I cant figure out if this is intended to be flattering or not and maybe thats the intent. Regardless a good read and interesting insight into his persona

Like most New Yorker articles (and I say this as a fan and subscriber for over ten years) it's probably meant to be both. LOL I can post the whole thing if there's interest? I have before, but years back.

Like most New Yorker articles (and I say this as a fan and subscriber for over ten years) it's probably meant to be both. LOL I can post the whole thing if there's interest? I have before, but years back.

I'd be interested in reading the entire article but no great urgency. If you get around to it great if not no big deal. Thanks for offering.

How could they not afford a rabbit? They ain't that much to take care of are they? I liked Snickers also.

I always like when soaps have pets--Harold and Bonkers on AMC come to mind--it makes it more relatable. But I suppose animals are even more work than babies on soaps, and can make filming that much slower (though I doubt a rabbit would...)

Here's the link to the full article Eric posted http://www.welovesoaps.net/2009/09/flashback-hogan-sheffers-oakdale-days.html

This quote I find interesting because Carl mentions it while talking about Hogan and because you can see it in some characters.

"The restoration of testosterone to the show's men is one of Sheffer's most urgent concerns. "When I first started here," he says, "I used to sit and point to the list of male characters and say, 'No dick, no dick, no dick, no dick, no dick.' It's one of the reasons that daytime shows go south -- the men are turned into whining idiots while their women run amok. You can't write scenes where the men say, 'Why don't you love me? What can I do to help you?' It's horrible." Sheffer was trying to figure out ways that men could demonstrate attachment without talking about it. There had been a lot of daring rescues lately."

Edited September 12, 201114 yr by lovely_m

Thanks! That saved me a lot of work trying to maneouver the weird New Yorker archive system. (And randomly, I always forget Craig Sheffer is his brother... *resists saying something catty about ione brother getting the looks...*)

Edited September 11, 201114 yr by EricMontreal22

I always like when soaps have pets--Harold and Bonkers on AMC come to mind--it makes it more relatable. But I suppose animals are even more work than babies on soaps, and can make filming that much slower (though I doubt a rabbit would...)

I agree.

Honestly this man even looks smug and patronizing

No, more like Elton John. (Oh, wait, that's the same thing, isn't it? Never mind.)

ATWT was still using horses and cows on the Snyder farm as late as 2007, so the thing with Snickers is odd. I never realized they stopped using her/him/it.

He wrote an action-adventure script called "Fool’s Gold," he wrote a kind of James Bond movie set during the American Revolution called "The Black Rose," and he wrote "The Passion of Paul," a drama about a young girl who could heal people and a reporter who thought she was a fraud.

I don't know about the first script, but the other two? Sound pretty good. For movies.

In the end, Sheffer decided, soaps were all about plot. Endless, frustrating, complicated, gripping plot.

And therein, children, lies the problem.

Here's the link to the full article Eric posted http://www.welovesoa...kdale-days.html

This quote I find interesting because Carl mentions it while talking about Hogan and because you can see it in some characters.

"The restoration of testosterone to the show's men is one of Sheffer's most urgent concerns. "When I first started here," he says, "I used to sit and point to the list of male characters and say, 'No dick, no dick, no dick, no dick, no dick.' It's one of the reasons that daytime shows go south -- the men are turned into whining idiots while their women run amok. You can't write scenes where the men say, 'Why don't you love me? What can I do to help you?' It's horrible." Sheffer was trying to figure out ways that men could demonstrate attachment without talking about it. There had been a lot of daring rescues lately."

OMG WOW. Gee men being respectful to a woman is just awful. explains a lot about the men over on Y&R now,

Seriously did he Higley Guza and Pratt grow up together?

Edited September 12, 201114 yr by JaneAusten

It's also such a charming quote. I am sure he thinks it makes him sound like a dangerous writer, or something, but... Who thinks that way?

Considering how misogynistic soaps had become already across-the-board, I don't know what the heck he's talking about in regards to male/female relationships on daytime. Besides, if you worry a little less about gender, and a little more about character, you wouldn't run into this problem in the first place.

I can't remember the exact quotes but I think he also said he looked forward to the story about taking away Jennifer's virginity, or something along those lines.

The funny thing about "it's all about plot" is that he cannot tell a story. He never could. Just look at Y&R today - two murder investigations that are going absolutely nowhere, and 2 or 3 other long forgotten, unsolved murders.

Snickers didn't die....there were two rabbits. Snickers and Snickers II. Mike found SnickersII once when Snickers got out (I believe this led to a Mike/Katie boink, as in the first, but then again, everything led to Matie boinking..)

Pilar killed SnickersII. Although it's not like they showed it. They showed Pilar with a knife, and then I believe Henry or Katie exclaimed when it was found dead. Snickers was mentioned well after that, but rarely seen. I believe I read an article that it cost $500-600 bucks for each appearance by the bunny.

And Flashdance was killed, and while I agree it was creepy (Julia lovingly patting his muzzle as she encouraged him to eat feed laced with pills), it's not like we ever saw a horse's head in Carly's bed.

Actually it's name was Faux Snickers but yeah he had Faux Snickers' throat slit by Pilar. This was a putrid story in which in turned out Simon was responsible for bringing back Pilar into Mike's life to order to split up Mike and Katie.

I think Carl summed it up all very nicely. I loved Sheffer's first year there 2000-2001 and thoroughly enjoyed most of 2003. 2002 was a bad year though and 2004 is when Sheffer completely destroyed the show with recycled writing and his absolute misogyny.

Let us not forget I believe Sheffer started the rape thing on ATWT. Julia's rape of Jack, Marshall raping Jessica, and Lucy's rape along with the camp, light treatment of all three stories and giving them a lot of ambiguity were just mere precursors to EJ and Sami, the Sorority house rapes, gas-lighting Ashley, Daisy raping Daniel etc.

Edited September 12, 201114 yr by soapfan770