January 1992 Digest critique of Y&R, by Donna Hoke Kahwaty.

Continuity A+

RIsk-Taking B

Character Development C

Acting A

Realism C

There's a reason why THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS remains number one week after week. In fact, there are several reasons.

For starters, THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS has the distinction of being the longest-running daytime series with a single, focused voice at the helm - William J. Bell, the show's creator and executive producer (if it wren't for sister soap THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, Y&R would be the only show to enjoy such consistency.) The benefits of such a stable soap environment are apparent. There are no massive overhauls, no housecleanings that obliterate storylines and actors, and no wild shifts in storytelling perspective. The result is a well-constructed show that wins viewers with its steadiness.

Because Bell knows every nuance of every story that went before, he rarely overlooks history in favor of a sensational plot. Bell has too much invested in every character he's created; he wouldn't sacrifice one for the sake of story. Viewers may not like certain things in a story, or they may find themselves having to briefly suspend disbelief (Really, how could Sheila switch those babies?), but they'll never find huge loopholes, storylines will never be dropped right in the middle and characters won't suddenly switch personalities to facilitate a story. Although viewers complain about long, drawn-out storylines, long arcs actually contribute to the show's stability. Because Y&R's plots take considerable time to resolve themselves, the show can make corrective changes before anyone's noticed the story has gone awry, and without leaving obvious, annoying loose ends in its wake.

In addition to storyline stability, viewers enjoy actor durability. Actors stay on this show for years and years, providing a comfort level that other shows just can't achieve, no matter how many past favorites they lure back to the show. Viewers who have watched Genoa City's residents for years feel as though they know these characters - perhaps as well as they know their own family members.

When this bonding between character and viewer occurs, small moments like the reaction of Traci's father to her marriage are just as compelling as the high drama that other shows create to generate quick interest. When Jill knocks on Kay's door, viewers can't wait to see what will happen when Kay answers it; that level of anticipation, generated by a seemingly insignificant act, is the result of a thorough knowledge of the characters.

Families on YOUNG AND RESTLESS act like families - they're alternately combative, loving or jealous - which provides a frame of reference amid Y&R's signature glamour. As long as the characters on YOUNG AND RESTLESS remain in Genoa City, viewers will continue to care about them - and watch them - without fires, earthquakes or gimmicks.

Much of the credit for character continuity goes to Bell, who is very protective of the actors, he casts. Hit or miss is not a game that Bill Bell plays. Since stories are in place before an actor is hired, Bell knows what he wants and casts accordingly. There are so few miscasts that YOUNG AND RESTLESS boasts a strong and immensely talented cast all the way from young Heather Tom (Victoria) to stalwart Jeanne Cooper (Katherine). As a result, there are few of the jarring recasts other shows implement to make a character fit a story that's just been written (ALL MY CHILDREN is a prime offender in this regard; SANTA BARBARA ran through three C.C.'s before it latched on to Jed Allan).

There are times on Y&R, as on any show, when recasts are inevitable. And newcomers to this show are required to make the grade. If there is a criticism to be made of some of the major recasts - Jess Walton as Jill, Brenda Epperson as Ashley and Peter Bergman as Jack - it is only that these actors are less quirky than their predecessors. With this group, Jill is less neurotic, Ashley is more wholesome and Jack is less acerbic. While all are wonderful, appealing actors - two have won Emmys - their less distinctive styles have taken away a bit of the show's individuality.

The remaining unique characters, such as Eric Braeden's Victor, Jeanne Cooper's Kay and Victoria Rowell's Drucilla, have become that much more important as the Abbott family has become more mainstream; Y&R's lighter moments, such as Leanne's crazy stunts, or David Kimble requesting to look like David Hasselhoff (ex-Snapper) are also more integral, because in general, Y&R characters do not have a great deal of depth. Instead, they have rich pasts. What is Paul William's like? He's a detective with a sullied past and he thinks about Lauren. (And, for a sexy and popular leading man played by the talented Doug Davidson, he's very underused as of late.) If Nikki goes into a room and Victor is there, she thinks about Victor. Many of the key characters on this show are defined by their significant relationships in the past, as they relate to their significant relationships in the present. Viewers always wonder if characters are in love with the person they are supposed to be in love with, or if they're still pining for the person from the past. Does Nikki still love Victor? Does Ashley still love Brad? Does Paul still love Lauren? Is it impossible for Jack to help Nikki, simply because he's not Victor? Although it's refreshing not to have a writer's point of view shoved down our throats, there is such a thing as too many possibilities open.

Because its characters (with several notable exceptions) tend to be shallow, &R's latest attempt at creating a villain of substance failed. David Kimble was a cardboard fiend. The fact that he was evil was his only motivation. Never once did we root for him to succeed in his villainy, something that must happen in order for a villain to endure. Kimble could never have been redeemed and, in the end, Y&R had no choice but to kill him off.

Because character focus is so tight, characters seldom have conversations with anyone outside their storylines. There is no finely woven tapestry on Y&R; rather, stories seem to stand alone. Even Lauren's tragedy is not drawing Paul as much into the fray as it should. Unless a classic ripple effect is in place, one story doesn't generate interest in another.

But these criticisms ironically also explain why YOUNG AND RESTLESS stands out. It's uncomplicated, and it boasts a straight plotline that never convolutes. Some may say that Y&R's slow pace and repetitive dialogue mean the show doesn't take chances, but those who watch the show know this isn't true. Teens having sex, "KILLER" carved in a forehead and babies dying are stories that risk offending viewers, but Y&R knows they're more than that - they're stories about humanity. Victoria's story of teen sex was excellent; it was surprisingly realistic, and demonstrates that a certain degree of realism can work withing YOUNG AND RESTLESS's glamorous context.

