Another World Discussion Thread

[j swift]

Arguable on Dean and Paulina, and you were close to changing my mind, but even you needed to conceded that it is rare.  And I would argue, despite sharing scenes with his family, Dean was mostly a Frame in name only. 

I share the widespread admiration for Another World's history and commitment to canon. But the increasingly tired argument—that the show would have been better or more popular if it had just stuck with its core families—doesn’t hold up. The data suggests it's difficult for later writers to sustain a genuine connection to the past, just as new writers are rarely eager to reconstruct it.

[Efulton]

You may find it a tired argument but I disagree.  A talented writer with respect for the past could have slowly reintroduced the Matthew's family.  Longtime viewers would have been thrilled to see old favourites back and new viewers would have thought of them as new characters.  I had no memory of Sharlene or Russ but was very interested in their returns and was curious to learn about their histories.  

I began watching GH in 1983 after Genie Francis and Jane Elliot were gone. They became favourites of mine once they returned. Same with Marie Master (Susan) on ATWT and Michael Zaslow (Roger) and Maureen Garrett (Holly) on GL.

[DRW50]

I think with AW it may be the opposite - the ties to the past, those that weren't junked wholesale the way they were in the mid/late '70s-early/mid '80s, could work better with viewers and in story than attempts at creating new families. They came and went and came and went. There were popular new characters, and new families in some cases, but even in those cases, that was often more individual characters (like Cass, Felicia, Donna) who were slowly centered and had families built around them (I know Peter came before Donna but within a year or two Donna was the center of the family). And characters like Cass and Felicia were quickly tied into the Cory family dynamics, especially Felicia. 

Edited Thursday at 03:09 AM by DRW50

[j swift]

Yes, but those writers are few and far between, as evidenced by what actually occurred on screen.

Sorry, to be on a bit of a diatribe, but I think what set me off is when people post about the value of maintaining core families as if it were a new idea.

I think, given that the show has been off-air for a couple of decades, it may be interesting to challenge some of those well-trod opinions, and see if they hold up.

And, to me, this idea is neither imaginative nor practical, because it was so rarely well executed despite being oft repeated.

It is the soap fan's analogy for universal acceptance of the metric system.  A great idea, that's often been proposed, yet never well implemented.

Edited Thursday at 03:25 AM by j swift

[Efulton]

Completely agree that those writers are few and far between but that is really about recycling terrible writers and not giving fresh talent training and opportunities.  Which I could also go on and on about. 

Edited Thursday at 03:31 AM by Efulton

[Contessa Donatella]

Sharlene

John

Kelsey 

Remy

Sofia

[j swift]

But, doesn't Harding Lemay teach us that fresh talent are hired with the instructive that the past didn't work? They need to re-invent because they're hired due to the failure of a prior team to attract an audience.  Which may be why new writers rarely sought inspiration from the history of the soap.

Just rallying here, but again this may be one of those ideas that doesn't hold up to the scrutiny of time.  Fresh talent has never been a guarantee; not there are any guarantees in creative endeavors. 

[Efulton]

I have no desire to continue this back and forth with you. I’ve expressed my thoughts and stick by them. 

[j swift]

I apologize for any inferred rudeness. I was simply using your post as an example that we all tend to repeat these ideas, but now with the gift of time, we can examine to see if they are true.

Edited Thursday at 04:46 AM by j swift

[Efulton]

No need to apologize and you were not rude. I just found the discussion to have turned in an exhausting debate.

[Xanthe]

Core families are useful insofar as they provide reasons for characters to interact and be affected by others on the canvas. New blood is useful to prevent impossible levels of endogamy where the next generation is first cousins with absolutely everyone. But I am not convinced that characters tied to core families are inherently less successful than brand spanking new characters. We would need a control where casting and writing can be completely ruled out as factors.  

[Tisy-Lish]

I hesitate to enter this debate, but here I go!  LOL.  My observation has been that a head-writer who is unable to write for returning (or new) core family characters, also typically struggles to write for any character.  And, there are occasions when a head-writer's ego prevents her/him from writing successfully for any character she/he has not created, or at least has taken a personal liking to.  So it is less about the character, and more about the ability of the writer.  

The success of any soap opera character is all about the writing and the casting -- but mostly the writing, since a casting mistake can easily be corrected.  The reason AW's return of the Matthews family in 1989 ultimately failed was because Donna Swajeski's heart wasn't in it. It had been in Harding Lemay's story projections to being back Russ and Pat, along with new character, Olivia -- and to slowly weave them back into the canvas.  So Swajeski followed Lemay's outline either until it ran out, or until she felt empowered enough to start ignoring it. She ditched the plan for Pat's permanent return, wrote poorly for Russ, had Josie mostly reject her Matthews heritages (including the name Matthews), etc.   

But Swajeski was not exactly a master of creating (or returning) characters herself. Since few of her newly created characters were successful long-term.

Not wishing to argue with anyone, just expressing my observations.  

Edited Friday at 10:00 PM by Tisy-Lish

[Contessa Donatella]

I think her tenure was impaired from the moment when she capitulated to NBC & rewrote it that Jake did rape Marley. That was the moment when she decided she was leaving as soon as her current contract was up. From a morale point of view that had to be a powerful negative. She had to be angry. Now, if we overlay that anger on her writing, what do we learn? 

Okay, you're confusing me. Conventional wisdom is that you increase the likelihood of success for a new character by tying them to someone or something on the canvas. You seem to be looking at the reverse of that. But, of course, there would be no way to make the test you're theorizing. However, a sociologist could devise a questionnaire to get at some answers. 

[watson71]

AW was really good with the umbrella story of Who Killed Jason Frame story that involved all of the characters on the show.  I assume this was a Lemay story that Swajeski followed.  The first hiccup Swajeski had was Douglass Watson’s sudden death.  The Red Swan was probably her first original storyline and was all over the place.  
 

I wish someone had a copy of Lemay’s bible from 1988.  It would definitely be an interesting read to see how Iris would have been redeemed. 

[Tisy-Lish]

I agree, the Red Swan was probably Swajeski's first completely independent plot (meaning completely independent from Lemay).  But WOW, it was terrible -- and an undignified way to write the death of an iconic and dignified character like Mackenzie Cory.  

And regarding Iris, I'm not sure Lemay would have redeemed Iris at all.  And if he did, it would have taken months and months (possibly years) before Mac (or the rest of the Corys) forgave her.  But that's what creates believable drama.