textfiles/magazines/HOE/hoe-1109.txt

     s$
     $$     .d""b. .d""b.                  HOE E'ZINE #1109
 [-- $$""b. $$  $$ $$  $$ -- ------------------------------------------- --]
     $$  $$ $$  $$ $$ss$$         "Thank You, and Goodbye, Roseanne"
     $$  $$ $$  $$ $$                       by, Anonymous
     $$  $$ $$  $$ $$  $$                      6/28/00
 [-- $$  $$ $$  $$ $$  $$ -- ------------------------------------------- --]
     $$  $$ "TssT" "TssT"

From eblake@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Mon Aug 25 18:39:07 1997
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 11:02:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Eliot Blake <eblake@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
To: Michael Croon <croon@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
Subject: a.t.r.: May/June 1997


Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:01:03 -0700
From: Anna <arwolk@erols.com>
Subject: tonight's episode

I had a lot of interruptions during tonight's series finale, especially
during the last 15 minutes...i'm a little hazy on what happened during the
end scene.  what was the deal with that?  obviously it was roseanne's
imagination...was it a book she was writing AFTER it all, or was it
implying that the whole series was a book?  i'm a little
confused...someone want to clear it up?  (email preferred)

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 01:06:36 GMT
From: Mark K Childress <mkc1@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Roseanne series finale

She did it, I have to say.  She really made all those silly episodes this
season kind of make sense and have some value.  I still wouldn't watch
some of those episodes again, but they at least all seem to work together
to lend dignity to the entire series.  The finale reinvigorated my respect
for Roseanne, and I look forward to what she might do in the future - does
anyone know what she is planning?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 20 May 1997 21:17:23 GMT
From: Jessica297 <jessica297@aol.com>

Hmmm..I'm alittle stumped over the finale.  With the entire things about
her daughters marriage to the wrong ones....I was busy so I didn't hear
all she had to say..someone clue me in.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 01:24:20 GMT
From: Lisa Sorensen <QJNT72A@prodigy.com>

Just saw the finale. The last few minutes were wonderful--vintage
Roseanne. She wrote a perfect ending.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:15:59 -0400
From: Edward Kisko <kiskos@webtv.net>

Sorry for being an idiot, but WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ALL ABOUT?!  I think
I may have missed a crucial 10-second segment or something. What was
Roseanne getting at? That the entire series was something (the character)
Roseanne was writing in her basement?  What was that about Dan dying? her
sister being gay? her mother not being gay? darlene and becky switching
boyfriends? It's like the TWILIGHT ZONE. Seriously, I dont' understand.
Please someone post an explanation of the ending of the episode.

Steve

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:47:24 -0700
From: Stanley Kwan <skwan1@po-box.mcgill.ca>

Me too!  I'm sure as to whether she made everything up or not about the
lottery, her daughters and their respective husbands.  Clarify please.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:02:39 -0600
From: laconia@webtv.net

  Edward Kisko <kiskos@webtv.net> wrote:

> Sorry for being an idiot, but WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ALL
> ABOUT?!  I think I may have  missed a crucial 10-second
> segment or something. What was Roseanne getting at? That
> the entire series was something (the character) Roseanne
> was writing in her basement?

The whole series???? I thought that only the episodes after Dan's Heart
attack were something that (the character)  Roseanne had written.

> What was that about Dan dying? her sister being gay? her
> mother not being gay? darlene and becky switching
> boyfriends? It's like the TWILIGHT ZONE. Seriously, I
> dont' understand. Please someone post an explanation of
> the ending of the episode.

I Don't know, I'm almost as confused as you.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 22:56:35 -0500
From: "Albert D. Hwang" <a-hwang@nwu.edu>

 I was rather disturbed by the series finale.  I feel like I was duped
watching Roseanne this entire season.  Although she explains everything in
the end, I wish they would have explored the serious issues of what really
happened to the family after Dan died and how they dealt with Darlene's
almost miscarriage.

Every night, I watch syndicated Roseanne on UPN religiously.  I enjoy the
truthfulness with which the family presents itself even in times of
crisis.  I think it's fine that Roseanne wanted to rewrite a fantasy for
the last season, but that aspect should have been covered in one hour-long
special or something, not an entire season of episodes.  When syndicated
Roseanne finally catches up and starts running reruns from this season, I
don't think I have the heart to watch, knowing it isn't "real."

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 04:09:43 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

mkc1@ix.netcom.com(Mark K Childress) wrote:

>reinvigorated my respect for Roseanne, and I look forward to what she
>might do in the future - does anyone know what she is planning?

Unfortunately, Roseanne is planning her own talk show. Blegh.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 20 May 1997 19:31:00 -0700
From: loonytun@primenet.com

Edward Kisko <kiskos@webtv.net> wrote:
: Sorry for being an idiot, but WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT ALL ABOUT?!

You're not the only "idiot."  What the hell was this -- another DALLAS,
where everything this season has been a dream??  You mean, we WASTED all
this time watching this season for nothing??  I looked forward to seeing
Dan come back, now it seems he was some floozy's hallucination.  And all
the musical husbands thing, and Jackie being gay... this is really going
to turn me off of tv shows, especially sitcoms (which may actually be a
blessing). The only good thing, it seems, is that Becky's baby came
through okay.

Tom

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 04:45:40 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

laconia@webtv.net wrote:

>The whole series???? I thought that only the episodes after
>Dan's Heart attack were something that (the character)
>Roseanne had written.

Since the "real" Jackie was established as being gay, any episode that
detailed her being heterosexual would have to be part of the book.  Ditto
many other developments. I think the whole series was her book.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 06:22:11 GMT
From: Mj Butler <mj@gospam.elsewhere>

They pulled a "St. Elswehere."

Mj

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:32:02 -0700
From: Jeff Barlow <jsbarlow@*antispam*aa.net>

And what's this about Leon and Scott being based off of characters that
Roseanne knew in real life, and had (at least in the case of Scott, met
"in the past uear")?  I _had_ thought that she was saying that only the
last season was part of her book, but the two of them have been together
for at least three or four seasons.

Becky/Mark and Darlene/David weren't ever couples?!?!?!

What gives?

I'm confused too!

Jeff jsbarlow@aa.net

Trampled Underground: *NOT* your typical queer music site!
http://www.aa.net/~jsbarlow
-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 10:06:20 GMT
From: Sean Wilkinson <swilkinson@mail.techplus.com>

Mj Butler wrote:
> They pulled a "St. Elswehere."

        Or, considering the blurring of the Connors' "real" and "book"
lives, they seem to have pulled a "Jacob's Ladder"...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:30:48 -0400
From: Heather A <heathera@coil.com>

>Every night, I watch syndicated Roseanne on UPN religiously.  I enjoy
>the truthfulness with which the family presents itself even in times of
>crisis.  I think it's fine that Roseanne wanted to rewrite a fantasy for
>the last season, but that aspect should have been covered in one
>hour-long special or something, not an entire season of episodes.  When
>syndicated Roseanne finally catches up and starts running reruns from
>this season, I don't think I have the heart to watch, knowing it isn't
>"real."

Actually, the way Roseanne played it out it seems as if the entire series
since Dan, Becky, and Darlene set up Roseannes writing room in the
basement, the show has actually been a work of fiction from the writer
Roseannes point of view. It kind of invalidated the entire series for me,
though I think I really did love the ending. I am a bit muddled on my
feelings though so I am not sure. I have watched every episode of this
show good, bad, and the ugly. I found myself crying at the end of this
episode.  It is like watching friends move away, and then finding out that
they lied to you and you never really knew them.

HeatherA

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:30:10 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

My take was that Roseanne the character had just completed a book that
encompassed the whole series.  In Roseann Connor's real life (not the book
which the series depicted) Darlene really was with Mark and Becky was with
David.  Her mother wasn't really gay "just insane", but her sister was
gay. So the last few moments of the show had Roseanne Connor narrating the
last paragraph of her book that was the entire series.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:21:44 -0600
From: davisk3@gunet.georgetown.edu

nospam@prefect.com wrote:

> Since the "real" Jackie was established as being gay, any episode that
> detailed her being heterosexual would have to be part of the book.
> Ditto many other developments. I think the whole series was her book.

I think what this meant was that anything that happened AFTER the episode
when she made the basement into her writing room (2nd season) was a
product of Roseanne Conner's pen.

