ALL: The Lichtenstein Dilemma

[j swift]

Please register in order to view this content

Based on Roy Lichtenstien's famous print, I've coined the term The Lichtenstein Dilemma for female characters who aged out of being a romantically-viable lead protagonist or an ingénue before having kids.  In order to maintain a multigenerational tale, surrogate kids were invented, or long-lost children appeared. Often resulting in soap writers having to bend over backward to explain why these people never mentioned having kids, or why their long-lost children happened to move to the same town. 

The first example that comes to mind is Felicia Gallant on AW.  About a decade after she appeared in Bay City, there was a sudden rush to get her a daughter.  First there was Jenna, then Lorna.  Felicia never spoke about wanting a child, missing a child, or needing a child until it was decided that she should be a matriarch.

Perhaps the best example was Dorian on OLTL .  Over time, we found out that she gave birth twice to little girls who were raised in foreign schools; Cassie and Adrianna.  Herb Callison didn't flinch when Dorian's full-grown daughter was suddenly introduced in 1981.  But even more incredibly, it happened again in 2003.  Followed by her adoption of Langston in 2008.  Dorian was spitting out daughters left and right, despite the fact that we never saw her being pregnant.

Bobbie Spencer on GH forgot to have kids. So, first she fostered Melisa, then she was a surrogate mother to Terri, and then Carly magically appeared. And, of course, Lucas and BJ.

Erica Kane and Victoria Lord had long-lost daughters, but that feels slightly different because they already had children on the canvas.  And giving them full-grown daughters felt like an excuse not to SORAS the kids they already had.

There are a bunch of men who had long-lost kids, like Carl Hutchins on AW, but somehow that comes with the territory on soaps.  I mean, two out of five of Mac Cory's kids were long-lost, and half of Adam Chandler's kids were long-lost.

But, in order to prove my thesis, I need other examples of women who suddenly acquired offspring after being on a show for more than a couple of years.  And were all the long-lost children of female character daughters?  Or did anyone find a son?

Edited November 22, 2023 by j swift

[Paul Raven]

On Y&R Nikki acquired Dylan. Supposedly she was impregnated while in a cult. We saw the cult storyline and I think Melody Thomas Scott had a few months break (was she on maternity leave IRL?) but there was never any indication that she was pregnant or had a child by Paul.

That story would have worked better for Paul and another cult member. It's much easier for men to have unknown children-as witnessed by so many soap men having children turn up.

Stephanie on Search for Tomorrow acquired Brian Emerson after years on the show .

Kim (and Bob) on ATWT acquired Sabrina,supposedly dead at birth but actually spirited away. Doug Marland always claimed his retcons fitted history but that was a stretch.

Sharon on Y&R discovered that she actually had twins so they could bring Camryn Grimes back to the show and have a daughter for Sharon to interact with.

[j swift]

@Paul RavenYes, but the term Lichtenstein Dilemma is not just about a long-lost kid, as much as it is about a woman who uncharacteristically became an instant mother as they aged up.

Edited November 22, 2023 by j swift

[DramatistDreamer]

Personally, I don’t believe in the aspect of a woman aging out of being a viable protagonist. Aging out of an ingenue yes, aging out of vixen, which has a longer shelf life, perhaps but the idea that a woman (and apparently not a man?) has a sell-by date is well, ageist and likely a function of fans being brainwashed by years of terrible soap opera writing. 
But I digress…

If I were to play along with this Lichtenstein game (Anecdote: my first real world job working at a performing arts institution in Brooklyn, my boss showed me some posters that Lichtenstein had created especially for their arts festivals that had been held at least a decade before I had arrived), then Rosanna Cabot might fit the bill. Even though the character had been unevenly written at times, I had somewhat appreciated that Rosanna was single and child-free, a perspective that existed in real life but was usually M.I.A. in soaps. As much as I like Cady McClain, I thought the writing for Rosanna during her stints was pretty atrocious. It got so bad at one point, that even McClain became disgusted with the way the character was being written and left. They had stuck her wit her sister’s child temporarily, than began to give her a sort of baby fever and gave her fibroids with only a hysterectomy as the solution, which made her even more desperate. The writer decided to give Rosanna not one but two botched adoptions, one of which ends up being illegal. Both at the hands of the men in her life. Her happily ever after involves a sudden reconciliation with one of those men (who had previously run her off a road, causing her to get into an accident) and deciding to co-parent one of his sons.

[j swift]

Point taken, my second pass would be long term female characters who were uncharacteristically made into instant mothers. Which is why I chose Felicia and Dorian, neither of whom were motivated by domestic desires.

