Another World

[vetsoapfan]

You've got that right.

It's painful to endure people who take the attitude of, "Well, if *I* don't know this fact or that fact, it just doesn't exist!

I stopped watching AW on a daily basis in 1975, after the cast massacre, but seem to recall that Mac had a serious riding accident in 1975. Since this happened a few years before Matthew was born, because it contributed to the problem.

Sandy was definitely a sex worker at one time. Cecile was desperate to be with him sexually at one point, and a dismissive Sandy taunted her with, "I used to do this for a living. What will you pay me for tonight?"

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by vetsoapfan

[Contessa Donatella]

Perfect point! 

Yes, she wrote both of those, according to Neil in 2 separate posts here. One was said in her review of Tom Lisanti's new RH bk. BTW, she compared his excellence in soap scholarship with Chris Schemering. The other was said in her next column which was about AW. 

 

Alan has immense knowledge about CERTAIN ASPECTS of ATWT & GL. That is point 1. Point 2 Alan is enthusiastic & willing to learn. He's great when some of us send him info. He also has an incredible fan following. He posted in support of my petition for Beverlee McKinsey & we had over 300 new signatures in 24 hours. (If any of you have an interest in posting in support of said petition, just holler. We are at 1,163 signatures.)

[vetsoapfan]

My acknowledging that personal, subjective interpretations and opinions are not akin to subjective, empirical facts does not diminish anyone's lived experience.

"My god is the only one, true god" may be a person's lived experience, but as a fact, it is unprovable and cannot be taken as empirical truth by everyone else.

Saying, "I saw with my own two eyes that John Doe shot Mary Smith" is an eyewitness testimony that may carry some weight. Saying, "I saw John Doe shooting Mary Smith and I believe he was thinking about how ugly her dress was at the time" is a subjective opinion, nothing more.

(Of course, you have the right to hold any opinion that feels best to you, but again, opinions are just opinions.)

Edited November 16, 2023 by vetsoapfan

[Contessa Donatella]

@vetsoapfan   Agree. 

Sandy was definitely a male prostitute. 

You're not talking about Justine, are you?

Who was in the jungle cheating each other - Ian's father, Carl's father & Mac? You're not trying to mix Reg in with them, are you? Which reminds me the ages never made sense to me about those 3.

Okay I cannot stay & play. I have to go write about FRESNO. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Donna L. Bridges
combine 2 posts

[teplin]

IIRC -- and that's a big if -- Mac wasn't impotent but infertile, as a result of his poisoning at the hands of Janice. 

[j swift]

ITA  80s soaps used the term 'impotency' to mean a variety of male fertility and virility issues. 

The origin of my question is that we know Mac was a complicated man who was often driven by libidinal urges - but - are we to assume that he regularly cheated on Iris's Mother with Sylvie, Miriam, and Maria?  Because it is interesting that he was later written to be such a family man and an upstanding citizen.  Was he ever able to maintain a commitment to the mothers of his five kids while they were pregnant?  Rachel's love really changed him, even though the focus was on how she was changed by their marriage. 

Through a modern lens, it is so sexist that Rachel was punished several times for her one indiscretion with Mitch, whereas Mac continually had a hard time keeping it in his pants.

And it made me think that perhaps Iris's romantic issues were not driven by her Electra complex issues with Mac, but her insecurities about being raised in a home with constant infidelity.   Suddenly, I am much more sympathetic to Iris's takeover attempt. 

This made me chuckle - way to hold a grudge @vetsoapfan - I'm guessing you were a huge Phillip Wainwright fan (

Please register in order to view this content

- kudos to AWHP for helping me research who was fired in 1975)

Also, your insightful point about the inability to distinguish opinion from fact made me think about the idea that a lot of supposed 'insider information' about relations on set may originate from fans being influenced by the allure of parasocial relationships with actors, writers, or producers, and confusing their experience with truth.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by j swift

[AbcNbc247]

One of the side effects of the poison that Janice used was sterility. 

Paulina’s mother was some local girl that Mac had an affair with. That Ken guy was also in love with her too and competed with Mac for her affections. 

[j swift]

Luckily, it was easily cured by a change in the writing staff (

Please register in order to view this content

)

[Soaplovers]

Iris always had a fear of abandonment.. and I do seriously think that Mac and her had an emotional incest type of relationship.  It stands to reason that the woman Iris thought was her mom probably was resentful toward Mac and to a lesser extent Iris so she withdrew any sort of attention/affection.   I'm guessing she was also a jet setter as well.

