The Daily Serial: Signs of Life

To anyone paying attention, the signs are clear: if the daily soap opera is going to survive, something has got to change. What sort of changes, though, are called for? What will it take to make the daily soap a good investment for networks and sponsors, while ensuring good, solid storytelling that attracts viewers?

SuperSize Me

In the past, changes have mostly been about expansion. First was the move from radio to television. This was followed by an extension of episode length: soaps started at 15 minutes long, moved up to 30 minutes, and then an hour. (Another World actually did the 90 minute thing for a short time.) Then there was an expansion regarding sets and locations - where, once upon a time, the drama used to take part in a kitchen over a cup of coffee, soaps started adding work places, restaurants, country clubs, casinos. No longer happy to keep the action in small town America, soaps started doing elaborate location shoots in places like St. Croix and Santo Domingo.

The logic behind these changes was simple to understand: bigger is often thought of as better. In all fairness, many of these changes garnered positive results. The lavish sets of the 70s and 80s were aesthetically pleasing. The occasional location shoot can be a lot of fun to watch, and made it possible to tell a wider range of stories that attracted viewers who may not have been all that interested in the traditional domestic dramas that were the bread and butter of the genre.

Bigger, in my opinion, sometimes was better. Times, though, have changed. These days, bigger is just more expensive.

Backlash: the Peapack Model

When Guiding Light seemed doomed for cancelation, a drastic turnaround was made. The show that had once boasted some of the biggest and most beautiful soundstage sets on daytime and whose location shoots in Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico were the stuff of soap legend made the move from NYC to Peapack, New Jersey. Gone were the huge, lavish banquet rooms and oak-paneled executive board rooms that made it possible to shoot scenes with crowds of 20 or more. In their place: actual rooms in an actual house - none big enough to reasonably shoot more than four or five actors in one scene at a time. Gone, too, was the rich quality of film, in exchange for handheld, shaky video. Rich lighting? Buh-bye! Hello, harsh, overhead lighting controlled by an ordinary light switch on the wall.

Some people considered the Peapack model a bold experiment. Others considered it a mess. I think it was a little bit of both. Cutting back, in my opinion, was a move in the right direction. Whereas the trend, for many years, had been towards expansion, the choice to move towards something more compact and manageable was a wise one. The decisions about where and how to get smaller, though, could have been better.

Smaller AND Better?

There's a common rule in business: if you want to be successful, study what successful people before you have done, and take your cues from there. Best-selling books have been written about nothing more than the habits of highly successful people. Professional development trainers make a lot of money running workshops that pretty much take 4 hours to tell students just that: if you want to succeed, find some successful folks to copy.

Soaps became bigger than life because their smaller incarnations were successful. Now that the big-budget, lavish soap opera model is no longer financially viable, it makes sense to go back to basics, and look at what made these shows so successful, in the first place. The only elements that need to be in place in order for a daily soap opera to gain a loyal audience are:

• A core of fully developed characters who relate to one another, brought to life by decent actors
• Good, solid stories that people can care about
• Continuity

That's it. The rest is all icing. A daily serial does not need a huge cast, elaborate locales, special effects, or special guest stars in order to be good or to capture the interest of viewers. In fact, if it has all of those things, but doesn't have a good story or decent acting, a soap is pretty much doomed. Soaps, after all, have their roots in radio. Television is a visual medium, but the television soap was born out of an audio medium. What happens and who it happens to are the most important things about a serial drama.

It may well be that the best thing the networks and sponsors can do, if they wish to rebuild viewer loyalty for their daytime lineup, is go back to basics, and return to a simpler form of daily storytelling: smaller acting ensembles, a handful of key, core characters who are connected to one another, very basic sets, and a half hour format.

