My thing is he didn't actually follow those rules, lol. I think they have a lot of validity, but I seem to recall him flushing a bunch of people and adding a horde at both GL and ATWT fairly quickly. Certainly the Snyders came on fast in '85. Not that I'm complaining, but there is a difference between what he preached and did.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by Vee

6 hours ago, Tisy-Lish said:

I often marvel that Lemay actually called Marland's writing "dark."  Meaning darker than his own writing, I assume.  Although I was a huge Lemay fan, I truly can't imagine a soap opera darker than his Another World.  However, I've discussed this with other soap fans who agree with Lemay.  So I guess it just depends on how one defines dark.  

Marland's last few years at ATWT were incredibly dark, so I can see where Lemay is coming from. 

Edited November 8Nov 8 by DRW50

23 minutes ago, Vee said:

My thing is he didn't actually follow those rules, lol. I think they have a lot of validity, but I seem to recall him flushing a bunch of people and adding a horde at both GL and ATWT fairly quickly. Certainly the Snyders came on fast in '85. Not that I'm complaining, but there is a difference between what he preached and did.

I tend to agree. He may have waited six months or whatever the rule is when he was at GL, but he had no problem dumping people quickly at ATWT. Hell, he not only dumped Maggie, he never, ever mentioned her again, IIRC. 

It’s always been a blind spot for me—tracking who wrote what, and when.

Still, if we accept that “Marland’s Rules” were published in 1992, in the often-quoted article How Not to Wreck a Show, it raises a fair question: how often did he break those rules after codifying them?

Clearly, there was satire involved. He was responding, in part, to writers who had taken over shows he’d previously helmed. And just as clearly, the rules weren’t meant to be followed literally, point by point.  It was Soap Opera Weekly, not the APA primer for soap writers.  I feel like a lot of the humor has gotten lost over the years as it was handed down without context.  He is being shady to writers at other soaps, not trying to teach a benign lesson.

 He's not saying "this is how to write a soap opera", he's saying, this is how not to mess up his prior successes. 

But if we allow that he may have broken them before setting them down—because they weren’t yet formalized in, say, 1982—then what’s the track record after publication? Once the rules were in print, how often did he bend or ignore them?

Lemay’s commentary adds useful context: Marland’s management style was edict-driven, not especially collaborative.  Whereas Lemay wrote about not collaborating because financially he wanted to keep most of the writing budget for himself, and he thought he could do most of the heavy lifting.  So it’s striking, in retrospect, to see people now praising a set of rules that once served to govern his staff. I assume every head writer has a vision—or at least a list of non-negotiables—but what stays with me is Marland’s decision to frame his as rules. That choice, more than the content itself, is what resonates now.

Edited November 8Nov 8 by j swift

41 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I tend to agree. He may have waited six months or whatever the rule is when he was at GL, but he had no problem dumping people quickly at ATWT. Hell, he not only dumped Maggie, he never, ever mentioned her again, IIRC. 

Did he? I thought the Reardons started coming on fast and furious.

6 minutes ago, Vee said:

Did he? I thought the Reardons started coming on fast and furious.

Nola and Bea did, but I was thinking more of his rule about waiting six months to write anyone out.

10 hours ago, MarlandFan said:

Agreed. By the mid/late 1990s, all the heavy-hitter soap creators had retired or passed on (Bill Bell, Doug Marland, Agnes Nixon, Harding Lemay, Clare Labine).  They were the handful of writers who could demand autonomy -- and get it.  With them gone, the suits took over and subsequent headwriters had to get approval for every little plot and subplot. 

Yes. Once all the master writers (who were both gifted AND understood the heart and soul of the soap opera genre) left us, daytime TV collapsed. Micro-managing and clueless suits started inflicting their idiotic mandates onto the soaps, and allowed/encouraged inferior scribes to take over. It was a lose-lose scenario. The soaps and viewers paid the price.

8 hours ago, DeeVee said:

No artist is going to simply copy their mentor. And mentor and students can and do end up rivals.

I have to say I preferred Lemay to Marland as a writer, but don't agree with Lemay's harsh criticism here. IMO, if more soap writers today used Marland's rules, soaps would definitely improve. 

To me, the problems arise when writers (and other PTB) who simply do not understand the essence of soaps, or who seem to deride the genre itself, refuse to adhere to any of the principles that work; ignore the principles which had kept the soaps hugely successful and beloved for decades.

 

2 hours ago, Vee said:

Did he? I thought the Reardons started coming on fast and furious.

Nola was introduced first as part of the Roger storyline. He was hiding out at the boarding house. Nola became suspicious and ended up calling the police on him.

It seems as though she was initially meant to be a short-term character. I assume Lisa impressed Marland and the other PTB so much that they decided to make her a major character and build a family around her 

Nola and Bea came on early 1980. Tony sometime in 1981. Maureen was later in 1981, after Peter Simon took over as Ed. Jim and Chelsea came on after Marland left.

But Kelly, Jennifer and Morgan also came on in rapid succession, yes?

19 minutes ago, Vee said:

But Kelly, Jennifer and Morgan also came on in rapid succession, yes?

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were just talking about the Reardons.

We were talking about this over on the GL thread recently. Two actresses in front burner stories had to take leave soon after he came in as HW: Lenore Kasdorf, who played Rita, went on maternity leave, and Cindy Pickett, who played Jackie, left to do a movie. Also, Michael Zazlow and Maureen Garrett had decided to leave. So that gave him room to introduce these new  characters. 

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

but I was thinking more of his rule about waiting six months to write anyone out.

Yes, I think that's correct. An example is Lezlie Dalton, who played Elizabeth. For some reason he disliked her and the character. He took almost a year to write her out of the show.

2 hours ago, DeeVee said:

Nola was introduced first as part of the Roger storyline. He was hiding out at the boarding house. Nola became suspicious and ended up calling the police on him.

It seems as though she was initially meant to be a short-term character. I assume Lisa impressed Marland and the other PTB so much that they decided to make her a major character and build a family around her 

Nola and Bea came on early 1980. Tony sometime in 1981. Maureen was later in 1981, after Peter Simon took over as Ed. Jim and Chelsea came on after Marland left.

I  disagree. Marland wanted to introduce a new family of have nots.

He was clever in having Nola and Bea introduced through the Roger story and not moving them to the front burner straight away. Unlike other shows, that within weeks moved the focus onto the new characters and leaving viewers confused and resentful.

Marland had long term plans and slowly changed the focus w/o completely decimating the cast.

Roger was already on the way out. He eliminated a few minor Dobson characters like Greg Fairbanks (who may have always intended to be short term) Ann Jeffers, Mark Hamilton and Peter Chapman.

I don't think he was very inspired by Holly so she was dropped . As  for Elizabeth, did Lezlie Dalton want to leave? If so maybe they didn't want to recast and decided to rest the character for a while.

And the decision was made to kill off Lucille.

He introduced Morgan and Jennifer, Bea and Nola, Kelly, SORASED Tim, Vanessa and Henry, Derek and Andy.