If I recall.. when she was first introduced to the show.. wasn't she a jetsetter and wasn't a present parent to Dennis?  

 

[j swift]

I don't know if it was explicitly written that way (ie if any other character mentioned her lack of presence), but presumably Elliott hired Alice to care for Dennis both due to his medical issues and the regular absences of his mother.

Also, I was referencing Robert Delaney and Brian Bancroft's issues with Iris where they often blamed her obsession with Mac, but may have overlooked her fear of abandonment.

Edited November 16, 2023 by j swift

[vetsoapfan]

IMHO, the writing had been declining for a while at that time. This was a disappointment, since I thought 1973 and 1974 had been some of the very best years of the show (which I began watching in 1964).

I've always believed that many fans will remain loyal to their favorite soaps, and stick with them through periods of poor writing and decision-making, if an emotional investment in the characters remains.

Once a show's quality deteriorates, and my favorite characters are axed, there's neither quality nor emotional investment to keep me around. So I bail. This is what happened for me with AW.

Back in 1975, I was already overloaded with a plethora of soaps to follow, so being able to dump one that was turning me off was actually a relief.

On the other hand, I continued to watch ATWT until the bitter end (albeit fast-forwarding A LOT in the atrocious Sheffer/Goutman/Jean P years) because with Nancy, Bob, Kim, Lisa, Susan, John, etc., it still felt like my show.

Thinking of it now, the vast majority of the soaps I abandoned drove me away by decimating the core characters and bastardizing the shows' roots.

Many years ago, actress Carol Roux (Missy Matthews on AW) gave an audio interview which was available on line. She spoke about her experiences on AW and SOMERSET, and acknowledged there had been negative on-set issues, claiming that some PTB had not be nice to her. I posted about Roux's interview and comments, figuring that other long-time fans might be interested in hearing her first-hand accounts.

Unwittingly, I enraged one fan, who refuted the idea that there could have been problems back-stage. He said he had a magazine article from 1970, in which the author had supposedly visited the studio and "confirmed" that it was a very happy environment with a family feeling.

I asked him why a magazine writer's perception of the atmosphere would, or could, negate Roux's first-hand account and feelings of her OWN life. The poster just got mad, said the was no validity to the reports of on-set tension, period, because it contradicted the magazine.

All this to say: you are right. There are fans who are easily influenced, and just assume what they choose to believe is true. You can't force them to look elsewhere if they have blinders on.

 

[j swift]

After reading a ton of posts, I've come to think it is a 'red flag' when fans reference writers and actors by their nickname to imply a more intimate knowledge of their intentions as the basis of their opinions (ie Connie or Pete).

Edited November 16, 2023 by j swift

[vetsoapfan]

LOL! When I was in  college, I studied English Literature with a teacher who would do that all the time.

--"The principle message JRR wanted readers to grasp...." (Tolkien)

--"William was rightly famous for his masterful use of dialogue...." (Shakespeare)

--"Charles knew how to keep his readers begging for the next chapter...." (Dickens)

It kind of came off as pretentious.

(To be fair, I'll refer to someone with their first name and an initial, if I don't know--or care enough to check--how to spell their last name. Case in point: "Jean P.")

Edited November 16, 2023 by vetsoapfan

[Contessa Donatella]

Oh, funny.

I began to call Lemay Pete when I learned that only his family called him Harding & he tolerated it from them, but, just. What he preferred was Pete. 

And, I refer to Marland as Douglas because I learned from a writer that people who respect him call him Douglas, never Doug. 

And I refer to Constance Ford as Connie because she's my favorite actress of all time even more than Anne Heche. 

And, I am not implying a single thing with any of my choices of reference. 

For someone to read implication into it is truly hilarious. 

Well, Passanante is really hard to spell. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Donna L. Bridges
just had a thought

[vetsoapfan]

I just found it weird that a teacher of English Literature would refer to the legendary writers being studied in class as JRR, William, or Charles. In a serious, professional setting, it's not appropriate. It's like a foreign politician referring to Queen Elizabeth as "Liz," or referring to Barack Obama as "Barry" when talking publicly about their lives' work.