37 minutes ago, anthonymolchan said:

I never want a “redeemed rapist” on a soap again. 
 

Honestly?  I never need a tape storyline on a soap again. Yes, it happens. But the social issue aspect of it has been addressed. 
 

1990 was only a decade after Luke raped Laura on GH. We all know how that turned out.  Jack raped Kayla on DAYS a few years before 1990. He’s a great guy now.  His longtime wife Jennifer is also a rape victim, which I’ve always questioned. 

What is the nature of your question about Lawrence raping Jenn?

37 minutes ago, anthonymolchan said:

Makes you wonder why some rapists were redeemed and some weren’t. Actor charisma?  Popularity?  Mark McCormack raped Mary on SB. She later died and he was not redeemed. But Dash Nichols raped Julia, was NOT convicted, and continued on the show. Her sister Augusta flirted with him. (Louise Sorel quit over this.)

I don't think it is any of that. Instead I would suggest it is an individual thing. But, please we need to remember that NBC for just one poor example, claimed speciously IMO, that violence against women increased ratings.

 

37 minutes ago, anthonymolchan said:

Sidenote:  SB was the RAPEYIST show EVER. Literally every woman on the show was assaulted at some point. Kelly. Christy. Eden. Julia. Hayley. Gina (in backstory). BJ. Mary. Amy (impregnated against her will). I’m sure I’m missing a few. 

We always used to say that about DAYS. 

37 minutes ago, anthonymolchan said:

AW later has the tape storylines of Lorna and Toni before the show ends in 1999. Were there other tapes that decade besides these two and Marley?  I can’t recall. 

I'm tired of reading TAPE when you mean RAPE.

Autospell is not my friend. 

May I point out all of your spelling and grammatical errors in the future?

Why are you like this?

@anthonymolchanI agree with you. I don't want to see a reformed rapist or a romanticised rapist or whatever kind of adjectives someone wants to apply to a rapist character. There was no need to rape Marley and I don't care whose decision it was. Jake should have been killed off, and the show have been reset in new directions. Instead, we got the same misogynistic rapist as romantic lead nonsense that we had on so many soaps. I found Jake impossible to watch; I can't stomach the character. Once Holbrook goes on maternity leave, I'm not sure I will continue watching the rest of 1990's AW.

4 hours ago, anthonymolchan said:

Autospell is not my friend. 

May I point out all of your spelling and grammatical errors in the future?

Why are you like this?

I often say that our tech is trying to kill us. I count autocorrect at the top of my list. 

Yeah, sure, if you want to. I don't know what you mean by "like this". In another lifetime I made my living as a copy editor and proofreader. Most people like me cannot Unsee errors & especially are tuned into autocorrect & think it is ridiculous. I really get a kick out of it when its amusing,  but that is not most of the time. I was not the one who typed tape over & over when they meant rape.

Now, much more importantly. To me a couple that begins with rape cannot be iconic. It's just definitional to me at least. 

When it comes to Jake raping Marley, it matters a great deal to me that it was NOT what the HW wanted & she was forced to rewrite several scenes & ultimately it was the reason she quit. 

“Like this?”

You're rude af.  Constantly.  I’ve seen it for a couple years.  You’ve been suspended numerous times.  Now it’s my turn to experience you first-hand.  
 

Do better. 

You are of course entitled to your opinion. If you knew me, well, that doesn't really help anything. It is unlikely that I will disabuse you of this notion. My best advise to you, since you feel this way, would be to put me on Ignore. I have a dozen people on Ignore & it works like a charm. Have a nice day. 

These should not have been merged. 

I am curious. I don't know if any of you watch GH. A few years back now, Disney issued an edict, no more rapists, redeemed or not, as romantic leads. Full Stop. Period. And, further, Deal with it NOW. 

Franko had been redeemed by the medical trick of a brain tumor. Too bad. He could not continue as husband, surrogate father to 3 boys, done, finito. 

Now, in future of course this situation will not arise. Which to my way of thinking is more or less optimal. 

So, I bring it up to solicit your opinion. 

 

Edited July 19Jul 19 by Contessa Donatella

Donna Swajeski left Another World in 1992, according to IMDB.  According to AWHP, Jake raped his ex‑wife, Marley Hudson, in October 1990. 

I would propose a more logical theory to the idea that the writer (1) withheld her feelings for two years, (2) centered the show around a character who did things she disliked, (3) wrote his redemption, and then (4) resigned out of disgust. 

I'm not saying that might not have happened.  I am only asking you to consider those as unfounded rumors, that can not be sourced to printed interviews or contemporary reporting. 