Imagine if, instead of the Peapack model, TPTB at GL had decided to slash their cast of characters down to the Bauers (they could have brought back Ed and Michelle, given Rick more of a story, and integrated both Mel and Leah), Spauldings, and Lewises, with just a couple of other characters who were connected to these families (yes, Otalia.) No Edmund, or Remy. No Christina. No Coopers (an extraneous family that it made no sense to hold on to.) No Cyrus. No Doris Wolf (sorry, Orlagh, but you were not necessary.) Imagine, too, if the drama had been limited to the Spaulding and Lewis offices, the Bauer kitchen, the farm house living room and Cedar's. No more Towers. No convenience store. No Company. No wobbly, noisy outdoor shots, full of traffic and airplane noise. Just compelling stories (no clones, or magical portraits....no Bosnia) about people we all knew and loved, driven by strong dialogue, solid acting, and quality cinematography. Imagine if this version of GL had been doled out in 30 minute episodes, five days a week, with a chance to catch up on all five days via late-night and/or weekend marathon. Imagine, too, that this version of GL had been seasonal, running for 13 weeks, and airing reruns while the show was on hiatus.

Is it crazy to think American audiences would watch a show structured in such a way in 2010? They already are.

A Flicker of Hope: In Treatment

Any lover of serial drama who hasn't caught seasons 1 and 2 of HBO's In Treatment really should get the lead out. Based on Hagai Levi's highly successful Israeli series, In Treatment is the closest thing we now have to the old fashioned, small scale, 30 minute daily serial. (Do not send me emails about B&B. Seriously - don't bother.)

The show revolves around Dr. Paul Weston, a psychotherapist. It airs five nights a week, with each episode coming in at under 30 minutes. Each night of the week focuses on Dr. Weston having a one-on-one session with a particular patient. (He also sees a couple or a family, now and then.) Friday episodes usually revolve around Paul's own sessions with his mentor and psychotherapist, played by Dianne Wiest. The patients and their lives provide a series of mini dramas, but the main focus is Dr. Weston - how his work and personal lives have collided, how he finds himself at a crossroads in both his profession and his marriage (to a wife played by soap vet Michelle Forbes,) how his relationship to his children is effected by his relationship to young patients. It's about the demons Paul lives with, both as a man and a doctor...his obsession with events of the past, his struggles to maintain appropriate boundaries with his patients, and his midlife crisis.

For all intents and purposes, In Treatment is classic soap opera. If you miss an episode, you've missed something important, because each episode builds on the next one. Each patient's issues somehow touch on issues Paul is struggling with in his own life.

Shooting locations are basic: Paul's patients see him in his home. Paul sees Gina (his therapist) in her home. No board rooms or banquet halls. No television station or light house or foreign locales.

There are no gimmicks here. No evil twins. No clones. No secret cities or time travel or plots to control the world via weather machine. No car chases or hostage situations. In Treatment is about people talking. That's it. And it's compelling. What's more, HBO has renewed it for a 3rd season.

The Old and the New

While In Treatment is throwback to the way serial dramas used to be made, it's also fresh and modern. Episodes are available on-demand and for download via Itunes. The show is seasonal, which gives new viewers a chance to pick up during down time, and loyal viewers a chance to catch up or re-watch episodes. It's also available on DVD. Just last week I spoke to someone who'd just discovered In Treatment, watched seasons 1 and 2 on DVD, and is now eagerly awaiting season 3. This is virtually impossible with a soap opera that runs 52 weeks a year, with no breaks.

The people involved with making In Treatment have noted how exhausting the process is. Who would be better equipped to work within the grueling schedule than soap opera veterans? If anything, actors and crew who have cut their teeth on the one-hour-episodes-five-days-a-week-52-weeks-a-year schedule that is de rigueur in the production of American soaps would find the shooting schedule of In Treatment a walk in the park.

If the people who develop programming for daytime television are truly interested in fare that will attract viewers (and viewer loyalty), that they can sell to sponsors with confidence, they should take a look at the model HBO has adopted for In Treatment. It has all the elements of classic soap opera, in its barest form: short episodes, minimal sets, a small cast of interesting characters. By relying on the classic elements of soap opera, and putting some thought into the way people get their entertainment these days, the makers of In Treatment have created what represents the first glimmer of hope for the daily serial we've seen in a long time.

