Y&R/B&B: Kay Alden Interview

[brimike]

Sylph has said a few times (unless I'm confusing writers) that he has personal as well as professional criticisms of Alden and Esser. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Sylph - I may be confusing people)

I know he doesn't want to get into that end of things, and I totally respect that. But I am really curious what his "professional" reasons are, for the same reasons you are, R Sinclair. (Loved the "projectile vomit" analogy)

I certainly don't think Alden is a "daytime savior", and I'm sure her AMC would have problems in it like any other head writer would have. (And I'm sure many of us on here would be very quick to point them out and say "See? Told you she was a hack!" LOL!) But like you said, R Sinclair, it couldn't possibly have been any more damaging than what AMC fans got instead.

[Sylph]

The problem I have with her is very simple: she sucks. Big time. She has proven it many times herself, no need for me to list her fabulous tales that showcase her story-telling talents.

Actually, no, I don't have a problem with the fact that she sucks, but with the fact that she goes all nice, wonderful, tells people what they want to hear and they all go on to believe her! When all she did proves how wrong her judgment often was, how it misfired and shows complete misunderstanding of TV audiences. So easy to deceive your viewers!

Forget Kay Alden already. Forget her. Old news. She might be a caretaker, a coordinator, a worker bee, but a writer — she is not. Not a good one, at least.

[brimike]

Now that brings up another interesting point. It seems to me that on most of these shows, because of the "assembly line" like aspects of the job itself, many of these executives put a much higher importance on someone that they enjoy working with and work well within the "machine", than they do on the actual writing itself. Especially in these "last days", the folks at the top seem to prefer working with a team that isn't difficult and doesn't make waves, but rather writers who are caring, attentive, affable, easy-going, trouble-free who deliver a mediocre or slightly above-average product, than working with somebody who delivers stellar work but will fight tooth and nail to secure the quality of that stellar work. I think that's what's been happening at ATWT with CG/JP/LL and probably what's happening at B&B and GH as well.

[FrenchFan]

I tend to defend Kay Alden. She is clearly not Bill Bell but the beginning of her run was not bad at all: Veronika/Joshua/Nikki, Victor/Diane and the whole divorce battle with Michael Baldwin and Leanna Love was so cool. She gave Jeanne Cooper and Jess Walton great things to do with the battle over the Chancellor Mansion and Kay fiding her grand daughter. She created the teens that were clearly much better than teens on other soaps but she did not neglect other characters: the SpermGate was fun. Phyllis' come back was really cool at the beginning. I think the show only became to be less good in 2002 but it was still great. Kay Alden is probably not a genius but her tenure was more than okay I think.

[Ann_SS]

I listened to this interview when Alden first did the lecture. I did not like her sole stint at Y&R at all and feel that she talks a good game, but was not able to put much of it in practice.

However, Alden gave some insight into the behind the scenes goings on. Her comments about Frons gave me a better sense of the power structure at ABC. This is how I learned that the ABC writers generate the stories more than soaps fans who constantly berate Frons would like to admit. Also, soap fans underestimate the importance of market research to the network when they make decisions about what characters to feature. Even if they are not popular online, the most frequently featured characters are very popular with the overall audience and test well.

Overall, it is worth it to listen the interview. Yeah, it is long, but so what, you can do something else while you listen. Anyway, it was interesting.

[Sylph]

From what I've heard, she wasn't at all "affable, easy-going, trouble-free". There were lots of troubles.

Troubles, however, weren't there when Bill wrote.

And have in mind that my previous post does not imply in any way what sort of a person she is. That is not the point I was going for. I was just saying her method might have worked on Y&R — actually it wasn't hers, it was Bill's — but it definitely wouldn't work on any other. I am pretty sure of that.

[Cat]

I'm just going by her contribution to B&B. There was a very interesting MIT roundtable/interview with Alden where she just dissed B&B -- as well she should. But then why go and write for it if she hates everything it represents?

