5 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. 

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that Levine interviewed Swajeski at all. I recommended her book because she talks about the network promoting violence against women. I'm pretty sure that is what I said. 

6 hours ago, Xanthe said:

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. 

 

If I understand what you're saying, I think that she did so. I believe that what she wrote was a scene where he tried to be physically romantic toward her in his attempt to show her that he loved her & why he was against the divorce. So, he would've tried to embrace her & kiss her. 

6 hours ago, carolineg said:

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

Thank you. I knew that. Just an ordinary typo.

4 hours ago, kalbir said:

Don Scardino: Younger Actor 1986

Born in 1949. And the character he was playing wasn't a child, Chris Chapin was a doctor. The only reason he was considered young was because he had to be suitable to date Nancy who had only recently finished high school.

For context, Victoria Wyndham was born in 1945. Scardino was 10 years older than Vincent Irizarry and Michael E Knight who were in the same category that year. Jon Hensley was younger, born in 1965, and Brian Bloom the youngest, born in 1970. 

I don't want to give actors too much grief for playing characters outside their real age, but the nomination in the category doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the thing. I gather the Daytime Emmys changed the rules later so that a "younger" performer had to be no more than 25.

Quote

(HER STORIES, 246)
NBC’s soaps in particular perpetuated such exploitative plots, perhaps a result of their especially challenged ratings, the same context that generated the boundary-pushing of DOOL’s possession story. This strategy was particularly noticeable late in 1990, when three of NBC’s four soaps aired rape stories. Several of these programs’ head writers noted the pressures the network placed on them to tell such tales. Another World head writer Donna Swajewski suggested that Jake Mackinnon’s rape of his ex-wife, Marley, was influenced by NBC: “We were told to play up the rape of Marley,” following a network logic that “women want to see other women being victimized.”36 
Days of Our Lives’ creative heads were told by NBC that stories of violence against women resulted in increased ratings, logic that contributed to the tale of ingenue Jennifer Horton’s rape by Lawrence Alamain.37 NBC also used the rape stories liberally in its on-air promotions, either by featuring female characters “screaming and cowering in fear” or by teasing a problematically ambiguous “he said/she said” that called into question the assertions of a character like Santa Barbara’s Julia Wainwright.38 After the episode in which Julia tells her sister she was raped, NBC promoted its “Soap Phone” pay-per-call service over the end credits, teasing, “All right, Santa Barbara fans, is Eden going to die? And did Dash rape Julia?”39

Perhaps it is necessary for me to say again, to emphasize that I am recommending this book because it is one text which discusses that some networks at this time pushed violence against women. There is more like this, here, and also in other texts. The words speak for themselves. How much more pressure could be applied than saying that it increased ratings?

 

I really don't know why JFP was so intent on winning Emmys.

The Daytime Emmys have always been so compromised that they really don't mean much .

Certainly not to the wider entertainment field. And winning an Emmy never helped a show in the ratings.

Guess it means something to some of those in that little world of daytime.

One of the problems in trying to talk about something like this is that it was a long time ago & in a way things were different. For example, the web as we know it had only come fully into existence since 1993. Today we are used to grabbing a link but then I'm not at all sure we even fully grasped what an URL was, why that "http" stuff mattered. For example, from my notes, I have a post written in reaction to Swajeski's exit interview, likely in SOD but possibly instead in Weekly. He remembers, as I do, what she said not only about the rape but the larger picture of "warring" between P&G and NBC & that so many things seemed to be changed "in midstream". Further he remembers there was a picture of her holding an AW coffee cup. I realize you may not credit it but I'm copying that post in here. (It was posted on one of many AW web boards.)

Quote

Yes, AW was the biggest victim in the crossfires. They all wanted control and never wanted the show to go in the same direction. I remember when HW Donna Swajeski was being interviewed about why she was leaving AW, she was so frustrated with being pulled in different directions and they always wanted to change stories in mid-stream. Example: Marley being raped. She was adamant that Jake never raped Marley but was forced to write it in mid-way because NBC wanted it. She said even during her time writing (HW AW 1988-1992), NBC wanted it canceled. (the show, AW)

Poster's name withheld, at least for now.

