. I do think the show always felt more vibrant though when they explored the other aspects of the city (Kimberly´s attempts to become a Broadway star, Delia purchasing the Crystal Palace, the mobsters out in Sheepshead Bayy), while I also recognize that a lot of those ¨excursion¨ type stories, for lack of a better term, may not have been what most people wanted. 

I´ve only purchased the book yesterday and read some parts a few days back on Google books (it is a limited preview). Ana Alicia´s comment were disappointing, but not surprising. In thinking about how the show was developed, with Mayer and Labine writing intense backstories for those key characters, I can see why they were key to keep those core. With that said, they could have revisited whatever they had in mind for the Ramona Gonzalez character who never had anything to do. 

I think the narrowness in the setting though played into the narrowness in the story. Not only were the Ryans and Coleridges sleeping with each other, they were all working together as well. If they had expanded their worlds a bit career wise, it would have provided more opportunity for story. Those early days are heavy on the intense emotional family drama from all the interconnections, but often the career elements weren´t always utilized to their full potential. With that said, they could have had the characters in different careers and it would still have been narrow if they didn´t actively work to expand the canvas.

I really enjoy 1980-1981 becasue it seems to try and attempt to balance the more brazen storytelling of Labine and Mayer from earlier in their careers (¨Where the Heart Is" and ¨Love of Life¨) with strong domestic drama they had come to be known for during ¨Ryan´s Hope.¨ In reflecting on 1981, I can definitely see how the show pushed some of the core characters to the edge while the elements ABC wanted (Joe/Siobhan, Michael/Kim/Rae) eclipsed what the show had been about from the beginning. 

I haven´t rewatched the show from the beginning in many years, but my teenage self, on the first go around on SoapNet, loved the first seven months, and then struggled to maintain consistent interest in the next couple of years that followed. I became much more interested around late 1979 when Faith started boozing and Kim decided to pursue Seneca and so on. It was probably the third viewing before I ¨got¨ why people thought Mary and Jack were so special. I felt that first year presented some very raw characters that had their edges shaved down over the years in order to present an idealized version of the Ryan clan. I felt some of that edge came back in the early 1980s, but not with the characters it probably should have. I was very pleased that the recently published book mentioned how unlikeable people were allowed to be, but I struggled because of the lack of consistent accountability by the family for their own.

I think Jack and Jill would have been interesting as well. I just have to wonder how well Michael Levin and Nancy Addison Altman would have done with each other given that they both seem like such strong personalities. 

Of the 1981 experiments, I liked the Judith Barcroft soap opera character arc the best.. at least from the little of it I saw.  It managed to include Seneca, Delia, and Roger into it... and I do think maybe Jill could have been incorporated into it based on the law aspect and her past ties to the other core characters.

Jill/Jack would have been lots of head butting and arguing.. which would have been a real acting workout for both Levin and Addison Altman.. and given them something to do until Leigh Kirkland and Frank came onto the scene in early 1983.

And I haven't seen much of 1982, but I just can't imagine Ilene Kristen playing Delia co-owning the Crystal Palace nor trying to fight with Hollis for air rights to the property.  Randall Edwards had a ditzy aura to her Delia.. but she was more crafty and seemed more assured as Delia then Illene was ever playing Delia.

I

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.

4 hours ago, dc11786 said:

I hadn´t considered that. I like near a smaller size city and briefly hung out a neighborhood bar so I got that kind of vibe. I do think the show always felt more vibrant though when they explored the other aspects of the city (Kimberly´s attempts to become a Broadway star, Delia purchasing the Crystal Palace, the mobsters out in Sheepshead Bayy), while I also recognize that a lot of those ¨excursion¨ type stories, for lack of a better term, may not have been what most people wanted. 

I haven´t rewatched the show from the beginning in many years, but my teenage self, on the first go around on SoapNet, loved the first seven months, and then struggled to maintain consistent interest in the next couple of years that followed. I became much more interested around late 1979 when Faith started boozing and Kim decided to pursue Seneca and so on. It was probably the third viewing before I ¨got¨ why people thought Mary and Jack were so special. I felt that first year presented some very raw characters that had their edges shaved down over the years in order to present an idealized version of the Ryan clan. I felt some of that edge came back in the early 1980s, but not with the characters it probably should have. I was very pleased that the recently published book mentioned how unlikeable people were allowed to be, but I struggled because of the lack of consistent accountability by the family for their own.

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.

6 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

Of the 1981 experiments, I liked the Judith Barcroft soap opera character arc the best.. at least from the little of it I saw.  It managed to include Seneca, Delia, and Roger into it... and I do think maybe Jill could have been incorporated into it based on the law aspect and her past ties to the other core characters.

And I haven't seen much of 1982, but I just can't imagine Ilene Kristen playing Delia co-owning the Crystal Palace nor trying to fight with Hollis for air rights to the property.  Randall Edwards had a ditzy aura to her Delia.. but she was more crafty and seemed more assured as Delia then Illene was ever playing Delia.

I think the ¨Proud and the Passionate¨ story would have worked better with Kim involved alongside Barbara Wilde. Kim being cast by the new writers on P&P to bring in the younger viewers, which leaves Barbara in a desperate position. Barbara and Kim´s rivalry could have been escalated by Seneca´s position on the show as a consultant and Barbara could try to out Kim Kim by making a play for Seneca. None of this really works with Arley in the picture, but I think it would have been fun to see Kim go from theatre to daytime. I wonder if Ellen Barber´s 1981 role was essentially what was planned for Kim when the story was originally in development pre-strike. 

Doesn´t Kristen depart the first time after Delia´s breakdown? Edwards had the chance to play the reformed version of the character. Kristen is competent, but it would have been interesting to see how she handled the character given the evolution she had undergone during her absence. 

5 hours ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

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. 

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.

I would love to see more of 1982. I think the Kirkland takeover is really much shorter than people credit it (December 1982-February 1983) as most of the synopses before seem pretty balanced with other stories as well. Catsy doesn´t arrive in New York City until December, and that´s when it seems that the domination is very clear. 

I enjoy Mary Ryan Munisteri´s work on ¨Loving" in late 1991 and her work with Trent Jones headwriting the shortlived ¨Tribes.¨ I haven´t seen much of her stint on ¨Guiding Light,¨ but I know the general opinion is it wasn´t good. 

A soap rumor I read years ago was that the show had intended to pair Matthew and Maeve in order to keep Bernie Barrow in line (I can´t remember what was going on, but they wanted to make it clear that if Johnny wasn´t on the canvas Maeve would move on). I don´t know if that really played out onscreen though. 

3 hours ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

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.

The tonal shift between 1975 and 1976 is very jarring and I enjoy the starkness of those early episodes when characters were more rough around the edges before the writing seems more slanted towards presenting the Ryans as this perfect family. I do know Frank´s survival ultimately required a lot of shifting, but the shifts occurred in places that weren´t as connected to the Frank change as well. I liked the more neurotic Faith that Faith Catlin was written as. I know Catherine Hicks is well regarded, but her Faith always comes off as very generic. 

I occassionally have to remind myself that the episodes on SoapNet aired at 2 episodes a day which definitely impacts how I perceive pacing so I will say that´s something I don´t always pick up on. I think part of the issue is that the show´ś excursion tales is they didn´t always have much long term impact. 

Interesting thoughts regarding the potential exploitation of the popularity of ¨Cheers." I would offer up that the show seems to do this not with Ryan´s, but with Greenberg´s Deli under Pat Falken Smith. I remember some regulars in the 1975 episodes (or at least one guy) but he was very underdeveloped. It would have leant to the extended family idea well. 

 

18 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Do posters think Tovah Feldshuh would have been a good Mary Ryan replacement?

Another good suggestion, along with Margaret Colin.  Of course, no matter who had succeeded Kate Mulgrew, good or bad or in-between, Kate's shoes would have been tough to fill.

17 hours ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

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.

I feel sympathetic toward Kelli Maroney as well.  At the end of the day, she was an actor, just doing the job she was being paid to do, and to the best of her ability, too.  As far as I know, she didn't force herself on Labine & Mayer; ABC did.  She might not have been the kind of actor or character that L&M had wanted on their show, but they didn't own it anymore, so ABC had the right to impose the kind of actors, characters and storylines that they felt would help the show connect better with their target demos.  Again, it ain't Kelli's fault.

Watching episode 780 on Youtube, I was pleasantly surprised to see Delia's fantasy scene showed me that IK could have easily played a more upper east side Delia... and have been at ease as hostess/part owner of the Crystal Place.  Also, seeing Kathleen Tolan playing the meek secetary was the best acting she had done up to that point... maybe she would have been better playing a different role than the strong willed Mary Ryan.

Shame IK felt off playing that aspect of Delia when she came back to the role in 1982.

On 11/13/2023 at 12:13 PM, Khan said:

Another good suggestion, along with Margaret Colin.  Of course, no matter who had succeeded Kate Mulgrew, good or bad or in-between, Kate's shoes would have been tough to fill.

I

The biggest roadblocks to a successful recast for Mary were

Claire Labine and Michael Levin

 

Labine didnt want to continue the role after KM but ABC insisted so her heart wasnt in it

Levin stated in TL's book that he dislike dthe recasts and was vocal about it. That cant be easy for anyone who just accepted a job

3 hours ago, Soaplovers said:

Watching episode 780 on Youtube, I was pleasantly surprised to see Delia's fantasy scene showed me that IK could have easily played a more upper east side Delia... and have been at ease as hostess/part owner of the Crystal Place.  Also, seeing Kathleen Tolan playing the meek secetary was the best acting she had done up to that point... maybe she would have been better playing a different role than the strong willed Mary Ryan.

Shame IK felt off playing that aspect of Delia when she came back to the role in 1982.

I love Ilene describing the type of actress needed to play Delia:

A Brooklyn actress who looks like she does drugs but she doesn't

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.

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by DeliaIrisFan

58 minutes ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

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?

Douglas Marland head-writing RH sounds intriguing, but his track record with half-hour soaps (THE DOCTORS, LOVING) was spotty.

1 hour ago, DeliaIrisFan said:

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).

Holy shît. I didn't know Martha Nochimson had worked on the soaps vs. writing about them (specifically the media book in the '90s that quietly outed Tony Geary and alleged a pretty shocking BTS issue between him and Genie at that time) and in more recent years, writing several essential tomes about David Lynch and Twin Peaks.

54 minutes ago, Khan said:

Douglas Marland head-writing RH sounds intriguing, but his track record with half-hour soaps (THE DOCTORS, LOVING) was spotty.

 

46 minutes ago, Vee said:

Holy shît. I didn't know Martha Nochimson had worked on the soaps vs. writing about them (specifically the media book in the '90s that quietly outed Tony Geary and alleged a pretty shocking BTS issue between him and Genie at that time) and in more recent years, writing several essential tomes about David Lynch and Twin Peaks.

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.

59 minutes ago, Khan said:

Douglas Marland head-writing RH sounds intriguing, but his track record with half-hour soaps (THE DOCTORS, LOVING) was spotty.

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.