I'm certain our editorial authority comprehends the need for primary sourcing.  Although it is intriguing that any information that could support the theories that she states as the basis of her opinions remains elusive. The only references we see cited are Facebook posts aka the bathroom wall of the internet.

If we look at the rating during this period, they never gain traction against the competition.  Thus, we have a writer, Ms Swajeski who pitched a big expensive story, lasting over months, and it did nothing to move the ratings against the competitors.  In fact, AW drew roughly 30% less audience than their nearest competitor during her entire tenure.

Season One Life to Live (ABC) As the World Turns (CBS) Another World (NBC) 1989–1990 6.3 5.8 4.0 1990–1991 5.3 5.9 3.8 1991–1992 5.4 5.8 4.1
While Ms. Swajeski may have discussed regrets in hindsight (that don't seem easily sourced, or searchable).  She may have neglected to mention the balance of art and commerce. A writer can be both commercially savvy and conflicted. That duality is often the truth in soap history.  Of course, some are less likely to honor the possibility that more than one thing can be true.  Or, even, that they should reconsider ill-conceived beliefs.  But, in a genre built as a one-hour commercial for household products, I believe Jake and Paulina would've lasted for years, without any questions of morals on behalf of the writers, if they were effective at selling Prell Shampoo.   That doesn’t mean the arc wasn’t disturbing. Only that disturbing arcs, when successful, tend to get repeated, not punished.

 

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

@j swiftI have always given Swajeski grace for the fact that a lot of her time at AW was rocked by Watson's death, departures, and bad recasts. The 1990/91 really suffers especially in regards to RKK's departure because Amanda/Evan are in limbo and the Sam recasts have been terrible. That said, too many of her stories just fizzle out and there are only so many excuses one can give a headwriter.

As the writer, she privileges Jake's POV every step of the way, and this is probably why Timmins was so unhappy. She had enough pull with NBC execs that if she were against JAke raping Marley, she could have rebelled or killed him off. Instead, she wrote it and continued with him as the romantic anti-hero.

16 minutes ago, chrisml said:

... She had enough pull with NBC execs that if she were against JAke raping Marley, she could have rebelled or killed him off.  ... 

This, of course, disagrees with what has been stated in interviews. I am not aware of any reasons why we should doubt her version of events, especially knowing that the network, NBC, promoted violence against women. If you don't know about this, I recommend HER STORIES by Elana Levine, although it can be found in other texts.

21 minutes ago, chrisml said:

As the writer, she privileges Jake's POV every step of the way, and this is probably why Timmins was so unhappy. She had enough pull with NBC execs that if she were against JAke raping Marley, she could have rebelled or killed him off. Instead, she wrote it and continued with him as the romantic anti-hero.

I don't know about pull -- Lemay had quite a few complaints about the sponsor and the network preventing him from telling stories the way he wanted to tell them. Corporate fear of the audience is going to carry a lot of weight.

If Swajeski didn't want to go as far as having Jake rape Marley (in order to give her a motive to shoot him and in order to give Victoria a big dramatic reaction scene), what would she have done instead? It's hard to think of any lesser betrayal that would give the same dramatic result. I would find it easier to believe that Swajeski opposed the story If she had presented the alternative that she would have written instead. Otherwise it sounds more like she regrets being given grief for redeeming Jake later without having him properly deal with what he had done.

 

Elana Levine’s Her Stories is a valuable cultural text, but I don’t think it supplies the kind of direct evidence needed to verify the theory that NBC insisted on Jake raping Marley. Or that Donna Swajeski was coerced into writing it. That’s a significant claim, and one I’d be eager to revisit if someone can provide a direct interview or quote to support it. Otherwise, I think we have to be careful about substituting our modern critique for historical certainty.  

Logical Gaps:

1. Why would NBC, P&G, or any producer insist on a rape storyline?
   That is not just morally reprehensible but commercially risky—particularly in 1990. This was not a time when network execs wanted to provoke affiliate complaints or activist boycotts. Rape stories were controversial, advertiser-sensitive, and only used with great caution, if at all. To suggest NBC “demanded rape” lacks precedent or business logic.

2. Why Jake? Why Marley?
   If NBC wanted a violent rape for shock value, why choose this character pairing? Jake was already a known sleaze. Marley was sympathetic. That’s not how you'd build a titillating 'event'—and soaps had other tools (murders, affairs, baby swaps) for driving ratings without the same ethical minefield.

3. Why would Swajeski stay after supposedly being coerced?
   If this moral objection was so strong, why write the redemption arc? Why structure months of story around Paulina’s forgiveness and Jake’s survival? This wasn’t a one-week event. Either she was part of the story’s design or she wasn’t. The timeline doesn't support a rebellion. It suggests authorship.