I want to clarify something that seems to be getting lost in the shuffle: there’s a difference between "remembering the discourse" and "actually citing the record". The passages you quoted from Her Stories don’t say what you think they do—and your interpretation is drifting into territory the book explicitly avoids.

Let’s anchor this for a second:

> “We were told to play up the rape of Marley,” following a network logic that “women want to see other women being victimized.”
> — *Her Stories*, p. 246

This is a paraphrased summary, not a direct quote from any NBC executive. The attribution of that logic—“women want to see…”—is Levine’s characterization of how the network framed its notes to writers. It’s not a memo. It’s not even sourced to a specific individual. The closest primary quote we have is from the 1991 *SOW* article, where Donna Swajeski says she was told to “play up the rape” so it couldn’t be read as consensual. That’s not the same thing as NBC saying rape boosts ratings or demanding that Jake rape Marley.

What your posts are doing is backfilling that ambiguity with a more dramatic version—one where NBC "demanded" rape, and Swajeski "fought a war", and NBC "wanted the show canceled". These may be things you remember hearing in forums, but they’re not substantiated by either Levine or Swajeski’s primary quotes. At most, we’re dealing with editorial pressure filtered through the assumptions and anxieties of the time. That doesn’t make the pressure less real,but it does mean we need to be careful about claiming intentionality or motive that wasn’t documented.

Also—just to point out gently—the argument that NBC pushed rape stories because they wanted to cancel Another World makes no internal sense. That’s two mutually exclusive goals: one to spike ratings, one to sabotage them. It’s one thing to argue NBC mishandled AW; it’s another to invent a conspiracy where violence against women becomes a cancelation tactic.

I’m not dismissing Donna's post was a mess. It was. But the deeper point Levine makes is actually more subtle than “NBC wanted more rape.” She’s tracing how a mix of ratings panic, cultural precedent, and lack of creative autonomy created a pattern—one that often left writers and characters boxed in. That’s worth unpacking. But let’s not do it by repeating the very myths the book is trying to clarify.

I would suggest you actually read the book, rather than simply quoting others who have done the work, and you misunderstood their efforts. Because perhaps the lesson learned was that the violation of Marley as written by Donna Swajeski did not raise ratings, and that's why she was not signed to a new contract. And that if we allow ourselves to use the perspective of time, rather than blame it for poor memory, we can learn the truth.

Or, hold on to your old false beliefs, I truly don't care. Just stop spreading untruths masked as authoritative information here in this forum. Unless you want to be corrected every time.

 

 

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

Some people posting here assume that others posting here are idiots & on top of that they presume to know what others are thinking & they are about 98% of the time WRONG. If it were me, I would spend my time much more intelligently. Instead of posting & just wasting a great deal of everyone's time. 

It is laughable what they say. 

As if it needed to be said that remembering is different than citing. That is the funniest line I have heard this whole week.

Edit to Add: Of course I've read the book, are you crazy? You make me wonder with some of the more outrageous presumptuous things that you choose to say. You just might want to think about it before you accuse others of not understanding what they have read & saw fit to bring here to share. But, just because it is not something I would say doesn't mean the same to you, necessarily.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by Contessa Donatella

Thank you for your thoughts and your advice on how to spend my time. For what it’s worth, I agree that remembering and citing are not the same thing. That’s precisely why citing matters.

It’s also why I’ve taken the time to track down first-hand sources, primary texts, and contemporaneous interviews, rather than relying on recalled message board posts from the early 2000s or unverifiable anecdotes about who was holding what coffee mug. My concern has never been about personal memory—only when memory is passed off as documentation.

There’s a long tradition of oral history in soap fandom, and I respect that. But when we’re making sweeping claims about network intent or rewriting historical authorship, we do have a responsibility to distinguish between “I remember reading once…” and “Here’s what the article actually says.” Especially when the topic is this sensitive

Can we find a less sincere argument than telling me to read the original text (that the person obviously never read)? I read it and the article it is based upon. I find that the poster is wrong, and then she accuses me of wasting my time. That's just a defensive stance of a small-minded person who has been caught out by their incompetency in a field that they try to portray themselves as an expert in.

So, no, I don’t think anyone here is an idiot. I don't waste my time on fools. I think a lot of people are smart and passionate. I just happen to believe that citing sources is a more productive use of everyone’s time than defending a 98% confidence interval based on vibe.

One should feel free to admit that they have believed misinformation, and they appreciate the correction.  Or one cannot.  But I will always be suspicious of your authoritative statements of fact, because it is proven, easily and often, to be baseless.  

---

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

2 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

I really don't know why JFP was so intent on winning Emmys.

The Daytime Emmys have always been so compromised that they really don't mean much .

Certainly not to the wider entertainment field. And winning an Emmy never helped a show in the ratings.

Guess it means something to some of those in that little world of daytime.

JFP tried to win Emmys because it was a metric she could try to accomplish & in fact it it likely  one of the few reasons why she was hired over & over. IOW, it was something concrete she could try to do & if she accomplished it, point to it as a sign of her success. Two things are commonly mentioned in this regard about JFP, winning awards & getting demos up.

The questions we need to ask, it seems to me, are does it increase what an advertiser is willing to spend  on 30 seconds of YOU? Is there any particular cache added to your reputation? Does it indicate quality in an arena where there is little to go by? Will an actor get a raise because of winning one? IOW, do they come into negotiations at all? 

Then, of course, there is the morale-boosting element. And, it is the only routine time when people in this business all get together at one place, etc. I've heard many actors mention this as a very positive thing. 

 

 

I will accept this deflection as an apology.

1. Tone and Structure:

When she feels cornered, Contessa Donatella shifts from declarative confidence to baggy, overly casual phrasing. Note how the post opens with:

    “JFP tried to win Emmys because it was a metric she could try to accomplish…”

Even the phrase “try to accomplish” is weakly constructed—wordy, hesitant, and redundant. It’s a hallmark of someone backpedaling from a previously assertive stance without admitting they’re doing so.

2. Loss of Argument Shape:

She abandons the original discourse on memory, citation, or critical theory in favor of:

    a soft-pitch economic musing ("Does it indicate quality?"),

    generalized speculation ("I've heard many actors mention..."),

    and a diluted defense of Emmy strategy that isn’t really under attack.

There’s no clear rebuttal because she’s changed the subject to avoid defending her misread of Her Stories. Classic evasive maneuver.

3. Incoherent Logic / Sentence Breakdown:

    “It likely it it likely one of the few reasons why…”

Not a typo. That’s someone typing defensively, fast, and without re-reading. It breaks her usual sentence rhythm and signals agitation.

    “Will an actor get a raise because of winning one?”

Here she starts constructing a point, then pulls back—distracted by hypotheticals rather than evidence. There’s no research, no quote, no referent. Just fog.

4. The Hidden Tell:

    “Two things are commonly mentioned in this regard about JFP, winning awards & getting demos up.”

That sentence doesn’t say anything—it’s just gesturing at insider authority without actually naming a source or event. If this were academic writing, we’d call it citation laundering. She’s trying to recover ethos with vague authority, hoping no one presses her.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

Again, NOT recommending this book because the name Swajeski is in one sentence. About the networks pushing violence against women at this time!!! I guess I should have cut that line since some people seem not to be able to read critically. I swear I bet the rest of you did not have any trouble understanding. 

I really hate the way this software merges replies. People make separate replies for reasons. 

Oh, for god's sake. I bet he has no clue what people say about him. 

