From: VECTRGSJ@VAX.CSUN.EDU (Gail Said Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: DOOL: Responses re: Roman and (in defense of) Carly
Date: 6 Nov 1992 12:23:55 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

>From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
>lf01+@andrew.cmu.edu (Liz Fox) writes:
>
>>Susan, I knew I could count on you.  I argue that Drake was in the role
>>longer and made it his own and is therefore, the *real* Roman.  Ditto
>
>Wayne introduced the character and defined him.  To you, Drake made the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES!!!!!  And he was great in the "good ol' days" IMO.

>role his own, to me, he changed it.  But it looks like neither one
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He certainly did.  Personally, I didn't much like what he changed it to.

>of us will get our real Roman back, so its pointless to argue.

Yup, and more's the pity.  I wish they hadn't bought back the "real" Roman.  
It made sense for people to find out that "John" wasn't really Roman.  It's 
too bad they had to "resurrect" Roman to do it.  It just hasn't worked well at 
all.

>don't have to deal with his lame recreation of Roman.  I like the
>way Drake has created John.  I'm happy with him in that role.  Maybe

I don't think Drake is a particularly great actor, but I believe I like him 
better in the role of John Black, too.

>>I like Drake better than Wayne's old Roman.  ;) As I said, I think of Drake
>>as Roman because he made the role his own.  I cringe when he or anyone
>>else calls Wayne Roman.  Just my humble opinion, but I'm glad you came
>>out to rebut! 
>
>I guess you didn't like the original Roman and you were happy with the
>way Drake changed him.  I wasn't . I liked him the way he was.
>But thats the fun of soaps.  Something for everyone.

I liked the original Roman, too.  He was fun, he was funny, he was romantic.  
I wish he still were all those things.

>Personally, I love the new Kim story.  I hope we meet lots of her
>personalities and I hope those personalities get her into heaps of
>trouble.  I also hope that they can have a little imagination and
>not make them all sluts.

I really hated this storyline when it started, but it has become more 
interesting.  I'm with you, I hope they do something really good with it.

RE: Lawrence
>want them to pair him up with someone soon so I can see him in
>seductive-mode again.  Not screw-mode, like he was with Lisanne and
>the maid, but seductive, like he was with Carrie.  Yummy.

He was seductive with Carrie?  I thought she mainly went after him.

Re: In defense of Carly
>bets@doc.ksu.ksu.edu (Beth Schwindt) writes:
>
>>Vix says:  
>>>Wasavika writes:
>

The pool table scene
>tease for Bo?  Also, how does this scene make her a closet whore?  There
>was nothing "whorish" about that scene.

I agree.  It wasn't like Carly picked up some stranger in the bar and waited 
until closing time so she could seduce him on the pool table.

>Calling her a closet whore because she likes to strip for her boyfriend
>is going a bit too far.

Agreed ... again!

>No one could see them.  They didn't pick each other up.  They didn't force
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Weeeellllll, the blinds were open.  I did think they might have thought of 
closing them.

>If you choose to feel degraded, that's you're option.  I, for one, think
>you should lighten up.

Folks in this group do take this show pretty seriously sometimes.  :)  
Personally I watch it for the laughs ... intentional or otherwise.  :)

>Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 

		      	     __.        |
		      	    /  |  __. . |
			   (__/|/(_/|_|_|__)
			      /| gsaidjohnson@vax.csun.edu
			     (_/ Computer Center / Cal-State Northridge*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     *This post, of course, has nothing whatever to do with the university.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps