Another World Discussion Thread

[Contessa Donatella]

I am quite sure my thinking about it as a good sl comes from the acting. I loved David O'Brien as Steve on THE DOCTORS & then loved him again as Dr. Brian Glaser. Exceptionally good acting always gets me. As a matter of fact that is one thing that I love about soaps, getting so many chances to see actors we love give stratospherically excellent performances!!! 

[adrnyc]

Yeah, I think soap viewers watch for many reasons. Some for plot. Some for character. Some for acting. I'm also on the acting side. I can give my willing suspension of disbelief for some of the writing if the actors give incredible performance and are able to sell it. That's what excites me about watching soaps. Especially knowing they basically have one rehearsal and then one shot at the actual recording.

[j swift]

I imagine that Iris would say that Mac would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that Rachel named her son with Carl after him.

[mikeaw1978]

I've never heard that theory before, so it's definitely a new one in my mind. Pure conjecture in my mind. I've yet to find any reference to that. If John and Pat wished to name their son after a character, it would've been Samantha (Sam) after Sam Lucas or Drew/Michael (in honor of Mitchell Dru). Those would be far more likely and excellent nods to established history. Characters with professional and personal ties. John would not want to be reminded of Pat developing feelings for Mike Bauer as it was partially due to John being a tyrant towards Pat while he was dealing with paralysis. Pat was ultimately contrite and perhaps embarrassed of her attraction to Mike. Plus, that renewed Lee's hatred towards Pat. They had resolved their differences because Lee saw Pat's devotion towards her father during John's paralysis and genuinely felt sorry for her because John was mistreating Pat.

Yes, Rachel named Matthew after the Matthews family, partially because Russ and Tracy DeWitt had agreed to adopt Matthew when Rachel was facing an eight year prison sentence for supposedly killing Mitch and Rachel assumed that Mac would not want to raise another man's son. Probably helped that, of the Matthews, Pat, Russ, and Jim settled their differences and became friends with Rachel. I'd like to think that perhaps Mary and Rachel could've been friends had Mary lived past March 1975. 

Edited July 25, 2024 by mikeaw1978
Typo

[Xanthe]

For what it's worth, I looked into the Soaps & Serials novelization (#3, "Affairs of the Moment") and there was nothing there claiming that Michael and Marianne were named after anyone specific. Not conclusive but it doesn't add any weight to the Mike Bauer theory.

I skimmed the Kate Lowe Kerrigan novelizations as well but they are very focused on Rachel/Alice/Steve and basically skip over Pat in this time period.

[j swift]

@Xanthe I hope you are holding onto your copies of the Soap & Serials novels, because it never ceases to amaze me how much they have appreciated on eBay and Amazon.  I mean, from $1.95 to $99.99 in 37 years, you couldn't that kind of return on investment if you bought a Birkin bag.

Please register in order to view this content

Edited July 25, 2024 by j swift

[Efulton]

In order for me to pay $99.99 for it Vicky Wyndham would need to show up at my condo and read it to me.

[DRW50]

Please register in order to view this content

 

[mikeaw1978]

Just be careful with the novelizations and referencing established history. They don't credit the headwriters of the show at the time and there's backstory filled with elenents that were never revealed on air. I don't believe the novelizations were any kind of collaboration despite having a P&G copyright.

 

[Contessa Donatella]

So, Mike. if I hear you right, the novelizations are NOT canon, right?

[Mona Kane Croft]

I agree.  However I've found the two Kate Lowe Kerrigan novels to be far more accurate to the scripts than the Soaps and Serials books.  Soaps and Serials really just seemed to use the basic plots of the soaps (along with some details) as a framework to write romance novels. Those novels include lots of scenes and details that never took place on the shows.  The Kate Lowe Kerrigan books are written in a more serious tone, and I would not really call them traditional romance novels.  They are more like adult novelizations of the actual show.  But as someone mentioned, the Kerrigan books focus fundamentally on the Alice/Steve/Rachel triangle and simply leave out most of the other concurrent plots on AW. 

Edited July 25, 2024 by Mona Kane Croft

[mikeaw1978]

Agreed, Mona. But, no I wouldn't take anything in the novels as cannon that wasn't revealed on air. 

[j swift]

I enjoy that the books tend to embellish a bit, but my criticism of KLK's books is due to the format.  On screen, we are allowed to infer or interpret the character's motives.  But, in print, she tends to articulate the thoughts of characters that were not part of the original dialogue.  For example, when she was writing about Robert and Clarice, she gave Clarice an inner monologue to explain her choice to keep her pregnancy from Robert.  But, when I watched the actual scene, there was less internal conflict than was written. 

I understand that KLK would not want to copy a script, and only use dialogue to tell the story.  However, it is interesting to read her projections about the character's thoughts and beliefs, at times when it was more ambiguous on screen and left to the audience interpretation.  In other words, we are often reading her reaction to the story, as opposed to what we as a viewer might get from watching the same plot. 

[Mona Kane Croft]

Interesting.  It has been at least 20-years since I read KLK's AW novels.  I had completely forgotten Clarice and Robert were even mentioned in Another World II.  But I think it would be difficult to write a novel without explaining characters' motives.  As you mention, otherwise the book would be more like a script with nothing but dialogue, location, and stage direction.  I hadn't thought of that before.  

[Xanthe]

Buy low, sell high. 

Absolutely. That's why I think it's useful to be transparent about the source. If the novelizations had made the same claim that Mike Bauer was Michael Randolph's namesake we could not be sure whether that came from the show or not, but in the absence of other evidence it might make it more likely -- or at least explain why a fan might believe it.

Even in the show retcons can of course provide contradictory facts at different points in time. And I know the AWHP has some facts recorded with a note that at one point in time the show said X but later changed it to Y, because both are true.