© 2010 Lana M. Nieves

Limited Licensing: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, granting distribution of my copyrighted work without making changes, with mandatory attribution to Lana M. Nieves and for non-commercial purposes only. - Lana M. Nieves

Breakfast of Champions: Is there hope for The Great American Serial?

Recently, a friend and I had a discussion about the future of soaps. What, we asked each other, will daytime television look like once the few remaining soaps are gone? What will the networks and sponsors come up with to fill in the empty space? Infomercials? Talk shows? Game shows? All of these are distinct possibilities. In my opinion, not a one of them has a chance in hell of gaining the sort of viewer loyalty that a well-written, daily soap opera can elicit. Only time will tell what the daytime landscape will look like, but there are certainly several factors for TPTB should take into consideration when making decisions about programming.

The Myth of Youth

I keep hearing about how what has killed the American soap opera is the fact that young people aren't interested in this old-school style of entertainment. People under 30, we're told, don't have the attention spans of the generations that preceded them. This may be true to some extent, but something else is true: there are more of us than there are of them. Ever heard the term "baby boom"? This is an aging population. While networks have kept busy trying to court young audiences, the writing on the wall has become clear: there are not only more older people than young people in America, but older people have significantly more spending power. And, make no mistake about it - advertisers know this.

Most young people may never be fans of a traditional, daily serial that is character-driven, requires perseverance, loyalty, and an attention span of more than ten minutes, but that doesn't really matter if networks and sponsors are trying to develop programming that caters to people who have spending power.

The Melting Pot vs. The Box of 64 Colors

Remember that line in your grade school history book about America being a melting pot? Well, forget it. It was a lie. No one moves to America, anymore, and identifies as just "American." I don't care if people like this, or not (I love it), but there is no such thing as the American melting pot. Immigrants who arrived in the USA during the last 100 years have, by and large, retained their ethnic , cultural and racial identities. This isn't a nation inhabited by one, homogeneous race of human beings. We're black, white, Asian, Hispanic....we're Christian and Jewish and Buddhist....we're straight and gay and all things in-between.

This is how America looks. It's how the real world looks. Television should look more like the real world. We notice when it doesn't. It pisses a lot of us off when it doesn't. It pisses us off even more when it's clear that it doesn't because someone is making a concerted effort to make sure it doesn't.

How We Watch

I'm old enough to remember a time when, if you missed an episode of All My Children, the best you could do was have a friend fill you in and then read the Soap Opera Digest recap. No VCRs. No Soapnet. No YouTube.

Times have changed, and technology has moved at lightning speed in the last 40 years. These days, when fewer people are at home during the day to watch their soaps in real time, there's no reason to miss them. Soapnet airs rebroadcasts of several shows during the evening and on weekends. Television networks make episodes of their soaps available via streaming video on the web. DVR technology makes it possible to digitally record and store literally hundreds of hours of programming for later viewing.

If the way we watch television has changed, it follows suit that the way television is made, marketed and evaluated for ratings should also change.

Choices

When I was a kid, growing up in a major, urban market, there were three television networks, three local stations, and one public broadcasting channel on VHF to choose from. (UHF was, in large part, dedicated to Spanish-language programming, and aimed at what was then considered a negligible demographic. See "The Melting Pot..." above.)

Today, the rare person who is at home watching television on weekdays has hundreds of cable channels to choose from. Add to that video games and the internet, and it's astounding how many choices people have when it comes to choosing sedentary entertainment.

If television - any sort of television, not just serial drama - is going to attract viewers, there has to be a damned good reason to watch. Word has it that CBS is disappointed with the ratings for Let's Make A Deal, the game show that replaced Guiding Light late last year. Is it really all that surprising that people who are home during the day consistently find something other than this low-budget, out-of-date costume party game show to devote their time to?

