B&B: Bold from the beginning

[sheilaforever]

Karen was a creation of Bill Bell who did not step down as headwriter from B&B until the middle of Karen's original run. When JJ left again, it might have been her choice again because she was just not into acting that much and wanted to become a fulltime writer...

[Videnbas]

Yes, I'm currently watching Karen's introduction storyline and she is a "well-developed undeveloped character". That is, she comes on the show almost as a "blank slate", this girl who hasn't had much life experience, and she's caught up in Blake's agenda to turn her into a second Caroline. She doesn't have a strong identity of her own, instead trying to emulate Caroline's identity, but that chameleon-like quality in itself is her identity. She is basically manipulated into giving up any sense of independent self she has in order to copy somebody else. And the fact that she is vulnerable to that kind of mind games really says a lot about her character - her sense of loss after learning of the sister she found out too late that she had. And so she is groomed to become a cheap imitation of Caroline, but this is not a result of poor writing but a result of good writing as we see Blake's scheme on full display, along with the factors that make Karen ready to go along with it.

[Liberty City]

#427: Caroline attempting to tell Stephanie the woman she plans to set up with Ridge is herself, but then doesn't when Stephanie admits to not approving of them together. Whew. What a scene, and truly shows the deeper rooted side of Caroline. And, you can tell, Stephanie has an inkling that Caroline might be the one.

[Soaplovers]

One thing I liked that Bill Bell did was showcase the difficult relationships Stephanie had with both of her daughters.  The reasons behind the friction were completely different.

Stephanie viewed Kristen as competition since she had a close relationship with Eric...and she viewed Kristen as frigid..complete opposite of Stephanie at that age.  It seemed as if a lot of that was dropped months into the show.  

With Felicia,the reason they had issues was because both were alike.  Both headstrong, rebellious, driven and stubborn.  It was a more typical mother/daughter relationship..imho.

Had Brad Bell been handwriter in those early years..he would have not provided depth to show how the friction differed between the two mother/daughter relationships.

[Maxim]

Caroline.

1. Marries a man out of pity and lies to herself and him that she loves him all while looking out of windows... watching his shirtless brother. Disgusting. Poor Thorne.

2.Talks to his mother like she is some kind of a dog, while living in HER house. Dangles for months and months the decision to leave her husband, while making everyone's life miserable. Will not leave the house and refuses to go on a trip with her husband... because she can't be away from HER BROTHER IN LAW. DISGUSTING.

3.Tries to stop an engagement while the other woman is PREGNANT. Doubts the woman's pregnancy and acts like spoiled brat that deserves a great prize - Ridge. Goes to the hospital and looks into the room while the WOMAN IS ABORTING THE child. WHY? Imagine the woman that wants your man... staring through the door while you are aborting. DISGUSTING:

4.Has sex with her brother IN LAW, while her husband is in the kitchen... First lies to herself and everyone that she didn't know it was RIDGE who was MAKING love with her. LOL. The day I mistake my husband for someone else... please shoot me. THEN ADMITS to KNOWING IT was RIDGE ALL ALONG and actually WANTING the sex. DISGUSTING. POOR THORNE.

5. Has done nothing in life to deserve anything. EVERYTHING is GIVEN to her and she always complains.  ALWAYS is not happy. ALWAYS

6. Screams and yells at the man who told her that her fiance cheated on her and gave her her job... her father.

 

I can continue and continue.

This character is symbol of everything I don't like - entitled, spoiled, ungrateful, cheating, lying.

Please do not start personal attack towards me. I AM commenting A CHARACTER from a soap opera. I have the right.

Caroline for me was like the DEATH, she just created misery every step of her life. Misery after misery.

 

[Videnbas]

To me, Caroline was a complex character. She started out innocent and idealistic, and then gradually had to learn the hard way that nothing in the world is as perfect as it first seems - including herself.

Caroline's whole story arc is about disillusionment and acceptance. A series of tough awakenings and coming to terms with them. First Ridge's cheating, then encountering evil in the form of a sexual predator, then learning about the dark side of her father's business, and finally learning about her own repressed "forbidden" desires. And Caroline had to face the reality of who she was and all the damage she had caused by repressing her true feeling. 

[Maxim]

I do not agree. Respectfully. Caroline is an embodiment of entitlement, selfishness and privilege. She is incredibly rude to her father, her mother in law, she destroyed Thorne... But the high of the monster she was... was when Brooke was having an abortion and she was lurking in the corner... probably praying the baby will die. Even Thorne and Stephanie told her it's no appropriate for her to be there. Thank God the character died and in the end was a bit more tolerable, after she got her EGO prize aka worst acting in history - Ridge...  

Her sister was equally vomit inducing... but thank God did not have the main storylines as did the cheating, lying, selfish monster.

Again... I am a victim of a partner like Caroline... I was the Thorne... So this woman just disgusts me in very deep way. So... no hard feelings... I am just talking about a character. Not the actress.

[Videnbas]

Of course, it's all just an interesting discussion and I think it's amazing how we all bring our own perspectives to the characters based on our own life experiences.

What I was trying to say was that I found Caroline psychologically interesting, without really feeling the need to side with or against the character. To me the part of her that intrigued me (although in a kind of uncomfortable way) was the cognitive dissonance between her self image and her repressed feelings. We all like to see ourselves as good people, and yet we are all capable of thoughts and actions that are not so good and that we'd be ashamed to admit even to ourselves. And then there's this effort of rationalization which was portrayed so well with Caroline (her trying to justify herself, to herself). I'm not saying she did the right thing (she didn't) but it was interesting to me to see her trying to sort herself out. There was just this gap between her true self and how she was used to seeing herself. 

[DramatistDreamer]

So appreciate your analysis. 
The bloviating that often comes with discussion of soap characters on SM usually takes me right out of any discussions. Yours is the kind of discussion I can get into.

Edited May 11, 2022 by DramatistDreamer

[Videnbas]

Thank you! I really find that what I enjoy the most is plot and character analysis (or analysis of just about anything related to the show). It's usually more enjoyable to me when the whole "taking sides" aspect is taken out of the equation, even though I do have a handful of favorites that I will defend no matter what (the characters that is, not necessarily their actions). What I enjoy about the writing in the early years is that it was so nuanced that there were very few clear-cut heroes or villains. Instead, the characters become a sort of Rorschach test that viewers can project their own lives and relationships on. It has been very clear to me in the case of Brooke and Stephanie, for example. The first time I watched the show as a young girl, I saw Brooke as the heroine and Stephanie as the evil villain. Rewatching the same episodes now as a mother, I am entirely on Stephanie's side and find Brooke totally unrelatable.

[DramatistDreamer]

It’s also the analysis and discussion that I prefer to engage in. I like to look at specific aspects of the writing and production, as well as performance.

JMO but I am a believer that, just as the “supercouple” idea seemed like a good idea initially, before turning corrosive, I do believe that the aspect of Stan  culture has had a similar effect, especially when the producers, execs and writers whose work isn’t strong enough to both absorb and withstand intrusive and destabilizing influence let stans dictate what ultimately appears onscreen.

‘It’s refreshing to strip away all of those marginal aspects from the equation and look at what’s vital to the storytelling.

[Videnbas]

Do you have examples of successful and/or unsuccessful writing for "supercouples" on B&B? Or examples of when fan influence worked well or not so well on the show?

For me, one major problem seems to be the over-reliance on triangles as plot device. Nothing kills a character, or a romantic pairing, faster than a poorly constructed triangle. And by that I mean a triangle that follows the rules of sports (teams fighting to win a prize) rather than drama (characters developing and experiencing conflict). 

[DramatistDreamer]

Oh, I meant the overall concept of super couples in soaps general. I haven’t even looked at B&B that closely to assess it. 
I do remember those sparkling ads that used to run during CBS Daytime in ‘87, in late January and throughout February before B&B debuted in March of that year and it was clear that they were promoting Ridge and Caroline in particular, as the “Golden Couple”. 
Do you remember those promos? It was pretty rude that they aired them during Capitol, lol.

The idea of promoting your soap based on couples, which is what many soaps did, after the success of Luke and Laura on GH, was always going to be a double-edged sword on shows that increasingly relied on shifting romantic relationships to keep the drama going. 

But being specific to B&B, the over-reliance on romantic triangles always annoyed me somewhat.

[Videnbas]

I think the mistake in trying to build a soap on pairing characters up, or putting them in triangles, is that no relationship is more interesting than the characters involved. If you don't first care about the characters individually, how can you be made to care about what happens to them and who they are with? B&B makes this mistake a lot these days. Instead of exploring a character in depth - what motivates them, what are their strengths and weaknesses, their wants and fears - they just throw them into different relationships and then break the relationships up and move on to the next with no emotional impact. Everyone seems interchangeable to everyone else.

The only example of character-based writing I can think of in (fairly) recent years was Aly. She had an actual inner life. An actual personality. If I look at the current set of characters on B&B and try to describe their personalities, in most cases I simply can't (or only in very generic terms like "Sheila is crazy" or "Deacon is a bad boy trying to be good"). Looking at the classic episodes I could write pages and pages about each and every character.

[Maxim]

I am sorry to disagree again... I thought Aly to be a complete caricature and disgusting and not realistic portrayal of schizophrenia. It actually was near camp... so absurd and stupid the way Bradley took the character. It was very cheap and for ratings. I didnt find any depth and any characterization. It was the same old soap opera crazy stalker Angela type cliche... but this time done so 1 note and so disrespectful...