For anyone interested, Marnie Winston-Macauley is answering questions about her days at ATWT, what it was like working with Douglas Marland, and the process of writing each script versus specific storylines.

 

I believe you do need to join the group and cannot read the responses otherwise.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IMissMyATWT/

14 minutes ago, mango said:

For anyone interested, Marnie Winston-Macauley is answering questions about her days at ATWT, what it was like working with Douglas Marland, and the process of writing each script versus specific storylines.

 

I believe you do need to join the group and cannot read the responses otherwise.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IMissMyATWT/

The group is pubic. 

28 minutes ago, victoria foxton said:

The group is pubic. 

 

Even better!

Nothing can make me join Facebook but thankfully she has her own website as well as other social media.  When I get some time, I'll definitely take a look!

5 hours ago, mango said:

For anyone interested, Marnie Winston-Macauley is answering questions about her days at ATWT, what it was like working with Douglas Marland, and the process of writing each script versus specific storylines.

 

I believe you do need to join the group and cannot read the responses otherwise.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IMissMyATWT/

 

Thanks for letting us know!

9 hours ago, victoria foxton said:

The group is pubic. 

Not sure I want to get that intimate in a group!

49 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

Not sure I want to get that intimate in a group!

 

I saw that too but I thought I'd let that one go.

5 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Not sure I want to get that intimate in a group!

 

4 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I saw that too but I thought I'd let that one go.

I just realized the spelling mistake i made. 

It's okay @victoria foxton, we knew what you meant to say, lol.

I was reading about Paul and Dan Stewart this morning.  I wonder if there were more limited avenues for audience reaction because the decimation of that family is quick and weird.  Paul and Dan die of "brain disease", Liz trips up the stairs, and Dee just decides to leave town (although she came back for weddings and funerals, she also seemed to never marry again or have kids).  I know Betsy and her progeny propelled plot, but it's one of those odd early-80's-we-need-to-kill-off-the-older-generation/all-the-actors-are-moving-to-LA moves to get rid of most of the vital Stewarts and give all of their stories to Kim and the Hughes family.

 

I would be eager to hear people's reflections of Marcos St. John's Paul (boring character name, fabulous stage name).  I take it he was much less popular than John Reilly's Dan.  I think it is a clever resolve to have Kim raise Betsy because she could have been one of those heroines who missed out on having her own kids, except Andy. 

 

Finally, it is an odd anachronism that Susan, Liz, and Kim all get pregnant in very unhappy marriages.  Why were they still shtooping their husbands?  And why weren't they more upset at Dan for sleeping around?  Did Oakdale has a magic stork rather than allowing their leading ladies to have any agency over their reproductive rights?

 

Also wasn't there some connection IRL between Jacqueline Schultz and Jacqueline Courtney?

 

And also, am I correct in understanding that Kim and Jennifer's mother Francis Sullivan, (who Franny was named after) was not the same maid named Franny that Ellen Stewart killed when she threatened to reveal's Dan's parentage?

Edited September 5, 20187 yr by j swift

20 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I saw that too but I thought I'd let that one go.

Same....

21 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

Not sure I want to get that intimate in a group!

Haha

You're judging '70's tropes by modern standards. Abortion wasn't legal until 73. Kim only married John to cover up her ONS with Bob, and she wasn't screwing John, he raped her and she got pregnant with Andy. But when that happened, marital rape wasn't even recognized.

 

I'm a little fuzzy on the entire Paul/Liz/Dan/Susan thing, but there again, younger characters never would've been shown openly cohabitating without marriage. 

 

I'm sure ATWT "behind the times" by 70's standards, but even on All in the Family, Gloria and Mike were married and enjoying sex, not single and screwing.

 

And yeah, I'm sure Kim and Jen's mom wasn't killed by Ellen. Their mother isn't listed in the character appearances in the book, so I assume she never appeared on air. 

Edited September 5, 20187 yr by P.J.

1 minute ago, P.J. said:

You're judging '70's tropes by modern standards. Abortion wasn't legal until 73. Kim only married John to cover up her ONS with Bob, and she wasn't screwing John, he raped her and she got pregnant with Andy. But when that happened, marital rape wasn't even recognized.

 

I'm a little fuzzy on the entire Paul/Liz/Dan/Susan thing, but there again, younger characters never would've been shown openly cohabitating without marriage. 

 

I'm sure ATWT "behind the times" by 70's standards, but even on All in the Family, Gloria and Mike were married and enjoying sex, not single and screwing.

 

I was going to say something similar when I read the post but didn't have the time at the moment I read it.

 

Social mores in previous decades are always different, and we have to be careful to look through that lens when judging the stories.  That's not to say we can't be critical, there's always room for critique...just that we have to take all of those factors into consideration.

7 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

I was going to say something similar when I read the post but didn't have the time at the moment I read it.

 

Social mores in previous decades are always different, and we have to be careful to look through that lens when judging the stories.  That's not to say we can't be critical, there's always room for critique...just that we have to take all of those factors into consideration.

 

Its hard to reconcile the Kim we all remember (and who at that point was a grown woman) as someone so pressured by society that she'd married a man she had zero sexual interest in and then staying in that marriage for years. 

 

The only trope that hasn't changed though is guys screwing with zero consequence. 

@P.J. & @DramatistDreamer I used the term anachronism to express the oddity of seeing the morality of that era through today's standards, sorry if I was unclear.

 

I wasn't really considering abortion as much as the idea that the three female leads all had stories where they got pregnant under less than ideal circumstances.  I was struck that the female characters were being punished for their desires, and how different it was/is for male characters.  For example, Susan's conception of Emily with Dan limits his ability to form a relationship with Kim.  Given the times, Susan is portrayed as selfish, and Kim a victim, but Dan doesn't suffer and nobody judges him for shtooping Susan after a glass of wine.  

 

Now that is out of way, -  Was there less of an outcry at the loss of Stewarts on ATWT relative to the Bauers leaving TGL?  Is Liz's stairway death the infamous case of writer's revenge?  Did anyone like Paul? And wasn't there a Daytime TV article posted somewhere in these boards that suggests that the Jacqueline's (Schultz and Courtney) were somehow related?

Edited September 5, 20187 yr by j swift