I agree with Carl. Recycling writers and certain executive level positions is not a new thing to this genre. The ability to write and plot out a neverending story is incredibly difficult with only a few people truly understanding just how difficult it is and how to do it well. That is why you see the same writers over and over again.

If you read any book about daytime writing in its golden age, you will see that the headwriter wrote the story, presented it to the show's network or advertising agency for notes, and then the executive producer was responsible for bringing the headwriter's vision to life. The executive producer wasn't in the writer's room, he was making sure the lights were turned on and that the production was on time and under budget. Yes, there were stories that writers couldn't tell and stories that were vetoed, but the stories that were told instead were from the single vision of a headwriter and not focus groups and network and sponsor executives.

Another key point is the loss of a single vision. The way it used to be... The headwriter wrote the long story; outlined (or would breakdown) the story; he or she may have even written a script or two a week; and finally, would edit the scripts. That mostly went away in the mid 80s when breakdown writers and editors entered the scene. I have nothing against breakdown writers and editors, but I have never understood how a headwriter's vision can be realized if others are doing the actual day to day plotting and editing. I believe something gets lost in the translation.

Another point is the loss of the A B C structure, mainly due to network execs wanting to play certain actors all the time. It used to be that there was an A story which was hot, a B story which was simmering, and a C story that was on the backburner. The A story would reach a climax and the B story would move to front burner and the C story would move to simmering and the A story would be backburner. That structure meant that all actors got a chance to be front burner and that you wouldn't burn out your actors and your fans wouldn't get tired of seeing the same characters in A stories all the time. Even those classic popular storylines and characters, played by popular actors, would take a back seat for other stories from time to time, which provided for a more balanced show.

I agree with Carl. Recycling writers and certain executive level positions is not a new thing to this genre. The ability to write and plot out a neverending story is incredibly difficult with only a few people truly understanding just how difficult it is and how to do it well. That is why you see the same writers over and over again.

If you read any book about daytime writing in its golden age, you will see that the headwriter wrote the story, presented it to the show's network or advertising agency for notes, and then the executive producer was responsible for bringing the headwriter's vision to life. The executive producer wasn't in the writer's room, he was making sure the lights were turned on and that the production was on time and under budget. Yes, there were stories that writers couldn't tell and stories that were vetoed, but the stories that were told instead were from the single vision of a headwriter and not focus groups and network and sponsor executives.

Another key point is the loss of a single vision. The way it used to be... The headwriter wrote the long story; outlined (or would breakdown) the story; he or she may have even written a script or two a week; and finally, would edit the scripts. That mostly went away in the mid 80s when breakdown writers and editors entered the scene. I have nothing against breakdown writers and editors, but I have never understood how a headwriter's vision can be realized if others are doing the actual day to day plotting and editing. I believe something gets lost in the translation.

Another point is the loss of the A B C structure, mainly due to network execs wanting to play certain actors all the time. It used to be that there was an A story which was hot, a B story which was simmering, and a C story that was on the backburner. The A story would reach a climax and the B story would move to front burner and the C story would move to simmering and the A story would be backburner. That structure meant that all actors got a chance to be front burner and that you wouldn't burn out your actors and your fans wouldn't get tired of seeing the same characters in A stories all the time. Even those classic popular storylines and characters, played by popular actors, would take a back seat for other stories from time to time, which provided for a more balanced show.

There are books?? for about a 6 months, I have been toying with the idea of starting an online soap. I even started to teach myself about script writing and character development. I am starting to really develop a passion for the creative aspect of the genre. What you told be about the ABC structure is what I have been doing since November.

There are some soap books which cover the first few decades of daytime.

There's also this, which is not real, but which gives some insight into Irna Phillips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zliXCe4MbxQ