I had such high hopes for Alden when she first started -- bringing back the Logans, giving balance to the Forrester-fest -- but then it all became SO depressing. The one hot, interesting Logan (Storm) was killed off in a totally he-ain't-never-coming-back manner, and then we got MONTHS of hospital story regarding Taylor's/Brooke's baby with Niiiiiiiick. And, of course, Katie's Long-Sufferin' Heart. Then there was Honeybear TV, all day, every day, starring perpetual frontburnerererer DONNA. Never has so underwelming an actress been featured so prominently on B&B. And that's saying something (note: I said "actress," Ronn Moss fans).

I'm willing to give Bradley most of the blame for all this crap, but the shift in tone when Alden started suggested to me that she was refocusing the show in large part. After all, wasn't she co-HW during this time? That was before Bell demoted her. I mean, B&B ain't any better today, but with her calibre and experience? I expected better.

[MarkH]

The attributes you list are those that I would use to govern employee selection in MOST professions.

I make "selections" in two domains in my real life. First, I hire staff and research employees for aspects of my department. Second, I select graduate students for PhD study. In both cases, I always look at the "objective record" first (for staff, it has to do with how they have performed in the past; for students, it has to do with objective tests and products of past work). Then, I try to do EVERYTHING in my power to find out about dimensions like agreeableness, openness to experience, conscientiousness, humor-as-coping-style, social skills. Because THESE things -- and not objective skills -- predict success in the organization.

I have seen many BRILLIANT people fail because they could not adapt. I've seen few "less-brilliant-but-still-bright" people fail when they showed high adaptability and willingness to put forth effort.

I go so far as to say that in many domains, the personality/effort dimensions far exceed the ability dimensions in predicting success.

Putting that together, I see no reason why this should not also be true in writing for soaps. These are group processes, and so it is the ability to succeed in the group that would seem to be most important.

[Aback]

Alden is such a loser.

With all the years Bill Bell spent training her, she should be an IMPRESSIVE STORYTELLER by now.

But she ain't. Why? Because she has zero talent. I do believe she can execute what others planned beautifully. But that's pretty much it.

[R Sinclair]

This is when the desire of seeing, say, a long story of hers or even her AMC bible surface... so we can see, plainly, what her writing abilities are.

The way Sylph and some others feel about Kay Alden is, dare I say, akin to the way I feel about megan mctavish. And I have no problems with that... but when it comes to 'the writer' I've made my case clear and even drew comparisons to how she wrote for all three ABC shows. I still don't "get" (in the words of Amanda L. Beall) what's so wrong with Alden's writing. From a technical standpoint, what she says makes sense to me, so I'm trying to get clarity on the disconnect between the strong, technical intelligence that I believe she has about the process and what's come across on screen during her near decade of head writing.

Don't take me for granted, y'all. I'm actually ASKING for people to voice more than just insults. DELVE into what it is that makes her such a sucky writer. I honestly, TRULY, want to know!

[Sylph]

She was HW for 4 years... Something like that.

[MarkH]

Can I ask a question?

You, and Alvin, and others, frequently use this term "storyteller". And you further make this distinction between "good" and "bad" storytellers.

What does this mean? I know it should be obvious, but you seem to have a very specific definition of "storyteller" and the attributes that make such a good person "good". You also suggest Alden is lacking in these attributes.

I don't want to turn this into an academic forum, but I'd really like to know some of the definitions you are all working with...so I can better understand your critiques.

That said, looking only at B&B, I can only say that there is little evidence that she has injected ANYTHING positive into this show. This show is creatively no stronger than it ever was. Indeed, it repeats history, the incest-theme, and the plot-twist-on-a-dime more than ever.

[R Sinclair]

Come again?

[Sylph]

I mean solo HW. The rest was co-HW. Those years when she flew solo were terrible and the ratings literally plummetted. Which is why she was replaced.

I don't know why are you — of all people! — so infatuated with her and how she enchanted you with these ridiculous tales. What she says in those interviews is one thing, what she does a different one.

Who is your dream AMC writer?

[Sylph]

And let me add another thing: I think it is a crime that the Museum didn't interview Lorraine Broderick, Wisner Washam, Harding Lemay, Nancy Curlee, Pamela K. Long, Pat Falken Smith (who died and there's nothing there to do anymore, sadly), Robert Guza & Charles Pratt Jr. (yes, those two, too)...

What on Earth made them interview Kay Alden before any of those people...