A Good Story

Everyone loves a good story. Storytelling is about a lot more than just throwing random characters together, and assigning them arbitrary tasks to perform. Good storytelling relies on characters who have depth and history, relationships to one another and the world they inhabit. Good storytelling revolves around conflict that is interesting on the surface, and strikes a chord on a deeper level. With so many entertainment choices available to the television viewer, this fundamental tenet cannot be ignored: human beings love a good story. Our stories are who we are.

Next: Part II - The Daily Serial: Signs of Life

© 2010 Lana M. Nieves

Limited Licensing: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, granting distribution of my copyrighted work without making changes, with mandatory attribution to Lana M. Nieves and for non-commercial purposes only. - Lana M. Nieves

Biting the hand...

An Open Letter To TPTB at One Life To Live

Dear decision-makers,

Word on the street is that you've decided to throw Kyle and Fish to the wolves and, in one fell swoop do away with the only interesting, promising same-sex couple on daytime television. Way to go, idiots.

For years, people have complained that soap operas were rife with cliches, that there was nothing new under the daytime sun, and that the days of soaps pushing boundaries and taking chances were long over. Last year, you guys stepped up to the plate and gave us KISH - the last, best hope daytime television had for portraying two people of the same gender falling in love and making a go of it. Kyle and Fish are attractive, likable, sympathetic, and they share chemistry. And they're accessible: these are guys people can relate to. They're like men we know - our friends, our brothers. With KISH, you didn't give us boa-clad camp, or tragic faggots just waiting to meet the right women. These were normal guys, guys with friends and connections to the community. Guys the public could and did root for. Guys the public still roots for.

Early this year, you put your money where your collective mouth was, and actually allowed Kyle and Fish not only to kiss, but to have a full-on love scene. No Otaliaesque head-butting for these two; Kyle and Fish actually had a full-scale sex scene, complete with candles, corny music, soft lighting...the whole nine yards. What's more, with Stacey recently giving birth to a baby whose father is none other than Oliver Fish, there was the tantalizin prospect of - dare I say it? - a gay couple actively parenting a child.

In short, KISH was and is a ground-breaking story line. Where Otalia chickened out, KISH had the goods.

So, what do you do, oh powers-that-be? You stomp on the very thing that, at this moment in time, is the one truly unique aspect of your show. You kill KISH.

You. Fucking. Idiots.

Who do you think watches soaps, writes about soaps, interviews soap actors, promotes soaps, and keeps soaps alive? If you think it's young housewives, who watch between cleaning the oven and making brownies, you're even dumber than I thought. There are no more housewives in America. There are busy home-makers who juggle housework, parenting, yoga, volunteerism, school, and social lives....but the housewife of 1955, who could stop everything at 2 to watch soaps? She's gone the way of the dinosaur. Today's fans DVR their soaps, watch them, and discuss them online with other fans...and do you know who many, if not most, of these fans are? Gay people. To be specific, gay MEN. Shocking, huh? Shouldn't be, because everyone knows it's a bunch of queers writing the damned programs. Newsflash: soap operas are gay entertainment. DUH.

Gay men have a long history of watching and supporting their "stories." I only started watching OLTL, again, after quitting for good, when a gay man I know started singing the show's praises, and convinced me to give it a go one more time. Almost all of the online promotion I've seen for OLTL has been instigated by gay males. And, no, they haven't talked only about KISH, but about the show, as a whole. Gay men - both those with official press credentials, and those who just love their soaps - have lobbied hard for OLTL. How do you choose to repay this loyalty? What do gay men get in return for their support? More invisibility.

Thanks for making this sad moment a little easier by being such assholes. I quit. I'm finished with you. OLTL is officially off my DVR schedule. Soapnet can suck it. You, my friends, are dead to me. This gay woman has drawn a line in the sand. I'm too good to waste any more time on a show produced by gutless bigots. And, anyhow, you'll probably be cancelled soon enough. It's not like you've got anything original to offer.