Y&R is careful not to go too far. It's grittier social situations - like crack addiction and AIDS - often end a little too perfectly. Yes, Cricket, Julie and Danny went to see crack babies, but Julie conveniently miscarried before she gave birth to one herself. Alcoholic Nikki was always impeccably dressed. She even escaped from an alcohol rehab center to dress up in a Phantom of the Opera costume.

Reality whitewash also comes in the form of luxurious clothes and lush sets. It's not real, but that's precisely what many viewers look for in a soap. Y&R is the perfect escape.

Thanks for sharing Carl!, I have something like this for B&B in one of my 1993 digests, I should post that on the classic B&B thread!

I think this article was right on the button to what Y&R was in its prime. The author is right when they say that the show didn't go all out for more viewers, and that Bell's slow pacing was the key to keep viewers in, and made it stand out over any soap.

I'm shocked though that they graded continuity a perfect A+. Bill's Y&R I hate to say probably had the worse continuity at the time. This was when Stories could be told on the same day and same episode, but yet there could be characters that have moved on from the previous days/nights events, and then there are characters who are still stuck on the day before the other character's time. Watch Y&R November 23,24, and 26 1993 on youtube and you will catch my drift.

If anything i feel like Continuty and character development should be switched.

Please share the B&B article.

I don't notice continuity too much but that's a good insight.

I was surprised at the part about how a villain isn't good enough if you don't ever root for them, and that David could never be redeemed. In a lot of ways I think that was David's appeal - that he wasn't someone we were supposed to secretly love. That type of pointless ambiguity has killed Y&R.

I really love that article because it captures a lot of my thoughts as to why I love(d) Y&R.

There are a few points I wouldn't exactly agree with; for example, I don't think it was ever uncomplicated. How can you say there's "too many possibilities" and also claim it was uncomplicated?

And, also, about it not being a tapestry... Hmmm, not sure. I always felt characters were appropriately involved in each other's storylines and there were always strong friendships.

Finally, continuity... Yes, the weird time jumps can be jarring but I have a feeling continuity was based on how well the stories were plotted, no character changes or forgetting of events that should not be forgotten.

There was some criticism of Y&R during the Bell years for lack of stories intersecting. SPW praised Kay Alden for integrating stories. It did bother me a little at the time, but nothing serious.

I can see the idea of too many possibilities, but I think that was a good thing, because it showed characters had chemistry with each other. The only time this started to annoy me was the time when Bill Bell had written out Hope, wasn't doing Victor/Nikki, yet was going to try Victor/Christine. Thankfully he dropped this, which his daughter in law and others never would have had the integrity to do.

As much as i wished there were some characters during Bill's tenure that had scenes together/ or scenes together more often. I agree that made Y&R seem a tad bit more real compared to other soaps.

I still think that throughout the 90's ( especially the early 90's) The only story that seem to exist in its own sphere was anything involving Scott and Lauren. I know Scott had Cricket as his sister and Lauren had Paul, and Brad but i guess minus a few "rare" events they never integrated them with all the characters. They did at one point ( I have an episode from 1989 where its Cricket's 20th birthday and Scott was dating her and the Abbotts are guests) but not really in the 90's I know its because they were killing off Scott and phasing out Lauren (Before she ran to B& but i still think its weird how those two were never guests at events held by Katherine, or The Newmans and Abbotts. I feel in a way Danny and Cricket had their own story, but where tied to more important people.... But then again so was Lauren in many ways so thats why i find that part soo weird.

Edited October 4, 201114 yr by yr9190

I think that was David's appeal - that he wasn't someone we were supposed to secretly love. That type of pointless ambiguity has killed Y&R.

Exactly.

And, also, about it not being a tapestry... Hmmm, not sure. I always felt characters were appropriately involved in each other's storylines and there were always strong friendships.

Pretty much.

Y&R isn't "small town America" like ATWT or GL where those type of stories always work.

The only time this started to annoy me was the time when Bill Bell had written out Hope, wasn't doing Victor/Nikki, yet was going to try Victor/Christine.

As bad as Y&R is now Cricket eating the show doesn't seem so bad.

Not really old articles but a few years ago I picked up these little trivia card games at a flea market and here's the Y&R one. Anyone want to try to answer these?

Thanks for this. I know most of them, aside from the third on the last (Suzanne?).

I guess the first is supposed to be JoAnn.

WOW, thanks for sharing this! when did the trivia game out? it looks a good 20 plus years old.

The copyright date for the game is 1987, and interestingly enough one question I found going through the cards I found at least question pertained to a story that happened in '87 regarding Phillip and Nina.

Indeed that answer about "unnatural attachment" was Joann, while the answer to who was spiking Kay's meds is Jill although not sure what story that occurred in. There's a lot of obscure Y&R trivia and references in it; I don't know if even folks in '87 could answer questions about Pam Warren's murder or what color was Gwen Sherman's hair.

Thanks for this. I know most of them, aside from the third on the last (Suzanne?).

I guess the first is supposed to be JoAnn.

Jill spiked Kay's medicine. It was during the story about the affair in Nov 1983 with Jack after Kay got a hold of the pictures. She tried to have Jazz knock her off, when he refused she put vodka in her liquid vitamin bottle. This is how she had Kay fall off the wagon.

Thanks for the questions. Would be quite interesting to play.

Edited October 6, 201114 yr by will81

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJUILSyw8rg

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but i still can't believe that this person has all these 80's ATWT and GL episodes, but no full episodes of Y&R and B&B

I would kill to see all or most of Y&R 1989 since it seems like it set the pace of what the 90's on Y&R were going to be about.

Edited October 7, 201114 yr by yr9190