4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I suppose if AW was good at one thing it was finding reasons to fire people...

As Denise Alexander was leaving, I could have seen them writing her out earlier. 

Very true.  They loved to fire people.

Although, in this fantasy scenario, I want to keep Denise Alexander. I adored her on the show. I also want to be greedy and keep Hank Cheyne and Kristen Marie. And maybe smuggle in Sally Spencer.  I'm not sure who I would fire/not hire to balance things out. Hmmm. Maybe Chris Robinson since they never gave him material worthy of his talents. 

Just now, chrisml said:

Very true.  They loved to fire people.

Although, in this fantasy scenario, I want to keep Denise Alexander. I adored her on the show. I also want to be greedy and keep Hank Cheyne and Kristen Marie. And maybe smuggle in Sally Spencer.  I'm not sure who I would fire/not hire to balance things out. Hmmm. Maybe Chris Robinson since they never gave him material worthy of his talents. 

I would have loved to keep Denise Alexander, if they could have worked out a deal. And to do more with her kids, which she rarely got a chance for.

Respectfully, I don't think any supporters of Pat's return in 1989 wanted (or expected) her to be "shoe-horned" in.  We would have wanted Pat to return organically, and with a planned storyline for her that involved others on the canvas.  

And regarding displacing existing characters -- viewers seldom even notice who's been fired to  provide budget for any new or returning character.  For example, who was displaced when Liz returned in 1987?  Who was displaced when Sharlene returned in 1988? Or when Iris returned in 1988? Or when Russ returned in 1989?  Most viewers would have no idea, and I certainly do not.  

1 minute ago, Tisy-Lish said:

Respectfully, I don't think any supporters of Pat's return in 1989 wanted (or expected) her to be "shoe-horned" in.  We would have wanted Pat to return organically, and with a planned storyline for her that involved others on the canvas.  

And regarding displacing existing characters -- viewers seldom even notice who's been fired to  provide budget for any new or returning character.  For example, who was displaced when Liz returned in 1987?  Who was displaced when Sharlene returned in 1988? Or when Iris returned in 1988? Or when Russ returned in 1989?  Most viewers would have no idea, and I certainly do not.  

👍

28 minutes ago, chrisml said:

I just know how I feel when this sort of thing has happened on other shows. If someone is going to return, it needs to feel organic

That is the key point and I think the issue is whether it is necessary to assume that Pat would have to feel shoehorned in rather than organic. For example I resented Mitch very much because they killed off Zane whom I liked and tried to create a lot of drama around this very low-key stoic character. I understood why they thought that having Mitch would create a connection to Mac and Rachel and Matthew (and upped the ante with Sam as his half-brother) but the way they did it did not work for me. On the other hand bringing back Sharlene and then leading up to the reveal that Russ was Josie's father worked very well. 

If they had been able to reintroduce Pat without forcing out another character who was serving a purpose, and if they had positioned her so that she had meaningful relationships with other characters I would have been happy to see Beverly Penberthy return. One thing that I thought Lemay did extremely well when he returned in 1988 was to define relationships between individual characters more distinctly than we had been given in the previous few years. (There had been times when it felt like everyone's main relationship was to Reginald Love and everything else was secondary, which isn't what I want from a soap.) They would not have needed Pat just to figure out that Russ could be Josie's father, but if she had had the right amount of interaction with the Corys as well as the Matthews it could have worked well.

24 minutes ago, Xanthe said:

They would not have needed Pat just to figure out that Russ could be Josie's father, but if she had had the right amount of interaction with the Corys as well as the Matthews it could have worked well.

I've always assumed, in 1989, Pat would have still been working for Cory Publishing as an editor.  So she would have transferred back to the Bay City headquarters and had interaction with her old friend Mac at work, her complex histories with Rachel and Liz, and perhaps she could have become Felicia's editor -- opportunity for interaction there. Plus, if Russ also returned (as he did), then Pat would have had a brother on the canvas.  I realize those relationships are not "storylines", but storylines could have come from them.  Plus she had history with Sharlene and Ada.  We should also remember that in 1989, Pat had been away from AW for only seven years.  So it would not have been like bringing an ancient long-ago character back.  

Edited August 7Aug 7 by Tisy-Lish

I’ve never been a fan of bringing back a character who was given a complete and satisfying exit.

So if one writing team ends a character’s arc in a way that feels resolved—like Pat leaving to pursue her career in publishing after years of domestic struggle—it’s hard for me to get on board when another team brings them back just to create new conflict. It usually ends up feeling like a step backward. Like when Stacy was brought back single, with her husband and child written out, just to stir tension. Or when Iris returned from Texas without the independent wealth or experience she’d earned there. Those kinds of returns often flatten the character instead of building on what came before.