It's been real.

- Snapper

© 2010 Lana M. Nieves

Limited Licensing: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, granting distribution of my copyrighted work without making changes, with mandatory attribution to Lana M. Nieves and for non-commercial purposes only. - Lana M. Nieves

Cousins...identical cousins

Julianne Moore is a great actress. Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Safe, Far From Heaven, The Prizewinner of Defiance Ohio, I'm Not There. And do not get me started on The Hours; she was robbed of an Oscar by a prosthetic nose and, as my friend Robert points out, Hollywood's desire to stick it to Tom Cruise. But let's put it out there: in a world where Meryl Streep is as close to thespian perfection as it gets, Julianne Moore owned The Hours and outdid even Meryl Streep. Poor, old Nicole Kidman was far, far out of her league.

Soap fans know, however, that before the Oscar-nominated performances and the Tom Ford dresses and ad campaigns for cosmetics and flawless skin, Julianne Moore played dual roles on As The World Turns: Frannie and Sabrina Hughes. Cousins, identical cousins. And half sisters, because that's how soap operas roll, baby.

Another thing about Julianne Moore: she's a class act who, unlike some actors who hit it big and play down their time on soaps, has always spoken fondly of her days on ATWT, and referred to that time with love and respect for the show and the people who make it happen. It was confirmed today that Moore will be making a final appearance on ATWT, as the show wraps, after more than 50 years on the air.

I'm sure Moore's appearance will be brief, and will add nothing to the drama at hand, but it means a lot. To people like myself, who used to be avid fans of ATWT, Moore represents a time when the show was truly worth watching, when soap actors were chosen for their talent, when production values were high, when core families mattered and story was EVERYTHING. Julianne Moore's return may be nothing more than a cameo, but I, for one, will tune in for it.

Homecoming

Brooke English is back in Pine Valley, Erica is is full fighting form, and All My Children is almost watchable again. Hell, 2/24's episode was a lot more than just watchable. It was downright good. Strong, stroppy women are what good soap is all about, and no one does strong and stroppy better than Julia Barr and Susan Lucci. And the icing on this cake? Greenlee lives.

This homecoming doesn't have to be just Brooke and Greenlee's return to Pine Valley but, if there's any justice, a return to the tradition of great, engaging stories that AMC used to be known for. It's been a mess for a while, but hope springs eternal. There's a chance for this show, yet.

The Women

The folks at We Love Soaps have compiled their list of the 50 greatest soap actresses of all time. I agree with a lot of their choices. I disagree with others. I marvel at some of the choices. It's inevitable that such a subjective list would generate all sorts of debate, and I applaud the WLS people for asking readers to submit their own favorites.

One thing to take into consideration: I've watched soaps since roughly 1970/71. I'm sure many great actors and actresses who appeared prior to this by all rights belong on a "best of" list, but I can only judge based on my own experience as a first-hand viewer. I don't believe one can fairly assess an actor's talent based on a few Youtube clips or reading about someone's greatness, so this is based on my own viewership

Here, then, in no particular order, is my annotated list of the top ten best soap actresses, followed by the ten women who complete my top 20.

Beverlee McKinsey - Daytime has seem many grand dames, but Iris Carrington was an original. By turns a wicked schemer, a spoiled child, an over-indulgent mother, a love-starved femme fatale, to say that McKinsey took both Another World and Texas by storm is not over-stating it. McKinsey was brilliant, period. And, in case anyone who thought her brilliance was a fluke, she turned around and joined the cast of Guiding Light, making Alexandra Spaulding one of the most memorable characters, ever.

Laurie Heineman - She may well be the finest Emmy winning actress that you've never heard of. Laurie Heineman was only on Another World for a short time,(1975-77) but what a time it was! Originating the role of Sharlene Frame (and you thought Anna Holbrook was the first Sharlene - nope), Heineman created a truly original daytime heroine. A woman with a secret past that threatened to catch up with her, Heineman's Sharlene was a study in quiet self-loathing, fear, anger, and loneliness. Heineman was a powerhouse, and her short stint on AW garnered her an Emmy, seeing her beat out co-stars Beverlee Mckinsey and Victoria Windham, and deservedly so.