Edited July 19Jul 19 by Contessa Donatella

This is classic Donatella damage control: retroactive clarity through exasperation.  No one accused her of failing to share. The concern is that she either didn’t read or didn't comprehend Her Stories. And sharing a screenshot isn’t a substitute for understanding the argument inside it.

Let’s break down the tone and structure:

1. “NOT recommending this book because the name Swajeski is in one sentence.”

This is a transparent deflection. The issue wasn’t just that Swajeski was mentioned. The issue was that Donatella built an entire interpretive claim—about networks pushing rape for ratings—around a paraphrase that misrepresented the source. She’s now minimizing that framing to make the criticism seem pedantic.

2. “I guess I should have cut that line since some people seem not to be able to read critically.”

This is both bad-faith and contradictory. If the Swajeski line wasn't important, why was it included in the first place? She's trying to play both sides: that the sentence was meaningless, and that you're at fault for interpreting it meaningfully. This is rhetorical sleight of hand.

Also: “some people seem not to be able to read critically” is Donatella-speak for “I got called out and now I’m lashing out.” It lacks intellectual confidence. The mature move would’ve been to acknowledge ambiguity in her wording, not to blame the reader for noticing it.

3. “I swear I bet the rest of you did not have any trouble understanding.”

This is a classic false consensus fallacy, paired with emotional projection. When someone appeals to an imaginary silent majority (“everyone else understood me just fine”), it's almost always a defensive bluff.

4. When Donatella invokes “you don’t know me,” it’s meant to function as a shield. A way to delegitimize any critical read of her tone, her motives, or her argumentative inconsistencies. But the irony is: we do know her. Not because we’ve invented her, but because she has performed herself, in extreme detail, across thousands of posts.

She shares freely—often compulsively—not just facts or soap history, but her inner weather: irritations, loyalties, hurt feelings, moral judgments, vague suspicions, and what she finds funny or devastating or beneath her. She doesn’t contextualize; she emotes. Likewise, she narrates thought-fragments and forum dramas as if everyone’s been following along for years. That’s not anonymity—that’s a confessional style.

So when she says “you don’t know me,” what she really means is “don’t hold me accountable for what I’ve shown you.”  Because in real dialogue, self-revelation carries weight. It builds context, you don’t get to flip the switch to “you don’t know me” just because someone reads you correctly. That’s not nuance. It’s evasion.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by j swift

Why are we back in high school? Let's move on people and talk about AW not each other. 

The Emmy discussion: Thank you @kalbir for a concise of nominations/wins for AW. In the end, it probably doesn't matter like @Paul Raven writes if a show wins Emmys or not. As a viewer, it feels so unjust when performers and shows are constantly slighted for mediocre work. I love Finola Hughes, but nothing she did in that idiotic alien storyline matches what Anna Holbrook did during that same time.  It's the unfairness that really gets to me, and I know it shouldn't. In Holbrook's case, she later won an Emmy, but many deserving actors didn't.

Swajeski:  If Swajeski were uncomfortable with the Jake/Marley stuff, she then went on to write with David Kreizman some creepy and disturbing stuff with Jonathan on GL when she was not under the "pressure" of NBC. She seems to like that kind of trope.  I'm not familiar with her time on AMC.

QUESTION out of nowhere:

Larry Ewing: What happened to his character in 1986? I haven't rewatched much, but he was there in the credits and in the cop scenes, and then he was gone. Did they get rid of Rick Porter with no fanfare?

 

31 minutes ago, chrisml said:

Larry Ewing: What happened to his character in 1986? I haven't rewatched much, but he was there in the credits and in the cop scenes, and then he was gone. Did they get rid of Rick Porter with no fanfare?

I believe both Larry and Clarice were written off with no good-byes, exit scenes, or mentions in the scripts.  They later returned for Mac's funeral (1989), which was the first time it was ever mentioned they had previously moved away.  Clarice returned again for Ada's funeral (1993).