Someone like Sharlene, though, didn’t get that kind of exit. So there’s still something to play.  Her unresolved tension between domesticity and autonomy, and how that shaped Josie. That’s where I see space for return. It’s also a natural setup for a Matt and Josie story that was a classic Romeo and Juliet setup of the kids of antagonistic families falling in love.

Of course, I don’t know who gets to decide whether an ending was truly satisfying or not. But I would’ve liked to be on that committee. 🧑🏼‍⚖️⚖️

Just now, j swift said:

I’ve never been a fan of bringing back a character who was given a complete and satisfying exit.

For me Pat didn't get that chance as she was run out of town due to Jamie's book. Still, she could have had a worse exit. 

3 minutes ago, j swift said:

Like when Stacy was brought back single, with her husband and child written out, just to stir tension.

Do. not. get. me. started. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to bring Stacey back, but essentially trying to pretend that none of her storyline had ever happened and trying to turn her into the heroine of a bodice ripper was awful. They gave her a tragedy that they didn't seem to take seriously in order to give her a clean slate. 

46 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

For me Pat didn't get that chance as she was run out of town due to Jamie's book. Still, she could have had a worse exit. 

I’ve always felt that interpretation of Pat’s exit was too limited.

She didn’t like Jamie’s book, and she didn’t want to stick around for the movie adaptation. But the scenes of her leaving weren’t framed as shameful. If anything, she seemed triumphant about moving on to this new position. Jamie, on the other hand, came off as a bit of a jerk for not being more sensitive about protecting Pat’s identity. That was part of his shift into a less sympathetic character; one whose past behavior got quietly cleaned up later on.

So I never saw it as Pat being “run out of town.” That framing only started to take hold for me when I read summaries much later. At the time, when those episodes aired, I didn’t experience it that way at all. It is important to remember that Pat didn't tell her friends and colleagues that she was leaving because of the book.  In fact, she left to avoid being associated with the book.  She made the choice, applied for the promotion, and left.  Everyone cried, she got a nice closeup.  But, it wasn't embarrassing or shameful.  Liz wasn't ringing that bell from Game of Thrones, while Cecile branded her with a scarlet letter.

I understand why that version of the story has stuck over the years, but I’d argue it’s a subjective interpretation, and there were other ways to understand those scenes.

Edited August 7Aug 7 by j swift

47 minutes ago, j swift said:

I understand why that version of the story has stuck over the years, but I’d argue it’s a subjective interpretation, and there were other ways to understand those scenes.

There are other ways, yes, but some of the moments I did see as her being hurt and feeling violated, like when she confronted Jamie about the book before she left. She did keep her dignity in those moments, and her exit.

Edited August 7Aug 7 by DRW50

16 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

She did keep her dignity in those moments, and her exit.

That's the only record that I wished to correct.

AW production fired the actress, but they didn't disrespect the character, or run Pat out of town in disgrace (like they did to Aussie Iris).

Edited August 7Aug 7 by j swift

19 minutes ago, j swift said:

That's the only record that I wished to correct.

AW production fired the actress, but they didn't disrespect the character, or run Pat out of town in disgrace (like they did to Aussie Iris).

I do think the story choice did have some of those elements, but I will agree it could have been worse. I don't want to go back and forth though.

15 hours ago, Xanthe said:

Do. not. get. me. started. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to bring Stacey back, but essentially trying to pretend that none of her storyline had ever happened and trying to turn her into the heroine of a bodice ripper was awful. They gave her a tragedy that they didn't seem to take seriously in order to give her a clean slate. 

And I had no knowledge of any of Stacey's previous history so I find it fascinating to learn. The character didn't work for me the second time because they never seemed to know what to do with her, and her character's personality was not consistent. That's why I don't understand wanting to bring back characters from the past when we've seen what Swajeski does with them. We saw what she did with Russ (and I'm going off how others have reported the changes in his character). And from youtube comments, she rewrote Gwen's character as well.

 

 

I went back and rewatched the 25th anniversary episode. I was struck by several things.  Carmen Duncan owns this episode for me, as Iris's story is the most impactful. She has chemistry with everyone. She has meaningful scenes with Ford and Wyndham and she doesn't get saddled with some of the hokey stuff that Wyndham gets saddled with (although Wyndham is wonderful so it's not her fault). I wish Iris and Ada had interacted more because I loved their interactions here. Duncan does subtle work here, but my word she is just wonderful. 

Jacqueline Courtney is charismatic and interesting and as a viewer, I would want to see more of her. Lemay can go sit on a cactus (metaphorically speaking) because this woman is wonderful. His persecution of her and her action is insane to me now that I've seen several clips of her acting.  Dorothy Lyman was over the top and a bit annoying. I also didn't care that much about Evan's story as he took away from Iris, Ada, Alice and Rachel. 

Edited August 7Aug 7 by chrisml