(Beverlee McKinsey, followed by Laurie Heimenan)

Denise Alexander and Susan Seaforth-Hayes - Before the devil paid a visit to Salem, before Hope and Bo were even glimmers in their parents' eyes, before it became such a muddled mess...long before all of that, DOOL was all about Susan (Alexander) and Julie (Seaforth-Hayes), former-best-friends-turned-rivals, their battles over the attentions of Scott Banning, and their tug-of-war over Julie's son, little David Banning. This was riveting, character-driven drama...and it was all about these two fine actresses who brought so much depth to their roles that they turned what could easily have been a simple cat fight into an over-arching theme that endured for years, involved numerous characters, and challenged viewers to choose a side. Interestingly enough, neither Alexander or Seaforth-Hayes has ever been as good since this golden time. It speaks volumes of the chemistry these two actresses shared with one another that, together, they lit up the screen.

Beverly Penberthy - As Another World's long-suffering Pat Randolph, Penberthy was one of several great actresses from the golden age of Another World. Refined, vulnerable, almost timid, Pat Randolph could also be strong and assertive when need be. As a loyal wife forced to watch her husband spin into a vortex of alcoholism, Penberthy delivered a truly great performance, and it remains among the best examples of television attempting to portray how alcoholism effects every member of a family.

Nancy Addison

On Ryan's Hope, Addison had the unenviable job of making The Other Woman someone viewers loved, and whose happiness we rooted for. She brought a grace and gentility to Jillian that was in perfect contrast to Delia's (played by the wonderful Ilene Kristen, who doesn't quite make the cut for this list) selfish, crude neuroses. I find it impossible to put into words how and why Addison was so damned good, except to say that her work seemed effortless. To watch her was to forget there was an actor on the screen.

Elizabeth Hubbard - Best known as ATWT's Lucinda, to me, Hubbard will always be Dr. Althea Davis, of the defunct soap, The Doctors. Hubbard brought a strength and cynicism to her character - a well-respected surgeon and a single mother - that had mostly been reserved for villainesses. Also? Althea had a multi-layered sensuality - most evident in scenes with her lover, Nick Bellini - that was truly revolutionary for daytime: Hubbard made Althea a beautiful female character whose brains and sarcastic sense of humor were even more arresting than her good looks.

Maureen Garrett

Anyone who's read this blog for any length of time knows I have a huge soft spot for Garrett. She's amazing. On and off for over 20 years, Garrett made up half of one of soapdom's most complex and enduring couples - Holly and Roger (played by Michael Zaslow.) Garrett is one of those actors whose talent runs the gamut - she can do vulnerable, strong, vindictive, neurotic, maternal, murderous, bitchy, frigid, seductive. When need be, she's also an actor who can be relied on to rise above substandard material. She brings out the best in other actors. Daytime needs her back.

Judith Light - There's almost no point explaining why Light makes my top ten. She took acting on daytime up a notch with a performance as OLTL's Karen Wolek that looked, sounded and felt like nothing else we'd seen before. While Light's dramatic courtroom confession has taken on legendary status, her other work on OLTL is often taken for granted. The baby-switch story feels tired and hackneyed in 2010. When OLTL did it with Light in 1979, it was new and different. And it was riveting. Light, of course, went on to a successful career in night time television, but she's rarely had material to work with that was worthy of her skill, with the exception of her role in the motion picture Save Me, which she produced, and her husband wrote.