4. Where is the evidence?
   Not a single printed interview has surfaced where Swajeski claims she was forced to write the rape. No contemporaneous source documents her objection—only vague fan recollections. That’s not credible enough for a historical claim of this scale.

The whole rhetorical foundation is secondhand, misrepresented, and unverified. That wouldn’t fly in academia, journalism, or even decent fan debate. It’s one thing to cite; it’s another to perform authority without confirming the substance.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

Elana Levine did not interview Swajeski at all. She quotes Swajeski from an SOW article called "Rape in the Afternoon" from May 21, 1991 where she claims she was asked to play up the rape (I don't have the article. I'm just stating what Levine quotes from the article). This is the only time that Swajeski is mentioned in the book. 

Edited July 19Jul 19 by chrisml

3 hours ago, Contessa Donatella said:

 Franko had been redeemed by the medical trick of a brain tumor. Too bad. He could not continue as husband, surrogate father to 3 boys, done, finito.

 

It's spelled Franco, BTW.  Don't know if auto correct is tripping you up here lol.

2 hours ago, chrisml said:

Elana Levine did not interview Swajeski at all. She quotes Swajeski from an SOW article called "Rape in the Afternoon" from May 21, 1991 where she claims she was asked to play up the rape (I don't have the article. I'm just stating what Levine quotes from the article). This is the only time that Swajeski is mentioned in the book. 

Thanks, I just went back to read the SON article on Tumblr. If anyone needs any soap opera history mythbusting call @chrisml.🕵🏼‍♂️

There is a single quote from Donna Swajeski saying she got a note from the network to “play up” the violence in the scene so that it could not be inferred as consensual in any way.  She was not asked to make it sexier.  They did not demand that Jake rape Marley.  The daytime executives at NBC gave a script note (like a comment on the side of a Word doc) to Donna Swajeski that if she wanted to write a scene with sexual assault, then it had to look violent, so that it could not be romanticized later. 

Therefore:

They not only did not order anyone to be raped. Swajeski pitched the rape.  And in written response, NBC noted they were concerned that Swajeski's script was too abstract, and needed to be shot more directly in order to communicate the impact of the story she wanted to tell.   There no evidence, nor any suggestion in the article, that NBC want to use sexual violence for titillation.  In fact, they wanted it to be horrific, so the impact would be dramatic, and aligned with Swajeski's pitch.

Swajeski wanted to avoid the filming being traumatic for the actors, but she understood the need to visualize the horror. The push for a more undeniably violent portrayal could have been an attempt to avoid exactly the kind of ambiguity that reinforces rape myths. In other words, they may have been trying—however imperfectly—to do the opposite of what they’re being accused of: to confront, not obscure, the reality of sexual violence.  And there is zero indication that Swajeski disagreed.

Once again we are able to correct a misassumption in moments that has existed for decades, because some people lack the curiosity to ever ask questions, despite trying to act like an authority.  

 

And just in case anyone was wondering, there has never been a published account of any Walt Disney corporate executive ever commenting on the creative decisions that dictate who can be the lead character on a soap opera.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

On 7/14/2025 at 10:23 PM, chrisml said:

Too many Another World performers did not receive the recognition they deserved while lesser performers on other shows got in and/or won.

Another World at the Daytime Emmys

Wins

Laurie Heineman: Lead Actress 1978

Irene Dailey: Lead Actress 1979

Douglass Watson: Lead Actor 1980, 1981

Ellen Wheeler: Younger Actress 1986

Anne Heche: Younger Actress 1991

Linda Dano: Lead Actress 1993

Charles Keating: Lead Actor 1996

Anna Holbrook: Supporting Actress 1996

Nominations

Beverlee McKinsey: Lead Actress 1977-1980

Victoria Wyndham: Lead Actress 1978, 1979

Julius LaRosa: Supporting Actor 1980

Howard E. Rollins, Jr.: Supporting Actor 1983

Paul Stevens: Supporting Actor 1984

Don Scardino: Younger Actor 1986

Douglass Watson: Lead Actor 1989

David Forsyth: Supporting Actor 1989, 1996

Anne Heche: Younger Actress 1989

Stephen Schnetzer: Lead Actor 1990

Charles Keating: Supporting Actor 1992, 1993; Lead Actor 1994

Linda Dano: Supporting Actress 1992; Lead Actress 1994, 1996

Alla Korot: Younger Actress 1992

Jensen Buchanan: Lead Actress 1996, 1997

Amy Carlson: Supporting Actress 1998

Rhonda Ross Kendrick: Younger Actress 1998

Two things stand out to me:

No win for Beverlee McKinsey.

1996 the most successful year. We know by then JFP had the block voting game on lock.