Also, I decided to focus on women because there are more logical and plot-driven reasons why a man could meet his long-lost children.

But, I believe that you understood my point because you cited an excellent example.

Edited November 22, 2023 by j swift

[1974mdp]

I think a great example...and the topic of it was actually explored recently on the show...is Christine on Y&R. The character never had children, and I believe she was only pregnant and miscarried that one time with Paul.

Around her anniversary show, Christine mentioned that she never had children and focused on her career, and now she wondered about it.

Her character in particular is sort of limited on a soap. She's too old to be the ingenue anymore or a romantic lead...not that she couldn't be...but with soaps being such intergenerational stories it does limit her. She started so young on the show it would be difficult or even impossible to do "the long-lost child."

Didn't AMC have a similar issue with Brooke, and then they had her adopt a daughter all of a sudden?

[titan1978]

Brooke had Jamie, but the show needed some teens so she also ended up adopting Laura, sharing a name with her child that was killed IIRC.

Erica also had the worst one of all time- the unabortion.

Alexis Davis on GH had Kristina and Molly before she remembered she had a long lost daughter that turned out to be Sam. Later retconned into being fathered by Julian Jerome. Which never made any sense to me. Brenda also had a son that she believed had died. And I felt at the time that kid was being shoehorned in because they didn’t want her to age out of having a kid. Luke and Holly also now had Ethan, which gave Holly a child and allowed Tony Geary to reinvent his character’s history in a terrible way. I’m kind of shocked they never went this route with Tracy Quartermaine. She has so many periods of time not on the show to easily fit a baby in. And she was snobby enough to abandon one that didn’t fit her image (conceived during an affair, etc).

Days gave us John’s son Paul in the last few years. A son he conceived when we were watching the show.

Edited November 23, 2023 by titan1978

[j swift]

Perfect example

In my mind, the Lichtenstein Dilemma and SORASing work hand-in-hand.  Because every soap has a female character who stays in that late 30s/early 40s era. Then a group of new teens or young adults comes along, and if the female character was single, they suddenly need an offspring to stay in the multigenerational story.  Even though, it may not have been in-keeping with a character like Brooke to adopt a teenager, one is suddenly thrust upon her for plot-driven purposes.  Much like Brooke herself, and Hilary, got trust upon Phoebe Wallingford (who didn't forget to have kids, but they all left town or died)

That's why I wouldn't be surprised if B&B's Katie or GH's Diane suddenly gets a new teen within a couple of years (p.s. I know Katie already has a kid).  Because it already happened to Donna on B&B, even though we never see her son anymore.

Edited November 23, 2023 by j swift

[Paul Raven]

I guess Stephanie on SFT would fit that criterion.

She had Wendy but they wanted a new young male so why not rewrite Stephanie's past.

Maggie on Days was given a long lost daughter, never mentioned in decades and an egg baby(the dreaded Daniel) 

[1974mdp]

This was probably one of the worst and most offensive plot twists ever thought up.

If TPTB really wanted to give Erica a son, they could have just said she had twins when she gave birth to Kendall and didn't realize that there was another baby.

The whole twist was HORRIBLE. I remember a line where Erica asks Tad how is this even possible. He just shrugs and says, "I don't know, but it did." So stupid.

[j swift]

@1974mdp Yes, but Kendall is a better example of The Lichtenstein Dilemma, because she came about at a time when they didn't want/need to SORAS Bianca.  And, the writers had to bend over backward to explain her existence.  Which are two key factors.

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by j swift

[soapfan770]

Would Vivian on Days fit this bill? Originally she was an older woman who clung to grandnephew Nicholas and surrogate son Phillip as she had no children of her own; yet later on Vivian was given retcon sons Quinn, Stefan, and Jake. 
 

It also happened to Alex on GL with Lujack and then later Nick. I was surprised GL never introduced any other lost kids of Alex. 

[j swift]

Amazing example - thank you

Because even though Vivian loved Lawrence, she was hardly maternal, so it is very Lichtenstein Dilemma that she wound up with three sons, each of questionable origin, and never mentioned during her decades on screen.

[DramatistDreamer]

Thank you.

As you can probably tell, I have a bone to pick with how the soap opera industrial complex deals with women. 

[j swift]

Which is the reason that I entitled it as a dilemma.  Because it sucks that a genre created to sell household products constantly implies that no woman's life is complete without a child.  Even if it means telling a story about an accomplished, intelligent, creative person who somehow forgot that they gave birth.

I assume advertisers believe that people without children don't feel the need to buy the more expensive toilet paper for themselves.  They need a dependent to motivate their purchase.  But it is worthy of outrage how they try to sell that idea.

Edited November 25, 2023 by j swift