Ellen Parker - Parker was so damned good as Maureen Bauer on Guiding Light, and made such an impression on the audience, that many have pointed to the killing off of the character as the beginning of the end for GL. Mo Bauer wasn't a grand dame. She wasn't a titan of business. She wasn't a jewel thief, a surgeon, or anyone's mistress. She didn't have a secret past. Simply put, Mo Bauer was a decent person: a mother, a wife, a good friend, a hard worker. The genius of Parker was that she made the seemingly mundane compelling. Everything Parker's Maureen did was steeped in quiet dignity. She was amazing in her big scenes, but her small, every day scenes were like haiku.

Robin Strasser - Another World/One Life To Live

Helen Gallagher - Ryan's Hope

Maeve Kinkead - Another World/Guiding Light

Kathleen Noone - All My Children

Kay Collins - All My Children

Julia Barr - All My Children

Robin Mattson - General Hospital/Santa Barbara/All My Children

Maeve McGuire - Edge of Night

Michelle Forbes - Guiding Light

Beth Maitland - Young and the Restless

Honorable Mention - The Young Ones

Rachel Miner - Guiding Light

Hayden Panettiere - Guiding Light

Natasha Ryan - Days of Our Lives

Go Gently Into That Good Night...

Alice Horton was a huge part of my childhood. 95 is one hell of a good run, but the passing of Frances Reid fills me with sadness. Rest in peace, kind-hearted woman. Christmas will never be the same.

Frances Reid 1914 - 2010

So Long, Pete Cooney

James Mitchell: Dance Man, Actor, Soap Legend, Proud Gay Activist

1920- 2010

Blog For Choice

It was at my grandmother's knee, watching All My Children, that I first learned about abortion. The story line involved supermodel Erica Kane (before the term "supermodel" even existed) deciding to have an abortion because she didn't want pregnancy and a child to put an early end to her modeling career. Erica wasn't a rape victim or a teenager in trouble. She was a married woman who made a choice - a choice about her own body and her own future.

I was just a kid, and had no idea what an abortion even was. It was my grandmother who explained it to me. My grandmother, Celina, was Catholic. She was born in 1910. Born and raised in Puerto Rico. She was the mother of nine children. My grandmother was pro-choice. Unexpected? Not if you knew her. It's true that Celina had nine children but, believe it or not, with the exception one, which came relatively late in life, all of her pregnancies were not just welcome, but planned. Yes, planned.

Some people might think it inappropriate to explain abortion to a young child. Celina was the kind of woman who figured any question worth asking deserved an honest answer. When I looked up from the television screen and asked my grandmother what Erica and Jeff were arguing about on All My Children, she explained to me what an abortion was. She didn't demonize it. She told me the truth. She presented it as one choice a pregnant woman had. A choice.

Years later, when I was old enough to notice that my extended family was bigger than most, I asked my grandmother about her many pregnancies (there were ten - one baby didn't survive.) Because Celina was from the Caribbean, because she was Catholic, because she'd been a young woman during the first half of the 20th century I assumed she hadn't been afforded any choices. My assumption was wrong. My grandmother spoke frankly about 8 of her children having been planned in advance. She was frank, too, about the 9th baby having been an unexpected, but pleasant, surprise. She also spoke about traditional, home-spun birth control methods she'd used during the times when she definitely did not want to become pregnant (a sea sponge and a spermicide made mostly of lemon juice. Don't laugh - it worked.) My grandmother was speaking to me about choice. And, really, if a woman doesn't have freedom of choice about her own body, does she have a choice about anything?

It was not inappropriate for Celina to explain abortion to a young child who asked. If anything, I honor my grandmother's decision to raise me, from an early age, with the idea that women have choices, that our bodies are our own, that motherhood is a wonderful thing for women who want it, and that there is no dishonor in not wanting it. When Celina planned 8 pregnancies, she was making choices. They were good choices. But they were her choices. Other women would have chosen differently.

© 2010 Lana M. Nieves

Limited Licensing: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, granting distribution of my copyrighted work without making changes, with mandatory attribution to Lana M. Nieves and for non-commercial purposes only. - Lana M. Nieves

Not Just a Day Off of Work