I wonder what the real Roseanne's reason was for doing this? Any
suggestions? I think it was her way of saying "screw you" to all of the
critics and people who have been blasting this last season. I think she
was saying "Ok, you don't want the Conners to be rich and happy, I'll keep
them poor and unhappy (really unhappy)..THERE how do you like that"?

She got the proverbial, and literal, last laugh (that's how I viewed her
laugh at the very end of the bump).

To me, this series was like a sandwich with great stuff in the middle, but
awful bread; the first season sucked (the writing and her acting), and the
last season sucked (it just sucked).

Well, that's one person's opinion...

Kelly

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:25:45 GMT
From: RobynJC <robynjc@aol.com>

Okay.  Here's how I understood it.  Roseanne Conner was saying that she
had written the *entire series* "Roseanne." In other words, not just the
final year, but the *entire show* was a creation of "Roseanne Conner's"
imagination -- some of it true to life, some not.  She wrote it the year
after Dan died and, as writers often do, she altered reality as she saw
fit.  So, going all the way back to the first year -- hell, the first
episode -- many major storylines of the series were figments of this
fictional character's imagination.  For instance:

1.  Her mother was not gay; her sister was.  So "Jackie Harris" was really
a gay woman, and all those plot lines about Jackie and men were figments
of "Roseanne Conner's" imagination.  In other words, George Clooney
(a.k.a. "Booker") never existed. Neither did Fisher or Fred.

2. "Darlene Conner" really married "Mark," and "Becky Conner" really
married "David."  So any storylines involving Becky/Mark and Darlene/
David were, by extension, made up.  That's a huge, huge bulk of the entire
series, right there.

3. "Dan Conner" had a heart attack at Darlene's wedding, as written,
(although she was really marrying Mark), but he died.  It was in the year
following his death that "Roseanne Conner" wrote her story -- the story
that we know as the TV series "Roseanne."  There she went into more wild
fantasies than she ever had before, because she couldn't handle the grief
of his death.

I have complicated feelings about this.  Basically, Roseanne created a
third reality -- in addition to the "real-life Roseanne", who's married to
Ben Thomas, and the "fictional Roseanne Conner", whose husband survived a
heart attack and came home to her, there's a third dimension:  the
"real-life Roseanne Conner", as you will, whose husband didn't survive his
heart attack, whose sister is gay, and whose children married the "wrong"
men.  The "real-life" Roseanne Conner seems to be some sort of mixing
between the real-life Roseanne and the "fictional"  Roseanne Conner.  It's
a pretty impressive depiction of a writer's life, and the seamless
mingling between fantasy and reality -- I wish we could have had it
explored more.  I also confess to being pretty upset that Dan died a year
ago, and that Darlene's married to Mark, but I think that's what Roseanne
is trying to tell us -- that real life doesn't turn out the way we want it
to, and writing can play a role in letting our fantasies come true.  It's
pretty complex, actually, and in the end run, I *think* (reserving the
right to change my mind later) it's pretty cool.

Robyn
thinking they'll have a hell of a time with a reunion show in ten
years -- which "version" would they use?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:52:56 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>

OH PLEASE, Get a grip... none of this is "real" anyway... don't feel
cheated, feel rewarded that she did her job... she wanted you to believe
the characters as the fantasy went....
Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 10:00:34 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

That's what I kept telling myself last night, that I was being stupid,
that they weren't real anyway. Still, I can't help being affected by it.

Don't tell people to get a grip when they are affected by what happens to
characters - that means that she did her job! She created these characters
and they meant something to people. Pam is right - she did her job. If you
feel cheated, maybe that is how the real life Roseanne Connor felt, and
maybe that is how the real life Roseanne felt, and maybe that is what she
was trying to convey.

I can't help hoping that the 2nd Becky never existed. I so much preferred
the first one.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:13:04 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

Albert D. Hwang wrote:
> When syndicated Roseanne finally catches up and starts running reruns
> from
> this season, I don't think I have the heart to watch, knowing it isn't
> "real."

Then ENTIRE SERIES wan't real!!!  Roseanne wrote a book in which her
sister was straight and her daughters were married to each other's
husbands, then she showed it to us for 10 years on TV.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 19:05:37 GMT
From: JIMBO4159 <jimbo4159@aol.com>

I, too, believe that only this past season was supposed to have been the
book.  She says that she "lost Dan a year ago" and she was writing the
book, I thought, in an attempt to cope with her loss.  The only thing that
confused me, however, is the nonsense about the daughers.  Becuase if
indeed they were actually with the other brother, that would mean the
entire series was the book and not reality.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:28:35 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

The ENTIRE SERIES was Roesanne's book!!! She began writing it after her
Husband's death and in it she made him live, and she made her sister
straight when really she was gay, and she switched around who her
daughters were going out with, etc.

Here's a way to get it all into perspective: Just imagine an actual Connor
family, living their lives, where Jackie is gay, Darlene is going out with
Mark, and Becky with David.  Then suddenly, Dan dies. Roesanne can't
handle it, she sinks into a depression so deep she cannot even get out of
bed. Her daughter Darlene, meanwhile, is pregnant with her husband Mark's
baby, and she goes into labour early. The fact that this baby may very
well die shakes Roseanne out of her depression and back into life agian.
The baby survives, they bring her home, and Roseanne starts writing a
book. In the book she changes a few things: Jackie is not gay, since
Roseanne "always saw her with men," and she thought that her daughters
would suit each other's husbands better than there own, so in her book she
put Darlene with David and she put Becky with Mark. Most importantly, she
made her husband live. She wrote that he had an affair, because, "I almost
felt betrayed after he died, as if he had left me for another woman."  She
wrote that her family had won the lottery, because there was never enough
money around. After the whole book was finished, and she had changed
around the lives of her family and herself to be the way she wanted it,
she showed it to us on TV for 10 years.

email comments please!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 97 17:20:08 -0500
From: deborah <dpeifer@delphi.com>

Rogers Cadenhead writes:

>Since the "real" Jackie was established as being gay, any episode that
>detailed her being heterosexual would have to be part of the book.
>Ditto many other developments. I think the whole series was her book.

I agree that the whole series was her book, but after Dan died, her
writing took a more fantastic turn. Thus the lottery win, which seemed to
me all season to be the way poor people would imagine great wealth, rather
than actually have the money. I thought the ending was brilliant, and tied
up, not just loose ends, but the whole notion of Roseanne Connor as a
writer. What a gift to her audience.  Deborah

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:51:04 -0600
From: mkitta@mail.win.org

I am failing to remember when the episode when Roseanne got her writing
room... I think the the book the "real" Roseanne was writing was either
started @ the writing room episode or was the whole series.  If you
respond, please respond in email as well...

Thanks to Roseanne for 9 wonderful years of laughs and tears....  Even
though it was just a TV show, it has definitly touched my life and it will
be a missed part of my life... Thank you Rosanne, you're wonderful

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:36:11 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Jeff Barlow wrote:
>And what's this about Leon and Scott being based off of characters that
>Roseanne knew in real life, and had (at least in the case of Scott, met "in
>the past uear")?  I _had_ thought that she was saying that only the last
>season was part of her book, but the two of them have been together for at
>least three or four seasons.

Past seasons had to be part of the book, because anything that deals with
Jackie being a heterosexual is not accurate, according to Roseanne the
Writer.

Rogers Cadenhead
rogers@prefect.com
http://www.prefect.com/rogers

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:53:02 -0800
From: Laura Medrud <Laura_Medrud@dbug.org>

pidge@antispam.on.ca writes:

 And it was David with Becky and Mark with Darlene but Roseanne thought
they were more compatible the other way around so she wrote it that way
in her book.
-----

It was my impression that the book only took place from the time of Dan's
death last year on.  The marriages of Darlene and David and Becky and Mark
preceded that.  I got the impression that she thought that perhaps it
would be better the other way around and that she would write it as such
in her book.

LM

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:53:29 -0700
From: Daren Eason <dartec@shadow1.mfg.sgi.com>

Why is this so hard to understand?? She did an excellent job of explaining
everything.

The Entire Series (The Last Nine Years) was a book. It was supposed to be
true (With a few obvious exceptions such as The 2 husbands being switched,
the sister not being gay, and the mother being gay) up to the point where
She went into a fantasy spin after Dan's death, hence the past silly
season.

It was a very creative , and brilliant ending....Unlike some series
finales that leave you guessing. If you taped it, watch it again....and
listen. She explained it all....no holes.....No guesswork, and most
importantly, no unanswered questions.

Bravo !!

My 2 cents,

Daren L. Eason

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:11:25 -0500
From: Lynn Burger <lynn@cctr.umkc.edu>

Jessica wrote:

Here's a way to get it all into perspective: Just imagine an actual Connor
family, living their lives, where Jackie is gay, Darlene is going out with
Mark, and Becky with David.  Then suddenly, Dan dies.  Roesanne can't
handle it, she sinks into a depression so deep she cannot even get out of
bed. Her daughter Darlene, meanwhile, is pregnant with her husband Mark's
baby, and she goes into labour early.  The fact that this baby may very
well die shakes Roseanne out of her depression and back into life agian.
The baby survives, they bring her home, and Roseanne starts writing a
book. In the book she changes a few things: Jackie is not gay, since
Roseanne "always saw her with men,"  and she thought that her daughters
would suit each other's husbands better than there own, so in her book she
put Darlene with David and she put Becky with Mark. Most importantly, she
made her husband live.  She wrote that he had an affair, because, "I
almost felt betrayed after he died, as if he had left me for another
woman."  She wrote that her family had won the lottery, because there was
never enough money around. After the whole book was finished, and she had
changed around the lives of her family and herself to be the way she
wanted it, she showed it to us on TV for 10 years.

Jessica!  This is terrific!  Your post was right on the money to what I
was thinking about his episone.  I LOVED the finale and was practically
floored when her voice-over started at the kitchen table.  She created a
fantasy world where her children were happy, her mother was strong, her
sister was straight, and, most importantly, her husband was alive.  Dan
and Roseanne Conner were, are, and always will be like family to me.  When
they "won the lottery" this season I was really disappointed - I always
liked that they were working class people with real problems who couldn't
rely on money to save them.  So many sitcom families seem to have an
unlimited supply of cash to get them through life - the Conners were
everyday folks who could have lived down the street from me.  I know that
alot of people think that this episode was a "cop-out", but I found it
heartwarming, entertaining, emotional, and inspirational.  Roseanne Conner
is the ultimate dreamer, with real problems like depression, loss,
finances, etc.  I think it is wonderful that the writers ended things this
way.

I love you, Conners.  Thanks, Roseanne... you always made me realize that
there is a way out of every mess, if you just believe hard enough.

P.S. Personally, I liked the way Roseanne refrenced God in her closing
monologue.  It seems appropriate that a woman dealing with the loss of her
husband and finding comfort in writing would believe in a "higher power".
Roseanne Conner, to me, will forever be the harried working woman in
sweats, ploped down in front of her TV after a long day of work - both
physically and emotionally - with her feet up, letting out a sigh of
relief.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:54:37 -0400
From: Edward Kisko <kiskos@webtv.net>

I just have to say that now that my worst fears have been confirmed about
the finale, I, too, feel that it invalidated the ENTIRE series. I think
the finale was a load of shit and it was written almost last-minute just
so Roseanne the producer and director could make up an excuse for the
absudity of this past season. I think it's a load of shit about how she
changed the characters' lives because she felt they needed changed, and
whenever I watch the show in syndication, I will pretend as if the finale
never existed. That's my final word on the matter.

Steve

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:11:17 -0600
From: Laconia@webtv.net

Jessica wrote:

>The ENTIRE SERIES was Roesanne's book!!!

From 1988 to now???

>She began writing it after her Husband's death and in it
>she made him live, and she made her sister straight when
>really she was gay,

So Jackie's Baby son does not exist??? Or did Jackie have a affair with
Fred thinking it might make her straight??  Or Was Fred just a Sperm
Donor???

> and she switched around who her daughters were going out
>with, etc.

I do remember an episode a few years ago when Becky & David were spending
too much time together And Mark was jealous.

>Here's a way to get it all into perspective: Just imagine
>an actual Connor family, living their lives, where Jackie
>is gay, Darlene is going out with Mark, and Becky with
>David. Then suddenly, Dan dies. Roesanne can't handle it,
>she sinks into a depression so deep she cannot even get
>out of bed. Her daughter Darlene, meanwhile, is pregnant
>with her husband Mark's baby, and she goes into labour
>early. The fact that this baby may very well die shakes
>Roseanne out of her depression and back into life agian.
>The baby  survives, they bring her home, and Roseanne
>starts writing a book. In the book she changes a few
>things: Jackie is not gay, since Roseanne "always saw her
>with men," and she thought that her daughters would suit
>each other's husbands better than there own, so in her
>book she put Darlene with David and she put Becky with
>Mark. Most importantly, she  made her husband live. She
>wrote that he had an affair, because, "I almost felt
>betrayed after he died, as if he had left me for another
>woman."  She wrote that her family had won the lottery,
>because there was never enough money around. After the
>whole book was finished, and she had changed around the
>lives of her family and herself to be the way she wanted
>it, she showed it to us on TV for 10 years.

Did Roseanne Barr (Not Roseanne Connor) plan this Ten years ago, or was
this something she just thought of lately?

And also was Roseanne Connor's Grandmother (Beverly's mother) still
alive??? During the last episode, Everyone came to see Darlene's new baby
except her, she obviously must not have wanted to see her new Great-Great
Granddaughter.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:52:22 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

JIMBO4159 wrote:

>I, too, believe that only this past season was supposed to have been the
>book.

This isn't possible. Anything having to do with Jackie being a
heterosexual is the creation of Roseanne for her book. Considering how
many of the early episodes detailed her love life, there's no way the last
season is from the book and the rest was "real".

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 02:35:36 GMT
From: pidge@antispam.on.ca

Parts of the show were true and parts were pieces out of the book she was
writing.  Most of this season was from the book and didn't happen.  She
said that Bev wasn't gay, she was a submissive heterosexual and that her
sister (Roseanne's) was the one who was gay.  Dan died of a heart attack
but she missed him so much she pretended (wrote in her book) that he was
still around.  And it was David with Becky and Mark with Darlene but
Roseanne thought they were more compatible the other way around so she
wrote it that way in her book.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:45:01 -0500
From: Sandra Graham <stinsley@NOSPAMmacconnect.com>

QJNT72A@prodigy.com (Lisa Sorensen) wrote:

>Just saw the finale. The last few minutes were wonderful--vintage
>Roseanne. She wrote a perfect ending.

I liked it also!  I think it made Rosie seem like a real thinking feeling
person.  I was looking foreward to a rip-roaring humorous episode, but I
liked this one better.

For those who didnot get it in the end Roseanne was back to the days when
she was writing.  She was pretending that if 'life' didn't go the way she
wanted it she just 'wrote' the way she wanted things to turn out.
Example: really Darlene brought Marc home but R. thought Marc was a better
match with Becky so that is how she wrote the script.  She gave meaning
and reason to her mom being gay, DJ marching to a different drum, Leon,
Scott etc.  I don't know if I am making sense but I think that tonight's
ending did for me.

Sandra

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 02:37:40 GMT
From: pidge@antispam.on.ca

Mark K Childress wrote:

>She did it, I have to say.  She really made all those silly episodes
>this season kind of make sense and have some value.  I still wouldn't
>watch some of those episodes again, but they at least all seem to work
>together to lend dignity to the entire series.  The finale
>reinvigorated my respect for Roseanne, and I look forward to what she
>might do in the future - does anyone know what she is planning?

Syndicated talk show for the fall and playing the Wicked Witch in a stage
version of the Wizard of Oz right now.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 08:43:53 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

RobynJC wrote:

> 3. "Dan Conner" had a heart attack at Darlene's wedding, as written,
> (although she was really marrying Mark), but he died.  It was in the
> year following his death that "Roseanne Conner" wrote her story -- the
> story that we know as the TV series "Roseanne."  There she went into
> more wild fantasies than she ever had before, because she couldn't
> handle the grief of his death.

I think it makes way more sense that Roseanne Conner had actually been
writing her book either from the time she got the writing room or from the
very beginning.  She couldn't have just started after Dan died or the
whole last season being all strange because of his death just wouldn't
make all that much sense.

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 08:47:25 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Edward Kisko wrote:
>
> I just have to say that now that my worst fears have been confirmed
> about the finale, I, too, feel that it invalidated the ENTIRE series. I
> think the finale was a load of shit and it was written almost
> last-minute just so Roseanne the producer and director could make up an
> excuse for the absudity of this past season. I think it's a load of shit
> about how she changed the characters' lives because she felt they needed
> changed, and whenever I watch the show in syndication, I will pretend as
> if the finale never existed. That's my final word on the matter.
>
> Steve

The finale didn't invalidate everything.  It only invalidated the last
season.  I mean except for the last season Roseanne only made minor
changes to characters and they were still based on Roseanne Conner's
"real" life.  It was one of the most intelligent shows ever shown on tv as
far as I'm concerned.  I have never seen anything like it before.

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:05:05 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Jessica wrote:

> The ENTIRE SERIES was Roesanne's book!!! She began writing it after her
> Husband's death and in it she made him live, and she made her sister
> straight when really she was gay, and she switched around who her
> daughters were going out with, etc.

I don't believe she wrote the whole series after Dan's death because that
just doesn't make sense.  If that was the case then the last season should
be just as normal as the previous ones.  I mean if we assume she wrote the
book when the "real" Roseanne got her reading room it makes a whole lot
more sense.  So she's been writing the book for a long time, then Dan dies
- she escapes into her writing even more and her book gets kind of
strange.  Then Darlene almost loses her baby and Roseanne Conner snaps out
of it.

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:01:12 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

davisk3@gunet.georgetown.edu wrote:

> I think what this meant was that anything that happened AFTER the episode
> when she made the basement into her writing room (2nd season) was a
> product of Roseanne Conner's pen.

I disagree with that.  I mean with what Roseanne mentions it looks like
all of the shows were changed at least slightly just from the beginning.
That's why I think the "real" Roseanne Conner might have done all her
writing in her writing room but there was nothing stopping her from
starting her book a little in the past.  Who knows maybe she was really
excited about being able to do all the writing and finished up all the
shows before the "writing room" episode in a short time then continued the
rest of the book as more of a diary.

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 13:23:27 -0400
From: "A.B. Zammit" <zammitab@muss.cis.McMaster.CA>

andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:

>I think it makes way more sense that Roseanne Conner had actually been
>writing her book either from the time she got the writing room or from
>the very beginning.  She couldn't have just started after Dan died or
>the whole last season being all strange because of his death just
>wouldn't make all that much sense.
>
>andru

 She didn't necessarily start at the beginning.....

 She could have started with the final chapter (ie the final season) and
then went back to the beginning.  I know that when people write, they
don't necessarily do it in order from start to finish.

  Annie :)

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:54:46 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Ok so what you are saying is that in reality Roseanne had already went
through the pain of grieving for Dan's death then she writes the last
season all weird and everything else much more based on reality - I just
don't buy that.  I think it makes way more sense that she wrote the book
in order kind of like a diary and then when Dan died her writings became
much more based on fantasy so she didn't really have to deal with Dan's
death.

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 04:41:07 GMT
From: Kiwilerner <kiwilerner@aol.com>

Andru writes:  <<Ok so what you are saying is that in reality Roseanne had
already went through the pain of grieving for Dan's death then she writes
the last season all weird and everything else much more based on reality -
I just don't buy that.  I think it makes way more sense that she wrote the
book in order kind of like a diary and then when Dan died her writings
became much more based on fantasy so she didn't really have to deal with
Dan's death.  >>

For what it's worth, I agree.  The simplest answer is usually the best
(especially since there's no real reason to contradict it!).  So...

1)  In all likelihood RealRoseanne (that is, Roseanne Conner in so-called
"real life" -- the one we learned about in the final ten minutes) started
writing when RealDan gave her the writing room.  She decided to write
about her family--the RealConnors--and created what I'll call the
FictiveConnors.

3) The book's action began with the vignette about FictiveDarlene's
teacher complaining that FictiveDarlene was barking like a dog.
(Presumably this was taken from an actual incident in RealRoseanne and
RealDarlene's lives.)  This is what we saw as the first episode in the
t.v. show "Roseanne."

4) Since the barking incident took place only a year or so before
RealRoseanne began to write the book, it didn't take her long for
FictiveLife to catch up with her RealLife.  So, the book became sort of a
diary.

5) Perhaps due to some discomfort with her sister's openness about her
sexuality (maybe RealRoseanne at the time wasn't as openminded as
FictiveRoseanne!), RealRoseanne made FictiveJackie straight...but
extremely unlucky in love with men.

6) RealBecky brought home RealDavid, who was later thrown out of his house
and thus had to live in the RealConnor basement.  RealRoseanne thought he
would have been better for RealDarlene...and when RealDarlene brought home
RealMark, she realized that the two would be better switched.  So, as she
said, she did what any good mother with the power to change their kids'
lives would do..she fixed it in her book.

7) RealDan died due to his heart attack.  At this point, RealRoseanne lost
her ability to cope, and decided to "fix" her fictive life in a way she
couldn't fix her real life.  So FictiveDan survived, and the
FictiveConnors won the lottery, and life ended up being pretty good after
all.

8) When RealDarlene had her baby with RealMark, RealRoseanne 'woke up' and
was saved from her depression and misery, realizing that her family needed
her.  FictiveDarlene had her baby with FictiveDavid, but the effect was
pretty much the same.

Does this make any sense?

-- Kira

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:32 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

>Past seasons had to be part of the book, because anything that deals
>with Jackie being a heterosexual is not accurate, according to
>Roseanne the Writer.

Just because Jackie turns out to be gay doesn't mean she didn't have
relationships with men before she realized her true orientation.  So, I
can't just assume that none of the heterosexual Jackie scenes actually
happened.  Actually, Jackie not figuring out she was gay until later on
explains a lot about her failed relationships.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:33 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

I must be the only one who thinks the finale stunk.  I don't think she had
this all thought out in advance -- not one year and certainly not nine or
ten years.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 05:23:58 GMT
From: frank goron <frankieg@westol.com>
Subject: Re: Roseanne series finale

>Robyn
>thinking they'll have a hell of a time with a reunion show in ten
>years -- which "version" would they use?

prolly depend on how "Roseanne Connor" decides to write it up?

Frank
-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:32:21 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

debbie wrote:

> Actually, Jackie not figuring out she was gay
> until later on explains a lot about her failed relationships.

What it doesn't explain is Roseanne's comment about her sister always
telling her she was gay...

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 23:17:31 GMT
From: Goodman <Goodman@Goodman.net>

"Heather A" wrote:

>It is like watching friends move away, and then finding out that they lied
>to you and you never really knew them.

  Well put. This episode depressed the crap out of me, taking the wind out
of my sails for a whole day. Would it have been so bad to have given us a
happy ending? Did Dan (probably the most beloved character on the series)
really need to be killed in the last ten minutes (essentially dying off
camera)? I can understand Roseanne wanting to invalidate the awful
"lottery episodes", but did she really need to wipe out the Darlene/David
relationship, which contained some of the show's finest moments? (The
episode where Darlene first dumped David, and David was reduced to
groveling was incredible.)

  Personally, I suspect the ending was the only part of the episode
written entirely by Roseanne, and was done primarily with the aim of
taking the rest of the family out of commission, so that Roseanne Conner
could go off on her own in the spin-off Roseanne was trying to sell to the
networks. (Supposedly the series would have Roseanne Conner running a
hotel in Las Vegas or something equally stupid.) Of course, this ending
destroys any chance of any of the OTHER characters getting a spin-off, but
Roseanne was looking out for number one.

  When this series was in top form, it was as good as any series that ever
aired. When it was bad (as it generally was this season) it was terrible.
But this St. Elsewhere/Newhart ending, with Roseanne's long rambling
voiceover of cliches (love is stronger than hate, blah, blah, blah) was
the show's final indignity.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 16:01:59 -0600
From: davisk3@gunet.georgetown.edu

  dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> I must be the only one who thinks the finale stunk.  I don't think she
> had this all thought out in advance -- not one year and certainly not
> nine or ten years.

I agree with the latter statement. I'm sure she chose the "none of this
was real" business as a way of wriggling out of crappy reviews of the
last, IMHO, crappy last season. Considering how over-the-top bad the
previous episide (the Debbie Reynolds episode) was, also because of its
surreality (I thought the whole episode was a dream, I was waiting for Dan
to wake up the whole time!) I'm thinking she did this on purpose as a way
to show us how her book (the whole series) had eventually become a
complete fantasy because of her grief over Dan's death. She probably had
planned the finale before the Debbie Reynolds episode (probably during the
2 months prior, when the show was on hiatus.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 00:04:10 GMT
From: "Barbara J. Aveni" <javeni@ix.netcom.com>

I agree! The finally sucked big time. Now they cant even have a cast
reunion and it was just not funny.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:17:42 +0100
From: "R. Boswell" <rboswell@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Roseanne finale: BRAVO!

Well I certainly didn't expect what happened.  But I think she bowed out
with a lot of dignity.  Making up, or shall I say, explaining the
ridiculous last season. A little sad though how it ended.  I'm really
going to miss this show :(

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 97 09:22:53 CDT
From: the moogoddess <moocow@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>

If it helps anyone make more sense of the whole ending, Roseanne's
real-life sister is a lesbian, and Roseanne has always been pretty
supportive of her.  I've seen interviews with her in various queer
publications like _Out_ and _The Advocate_.  Actually, that makes it a
little MORE confusing to me, because I wasn't sure during Roseanne's
monologue at times whether she was talking about the real-life Roseanne or
Roseanne Conner.

Nonetheless, I bawled like crazy too.  I really liked the ending.  I think
Roseanne has done so much to champion blue collar families and working
mothers, and having a damn funny show at the same time.  I'm going to miss
the show immensely.

Chris

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 01:37:27 GMT
From: DrFaust11 <drfaust11@aol.com>

Roseanne-- a frontierswoman of unveiling the female psyche- fucking quakes
my funnybone. Her fantastical season was made more real by the last
episodes revelations.She rocks and she's right, people won't fully
appreciate her work this season until 15 years from now. It all had a
dream-like quality to it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 20 May 1997 21:26:23 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>
Subject: What doesn't kill us is making us stronger

I really loved the final episode of Roseanne which aired earlier this
evening on abc. I think Rosie did a classy job going out and the last
fifteen minutes made this whole horrible season make sense. I posted
previously this week on how the reason we were so disappointed with this
season was that it was just like every other show on tv and TADA....  that
was one of the points Rosie was putting across, how everything could be
settled in just 22 minutes.

It's very sad that Dan died from the heart attack last year and I feel if
the show were to continue next year it would be much better, but the
Connors are gone.

Thanks Roseanne for making me laugh and cry along with you for the last 9
years.

Jonny B.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 01:01:18 GMT
From: Clarksville Street Department <joey@iglou.com>
Subject: Break Out the Kleenex

This episode was definitely a tear jerker for me. It explained the
stupidity of past shows from this last season.

I'm really sad to see this show finally end.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:33:55 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

Me too, oh my gosh... I don't know what came over me, but the torrent of
tears I quite accidentally unleashed has not been seen from my eyes since
the ending scene of Schindler's list. This episode was quite easily the
saddest idea I have witnessed in a LONG time. Dan died. Dan died and
Roseanne couldn't handle it so what she showed to us, the viewing
audience, was the fantasy she created. Finding out now, at the end when we
are not expecting it was very depressing. In any case, as you said, now I
understand the absurdity of the last season, the saeson that we were all
thinking just must have been a fantasy.

One conversation point:

"My real sister, unlike my mother, is gay."

e-mail your comments please!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 06:17:35 GMT
From: Chris Borg <borg@dons.ac.usfca.edu>
Subject: Re: Break Out the Kleenex

Roseanne real sister is gay! she live in San Francisco and has a radio
talk show on KITS 105 fm Sunday night 11pm - 1am.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:09:40 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

Actually, a lot more than just the finale season was fantasy.  Mark was
with Darlene, and David was with Becky.  That pushes the envelope back
even further to the time Becky and Mark first started dating.

The line that Jackie has always been gay...and out to Roseanne means that
pretty much the entire series has to be part of the fantasy.

Face it folks, for all these years we've been duped.

Of course, it was just fiction in the first place, right?

Roseanne just added an extra layer of unreality to the mix.

BTW, I though the closing monologue dragged on a bit too long, but overall
the ending was chilling and a beautiful ending.  One of the show's best
ever.


-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 22:12:22 -0400
From: Kyle Silvia <CSilvia@wsii.com>
Subject: Here's what I got, Am I right?

Well tonights episode was the first I've watched in a long time(I switched
to Mad About You earyl on) and the first parts were just Blah....  Then
the last 15 minutes I got confused but love it.  Here's what I got:

1. Roseanne's mom isn't gay just she wanted to write it like that since
she was so uptight about sex.
2. Jackie is gay and Roseanne just didn't want to see it.
3.a. Darlene, David, Becky, and Mark were all switched?  This is were I
got really confused.  Ok so Marc and Beck and David and Darlene got
together just she made Beck and David like each other and the same with
Darlene and Mark and lways thought they were messed up.
3b. Or She made Darelene and David together just cause she thought they
should be together and the real couples were: Darlene & Marc and Becky &
David.
4. She was writing the last season in a book to take away the pain of
Dan's death.

Well I did like the last show and did cry but please tell if I'm right.
Also did she just do this to explain why all these shows were so bad?

Kyle

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 04:08:32 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Kyle Silvia <CSilvia@wsii.com> wrote:

>3.a. Darlene, David, Becky, and Mark were all switched?  This is were I
>got really confused.  Ok so Marc and Beck and David and Darlene got
>together just she made Beck and David like each other and the same with
>Darlene and Mark and lways thought they were messed up.
>3b. Or She made Darelene and David together just cause she thought they
>should be together and the real couples were: Darlene & Marc and Becky &

>David.

Darlene and Mark are a couple that just had a child with health problems
who is battling through them. Becky and David are another couple. Roseanne
the Writer switched them because she thought they were better couples than
the ones in real life -- another bittersweet observation about life not
always working out the way that we'd like it to.

>4. She was writing the last season in a book to take away the pain of
>Dan's death.

The whole show from the establishment of the writing room in the basement
was really Roseanne's book, and the shows before that might have been the
book as well. Anything with a heterosexual Jackie would have to be the
book, because Roseanne the writer made it clear she was gay, even though
Roseanne refused to accept it in her mind.

>Also did she just do this to explain why all these shows were so bad?

I don't think this was concocted to explain the last year's shows --
Roseanne alluded to doing something like this involving Dan's death prior
to the Lottery episode.

However, it's certainly possible. It beats the shower scene that wiped out
a year of Dallas.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:50:47 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

My vote is in for the entire show being Roseanne's story, since "My real
sister, unlike my mother, IS gay. She always told me she was gay, but I
always saw her with a man." So anything with Jackie in it AT ALL is part
of Roseanne's fiction. And the ep with Arnie in the spaceship was part of
the story as well, but I can't use this as evidence toward my theory since
I am not sure of the date of that episode, whether it was before or after
the basement-writing-office episode.

The end of this episode was the saddest moment I have experienced in a
long time, and I am NOT happy the show is over. Oh well.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 01:08:50 -0400
From: Kyle Silvia <CSilvia@wsii.com>

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

> Darlene and Mark are a couple that just had a child with health
> problems who is battling through them. Becky and David are another
> couple. Roseanne the Writer switched them because she thought they
> were better couples than the ones in real life -- another bittersweet
> observation about life not always working out the way that we'd like
> it to.

Well was always like that then did Darlene date Mark or did Roseanne make
up all of the realtionships between the two couples?  Like can we put
everything that happen to Becky but put Darlene instead?  But then their
personalities change too.  Also this is a very confusing ending because
just this point changes like everything.

> >4. She was writing the last season in a book to take away the pain of
> >Dan's death.
>
> The whole show from the establishment of the writing room in the
> basement was really Roseanne's book, and the shows before that might
> have been the book as well. Anything with a heterosexual Jackie would
> have to be the book, because Roseanne the writer made it clear she was
> gay, even though Roseanne refused to accept it in her mind.

So basically all the show was Roseanne's writings and were all made up?
But she said she made them rich after Dan died but it doesn't mean she
just started the book there too.

Also it does fit if Dan died last season and everything was made up and
just Roseanne always thought Darlene & Mark and David & Becky should be
together.

Give me some imput.

Kyle

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:41:18 -0400
From: Heather A <heathera@coil.com>

>The end of this episode was the saddest moment I have experienced in a
>long time, and I am NOT happy the show is over. Oh well.

This episode proved to me what could be and could have been. Roseanne is
brilliant, if somewhat warped. I have idolized her since she came on the
sceen all those years ago, and would love it if she could have finished
out the season with a few more brilliant episodes like last nights. If
they had sprung this "book" stuff on us a few episodes ago they could have
wrapped the series up a bit more for us instead of leaving us hanging and
never knowing the truth.

HeatherA

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:18:04 -0500
From: Michelle Leberte <mleberte@mail.sas.upenn.edu>

I think the Roseanne began writing her book after Dan died at Darlene's
wedding.  So, everything thereafter was fictional - but this is where I am
confused:

At the final scene, she shows Darlene with Marc and Becky with David.  So,
she wrote it that way in her book because that's the way she thought it
should be.  However, many of the previous episodes had Darlene w/ David
and Marc w/ Becky.  Those same episodes had Dan alive and them winning the
lottery.  You see, it's hard to see where she was "writing" and where the
real Connor family was doing its thing.

The Darlene/David - Becky/Marc thing is the only thing that has me
confused.  If she hadn't had them together for the whole last's episodes,
then the final scene would have made sense to me.

If you ignore this, then it makes sense.  She couldn't take Jackie being
gay, so she made her straight. But just becuase she was gay "in real life"
does not make her hetero scenes part of Roseanne's writing.  It could have
been that after her marriage to Fred dissolved, she decided she was gay.

What does everyone think about the Becky-Darlene thing?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 16:46:03 GMT
From: AliceBeard <alicebeard@aol.com>

Heather A wrote,

>If they had
>sprung this "book" stuff on us a few episodes ago they could have
wrapped
>the series up a bit more for us instead of leaving us hanging and never
>knowing the truth.

There's the "truth," and then there's the "truth." The truth is Roseanne
is a middle-aged artist/performer and mother who has been thru a lot of
pain in her life and is able to bring pathos to the screen, along with a
lot of laughs.

I began watching last night because it was the "final" episode. So much of
what had happened since Dan's near death last season seemed like fantasy
that I hadn't watched it often this year. The $108 million seemed unreal;
living in the same house with just a redecoration seemed unreal if you had
that much money; Dan & Roseanne somehow didn't ring real this season. The
whole season had just seemed unreal. And last night when D.J. was being
moved to the ratty basement to make room for the baby seemed the heighth
of unreal: a 16-year-old not complaining, and an incredibily rich woman
having to move her son to such quarters. If she had so much $$$, why
didn't she just have a room added on the the house if she felt she just
HAD to stay in the house.

Then, the end. The only thing that seemed to make it all ring true. The
pathetic fantisies of a poor woman dealt one last rotten hand.

My first confusion was about the daughters/sons-in-law. But, presented as
if Roseanne Connor had begin writing years ago, and sharing with us her
written versions, that might fit. Not so well as the rest, and if I were
editing her, that's the one area I'd suggest she try some "fix-it" on.
However, looking at this last year from the perspective of last night's
finish, it would seem most likely that Roseanne did not write herself into
a corner, but rather had this in mind all along. Otherwise, why in the
world would she have gotten so rich, but still lived so meager?

Interesting, and worthy of some more analysis. I sure hope the real-life
real-life Roseanne opens up about this in some interviews.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 22:50:29 GMT
From: TwiNNceSS <twinpooh@teleport.com>

Kyle Silvia wrote:

> Well was always like that then did Darlene date Mark or did Roseanne
> make up all of the realtionships between the two couples?  Like can we
> put everything that happen to Becky but put Darlene instead?  But then
> their personalities change too.  Also this is a very confusing ending
> because just this point changes like everything.

no no no becky and darlene didn't switch personalities or experiences,
just instead of david being darlene's husband, mark was....but in "the
book"  roseanne switched 'em

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:10:50 GMT
From: Scott Padulsky <quimby2@ix.netcom.com>

To try to explain things as I understood them:

The end of the episode reveals that the ENTIRE SERIES was a work of
fiction written by a woman named Rosanne Conner.  SHe started the book
after her husband died.  Rosanne, the writer, changed something about her
life such as the sexual orientation of her sister and the men her
daughters married because she was rewritting her life in a btter image.
The last season was so crazy because when Rosanne, the writer, got to the
point in the book where Dan should have died, she had a hard time working
through it and took her life in fantastic directions.

I hope that sort of clears things up.

Scott

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 01:54:02 -0700
From: Mackey McCandlish <avatar@widomaker.com>

> Well was always like that then did Darlene date Mark or did Roseanne
> make up all of the realtionships between the two couples?  Like can we
> put everything that happen to Becky but put Darlene instead?  But then
> their personalities change too.  Also this is a very confusing ending
> because just this point changes like everything.

        I dont think it really changes everything. Roseanne the writer
changed the things in her real life that she didnt like, the most major
being the marriage swaps. As real life is often not quite as interesting
as a written one, I'd suspect that it was really Mark, not David, caught
in the basement with Darlene, and David with Becky when they were living
in a trailor house.

        More importantly, people feel like the series is "ruined" by the
fact that certain parts didnt "happen" like they saw them.  If you read a
book, the events that "happen" occur as you read them.  Therefore if you
want to appreciate the show, you have to be in the mind set that
everything you saw was from the book and stop concerning yourself with
what "really" happened in the life of an ordinary (well maybe not
ordinary) housewife.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:00:07 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

Only coming through in waves, Michelle Leberte wrote:

>I think the Roseanne began writing her book after Dan died at Darlene's
>wedding.  So, everything thereafter was fictional - but this is where I am
>confused:

She began writing the book after Dan died, but she was writing about 8 or
9 years worth of her life, not just that year.  The premise is that what
we've been watching all these years is actually the book she wrote in the
past year.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:27:53 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

I think it's simple - if you just consider Roseanne's monologue to be the
only thing that is not a part of the book or the fantasy then it fits
perfectly.  We never get to see Mark with Darlene and David with Becky.
But in reality that the way it always was.

andru

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:25:38 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

If the book was just written in the year after Dan died then why wasn't
every season as wacky as the last one?  I mean if she just wrote it after
he died then that part of the explanation just doesn't work.  It makes a
lot more sense that she's been writing the book all along maybe more like
a diary and when Dan dies all of a sudden the book becomes a little weird
because she can't cope with his death.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:16:45 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

BrYan Westbrook wrote:

>She began writing the book after Dan died, but she was writing about 8 or 9
>years worth of her life, not just that year.  The premise is that what we've
>been watching all these years is actually the book she wrote in the past year.

Why would the last episode include a flashback to the establishment of
Roseanne's writing room, if she didn't begin writing it at that point?  I
think it's more likely she started writing the book at the same time in
her life that the writing room was established, and the book's storyline
began a few year's prior (the series premiere).

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 19:46:22 -0300
From: mleddl@erols.com

This is my take on the final episode:

The entire 9 years of "Rosanne" (sans the last 15 minutes) was the
narration of a book by the character Roseanne Conner.

In these special 15 minutes Roseanne Conner explains to us why she wrote
what she did, i.e. switching Mark and David, her gay sister, crazy mother,
nerdy son, etc.  I believe that Jerry was already born because she makes
references to her sons (something about Dan and Roseanne not making their
daughters sacrifice more than their sons) and he was born before Dan's
heart attach.  Andy--maybe he exists.  Jackie could easily have had a
child (one way or another)

it was an excellent ending.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:37 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Jessica wrote:

>My vote is in for the entire show being Roseanne's story, since "My real
>sister, unlike my mother, IS gay.

If it was Roseanne Conner speaking as Roseanne Conner then why would she
say her "real" sister and not just her sister?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:39 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Michelle Leberte wrote:

>If you ignore this, then it makes sense.  She couldn't take Jackie being
>gay, so she made her straight. But just becuase she was gay "in real life"
>does not make her hetero scenes part of Roseanne's writing.  It could have
>been that after her marriage to Fred dissolved, she decided she was gay.

That doesn't make any sense.  Roseanne Conner had many gay friends so why
wouldn't she be able to handle her sister being gay?  For a small town,
Lanford had many gay people, all of them Roseanne's friends, business
partners, relatives.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 05:50:10 GMT
From: frank goron <frankieg@westol.com>

>I think it's simple - if you just consider Roseanne's monologue to be
>the only thing that is not a part of the book or the fantasy then it
>fits perfectly.  We never get to see Mark with Darlene and David with
>Becky.  But in reality that the way it always was.

however, in the last scene, David WAS with Becky and Mark WAS with Darlene
at the table (Mark:"get me a beer", Becky:"get it yourself"). So perhaps
this really was the "Conner Reality" that Roseanne showed us at the end,
especially since Dan was suddenly missing as well.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:34:29 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

debbie wrote:
making their daughters sacrifice more than their sons) and h
> Jessica wrote:
>
> >My vote is in for the entire show being Roseanne's story, since "My real
> >sister, unlike my mother, IS gay.
>
> If it was Roseanne Conner speaking as Roseanne Conner then why would
> she say her "real" sister and not just her sister?

Well she had to refer to real life in some way or no one would have got
it.  I mean all of a sudden Roseanne blurts out with my sister is gay.  I
mean real or really has to be put in there somewhere.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:38:41 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

debbie wrote:

> That doesn't make any sense.  Roseanne Conner had many gay friends so
> why wouldn't she be able to handle her sister being gay?  For a small
> town, Lanford had many gay people, all of them Roseanne's friends,
> business partners, relatives.

Small towns may have less open gay people but there's probably just as
many as those who live in the bigger cities.  I don't think it was because
Roseanne couldn't handle Jackie's sexuality - she just always saw her with
a man.  It's not a betrayal just a small change.  Who knows maybe the real
life Jackie enjoyed tons of support from her sister and thus could live a
completely open life - kinda like being straight or almost. What I meant
was if Roseanne is a big gay supporter then maybe Jackie's life wasn't as
filled with as many troubles in comparison to the average gay person and
maybe it wasn't that hard to change her sexuality.  The major difference
between gay people and straight people is self-hatred and lack of support
from your family and friends.  Geez I hope some of that makes sense.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:40:13 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

frank goron wrote:

> however, in the last scene, David WAS with Becky and Mark WAS with Darlene
> at the table (Mark:"get me a beer", Becky:"get it yourself"). So perhaps this
> really was the "Conner Reality" that Roseanne showed us at the end, especiall
y
> since Dan was suddenly missing as well.
> Frank

Or maybe not.  I mean if they were making out there would be no question
but I mean who knows maybe they were just being nice to each other for
once.  I mean mark and darlene looked like they were a couple but david
and becky could have just been friends in that scene.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 10:51:59 -0700
From: BLo <blo@us.oracle.REMOVE_THIS_PART.com>

debbie wrote:

  Roseanne Conner had many gay friends so why wouldn't she be able to
  handle her sister being gay?

It's not uncommon for people to be "cool" about having gay friends and
totally freak out when someone in their own family comes out to them.
When that happens, they usually find out that, despite the gay friends,
they were still carrying around a lot of homophobia and stereotypical
thinking.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 05:38:27 GMT
From: frank goron <frankieg@westol.com>
Subject: Re: Here's what I got, Am I right?

andru wrote:

>Or maybe not.  I mean if they were making out there would be no question
>but I mean who knows maybe they were just being nice to each other for
>once.  I mean mark and darlene looked like they were a couple but david
>and becky could have just been friends in that scene.

I admit that it's not certain, but I do believe that since they showed the
2 couples paired up differently just as Roseanne was talking about them,
and also since Dan was there at the beginning of the scene, and gone at
the end of the scene, I think that my interpretation could be valid.

Frank

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 01:29:32 GMT
From: ERGill <ergill@aol.com>

Lanford - where no one has a job and everyone's gay!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:52:13 -0400
From: RCT@webtv.net
Subject: I NEED tape of finale!

I was suppost to tape the finale for a friend but the VCR screwed up.  I
have to get a copy of this episode or my name is mud!  If some kind person
out there happened to record the finale, I would greatly appriciate a
copy.  I'm willing to reinburse you for the blank tape, postage and your
time.  Thanks in advance, Rich.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 01:40:25 GMT
From: DrFaust11 <drfaust11@aol.com>

If you still need a copy of the tape, please leave a message on my voice
mail in New York, and I'll be happy to send you mine-- since I've seen it
and all. Phone: 212-726-1180. I don't quite get this internet stuff yet,
so leaving me a message is probably the best way.  TANYA

-----------------------------------------
Date: 20 May 1997 22:17:12 GMT
From: HotRod0480 <hotrod0480@aol.com>
Subject: I'm gonna miss Roseanne

ROSEANNE ROCKS!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 21:33:02 -0600
From: Ena <ena_wark@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Series Finale

Everyone saw the Roseanne Series finale, right?  It kinda confused me.
However, I think it was appropriate.  What did you think of it?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 13:10:25 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

Lost Soul wrote:
>explain it. The entire series has been a book that Roseanne (the character)

That woudl make sense too. I hope that real-life Roseanne does some press
soon and explains exactly when the fiction started. I'm still not
convinced it was the entire series. But it does make sense the more I
think about it.

>has been writing. Beginning to end, everything is as she wrote it, and not
>1. Leon is really gay, but a big dork.
>2. His boyfriend is pretty much them same as he was portrayed

Hehe. Maybe that explains why his first boyfriend was first Jerry and then
Steven, both played by the same character. I still wish he had stayed with
him and Michael had become a more prominent presence on the show. He was
SO good as Jerry/Steven (just saw his first appearance , in the third
season, yesterday) :)

>3. D.J. is probably little nerdier than the series portrayed

>4. Roseanne's mother isn't really gay.

I'm beyond caring about Bev. If real-life Roseanne intended revenge on her
real life mother, she got it. I've read both of her books lately, and I
suspect she did.

>5. Jackie really is gay

I always assumed that was where they were headed. Interesting that the
rumored spinoff that ABC was allegedly planning, to cut Roseanne totally
out, to focus on Jackie and Dan, CAN'T happen now. Dan is dead, and Jackie
is gay. ABC might allow Ellen, but they won't want two of them, they'd be
too afraid of boycots, etc, unfortunately.

>6. Nancy is a good person.
>7. The pairings of Becky and Darlene are actually reversed; Becky with
>David, Darlene with Mark

This makes sense if you think of them as teenagers, how the characters
originally were. Still, it's a little hard to swallow.

>8. Dan actually died of the heart attack

:(

>9. Nobody won the lottery

No, and can you imagine fictional real-life Roseanne Conner (this is
getting confusing!) :) in her depression that she described, making her
family win the lottery in fiction, and then realizingas she wrote that it
still wouldn't have solved anything.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:59:09 -0700
From: James <jamschmi@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Series Finale (It was great)

Ena wrote:

> I just wanted to say that I'm glad that someone finally aired a show on
> t.v. that actually made us think for once.  Usually anything we see is
> layed before us, and we just watch.  This is like one of Shakespeare's
> plays, where you have to "dig in" to it and maybe find out what it means
> for you, or what you think the producers wanted you to think.  They did
> an excellent job on this particular episode.  I wish the rest of the
> season had been as good.  It was a great show....

Actually, I don't think there were any producers involved with this story
line...I believe it was all Roseanne. Was it not?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 12:04:52 -0700
From: BLo <blo@us.oracle.REMOVE_THIS_PART.com>

cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Cyndi Glass) wrote:

  I'm beyond caring about Bev. If real-life Roseanne intended revenge on
  her real life mother, she got it. I've read both of her books
  lately, and I suspect she did.

Considering that Roseanne Conner made her a lesbian so she would have a
sense of herself as a woman independent of a man, that hardly sounds like
revenge. If anything, portraying her as a woman who accepted and justified
her husband's abuse and betrayal, who blindly tried to pass this on to her
daughters, and who became hysterical when they instead chose better for
themselves, that seems like the revenge.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 22:57:51 GMT
From: ERGill <ergill@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Series Finale (It was great)

Please, oh, please stop thinking that Roseanne writes her show.  Sure, she
gives it direction and vetos stuff, but she doesn't have the largest and
most expensive writing staff in the history of television just sitting
around getting her pie.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 20 May 1997 19:39:00 -0700
From: loonytun@primenet.com
Subject: Final episode

IMO, tonight's episode invalidated this whole season.  It SHOULD have
ended last year.  If they were going to kill off Dan, they should've done
it last year instead of making us think he was still going to be around.

(I realize this is my second post about this and I apologize for ranting,
but I'm just so disappointed by the final episode.)

Tom

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 04:04:23 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

On 20 May 1997 19:39:00 -0700, loonytun@primenet.com wrote:

>IMO, tonight's episode invalidated this whole season.  It SHOULD have
>ended last year.  If they were going to kill off Dan, they should've done
>it last year instead of making us think he was still going to be around.

>(I realize this is my second post about this and I apologize for ranting,
>but I'm just so disappointed by the final episode.)

It invalidated a lot more than the last season -- anything that has to do
with Mark ending up with Becky, David ending up with Darlene, or Jackie
being a heterosexual is established as fictional instead of "the real
Conner family." The whole series might be about the fictional family.

However, Roseanne the book writer is also fictional. Though Dan doesn't
exist in her world, he exists in her book's world. Why is the more
depressing world valid while the upbeat one is invalid?

If you ever saw St. Elsewhere, was that drama invalidated when the last
episode established that it was a fantasy taking place inside a glass
snow-ball paperweight?

I think it was an interesting sendoff, and wish Roseanne was doing more
work like that in the past several years.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:54:05 -0400
From: Ron Richards <xxx@xxxxx.xxx>

> However, Roseanne the book writer is also fictional. Though Dan
> doesn't exist in her world, he exists in her book's world.

Is this correct?  The way I understood it, there was indeed a "real" Dan,
just as there was a real Bev, Jackie, Darlene, etc.  It's just that
instead of seeing their "real life" adventures, we saw (probably the
entire series) a quasi-fictional account of their lives.  You know, sort
of like those mini-series on TV that are "inspired by real events."  Thus,
the Roseanne we saw in the very last episode was the only member of the
Conner family ever to be shown on TV.  Everything else was just a
depiction of the book being written by her.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 15:45:45 -0700
From: Ronald Whalen <WHALEN@pop.cti-md.com>

The St.Elsewhere finale where the whole show was a fantasy taking place
inside a glass snow-ball paperweight was a few months ago satirized on
NBC's Newsradio. Good parody!
 Your's truly, Ronie J Whalen!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:55:14 GMTFrom: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Ron Richards wrote:

>Is this correct?  The way I understood it, there was indeed a "real" Dan,
>just as there was a real Bev, Jackie, Darlene, etc.

I just meant that Dan died in Roseanne's "real" life, but he's not the Dan
we have been watching for nine years. That Dan is still alive.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:21:39 GMT
From: Chris Lampton <clampton@erols.com>

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

>If you ever saw St. Elsewhere, was that drama invalidated when the
>last episode established that it was a fantasy taking place inside a
>glass snow-ball paperweight?

I still love the reruns, but that last episode of St. Elsewhere (which
I've heard the creators had in mind from the beginning) made about as much
sense as the notion that a (non-infinite, to keep this reasonable) number
of monkeys, supplied with word processors, could eventually compose
Shakespeare. ("To be or not to be, that is the a%8fhu*99sdfg.") BTW, I
always assumed that it was taking place inside the mind of the autistic
child, not in the paperweight.

On the other hand, I'm rather sorry that I didn't see last night's episode
of Roseanne. (My second, non-infinite VCR is broken, so I taped Frasier
instead.) The idea that the series represented a meta-Roseanne Conners
composing the story of her own life, but amending the details as
emotionally necessary, strikes me as something worthy of Phillip K. Dick.
Or John Fowles. Pity they had to destroy the series before they saved it.

--Chris

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 23:04:22 GMT
From: MAXIMOFF <maximoff@aol.com>

>The St.Elsewhere finale where the whole show was a fantasy taking place
inside a glass snow-ball paperweight was a few months ago satirized on
NBC's Newsradio. Good parody!

What exactly happened?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:52:41 -0700
From: James <joebloe@aol.com>

Hold On...Wait a minute....!!!!!!!!! Do you mean to tell me that the
entire series was a fantasy all written out in her book for the last
episode...or did all of these things happen for real, but are just short
stories (so to speak) in the book....??????
Christ, I must've really missed something along the way...:(

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:37:46 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

> I just meant that Dan died in Roseanne's "real" life, but he's not the
> Dan we have been watching for nine years. That Dan is still alive.

I don't understand what you mean.  In the ending Roseanne clearly stated
all the major changes she made and giving Dan a completely different
personality was not one of them. I think what she meant was here are the
big changes I made in my book and everything else had some minor changes.
What you are talking about is this like completely fictional Dan.  The Dan
we saw on tv for nine years was probably like 99% real and 1% changes so
he's dead.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:21:20 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

andru wrote:

>Dan.  The Dan we saw on tv for nine years was probably like 99% real and
>1% changes so he's dead.

That's not accurate according to what we saw in the last episode.

There are two Dans -- the one from Roseanne the writer's "real" life and
the one from Roseanne's book. We have been watching the one in the book
for nine years, and he was still alive when Roseanne finished writing the
book. The Conner family in the book had a happy ending -- they were all
together around the table eating Chinese food and celebrating the new
arrival in the house.

People who are lamenting the death of Dan are doing so for the "real"  one
-- the one whose life was the inspiration for Roseanne's book.  However,
he's no more or less real than the one we watched all these years.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 05:52:47 GMT
From: Wednesday/jones <heike@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: depressing finale

"I lost Dan a year ago to a heart attack... he is my first thought every
morning and my last thought before I go to bed..."

gave me chills.

interesting wrap up... I'm a little confused as to when this "book"
started... is it only the past year or is it the whole series? Any ideas?

---Wednesday

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 03:54:41 GMT
From: "Lisa B." <lisab@magicnet.net>

It seemed very unclear, but...

If David actually ended up with Becky while Darlene married Mark, the
"real" timeline must have diverged with the imaginary one some time ago.
Mark & Becky have been married on the show for some years - do you picture
the two sets of siblings just "switching" at some point, and everybody's
hunky-dory?

Plus the business with Jackie:  "I always picture her with a guy"...almost
the implication that she hadn't been, in real life.  Or perhaps her
marriage with Fred fell apart due to her realization that she was gay --
and that breakup was what, three seasons ago?

I found the last fifteen minutes both poignant and disturbing -- also a
bit of a cheat, as all "Bobby in the shower" endings are.  *Not* because I
minded seeing the entire season erased - far from it - but I guess I would
have liked to have seen the one that might have been, where Dan really
died and the viewers really got to mourn, etc.

LisaB

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 03:22:22 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

I think the entire series was established as the fictionalized life of
Roseanne the Writer. It's a sad ending for the series from her viewpoint,
because the Dan she based her stories on is dead. However, the Conner
family in her stories is the one we've been watching all of these years.
That family had a happy ending.

It was a poignant and unexpected send-off for the show. I wonder if
Roseanne really had it in mind when she launched the Lottery foolishness
that has dominated the past year.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 10:40:41 GMT
From: AliceBeard <alicebeard@aol.com>

Jeremy Welter wrote,

>My interp is:
>The whole show was her writing her experiences late at night as she
>had wanted them to be...It all started before Dan's death...But after
>a year of living without Dan she began to realize how much she
>appreciated what she had and decided to end the book and take things
>as they were.

Okay. I think I've got it now! There was one flashback scene last night in
which it showed Roseanne getting her "writing room" in the basement for a
birthday when D.J. was just a young boy. That must have been from one of
the very earliest seasons. If that's what it was, Roseanne had it
well-planned and well-pulled together. So, that would mean that everything
we saw for all of those years was her version of her life as it was
happening. And it would explain why this past year seemed so disjointed --
her increased fantasies after Dan's death.

But, I'm still confused: Who were the "real-life" couples: Becky & Mark;
and Darlene & David as we've seen for years? Or Becky & David; and Darlene
& Mark as was suggested last night? THAT part makes no sense!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:48:52 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>

I couldn't agree more.  The ending of this series was one of the most
revealing and appropriate endings I have ever watched.  I am usually
disappointed and can predict the end.  This was no disappointment and
definetly unpredicated Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 23:16:11 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>

AliceBeard wrote:

> So, that would mean that everything
> we saw for all of those years was her version of her life as it was
> happening. And it would explain why this past year seemed so disjointed
--
> her increased fantasies after Dan's death.
>
> But, I'm still confused: Who were the "real-life" couples: Becky & Mark;
> and Darlene & David as we've seen for years? Or Becky & David; and Darlene
> & Mark as was suggested last night? THAT part makes no sense!

She said "As I wrote about my life I relived it.  And whatever I didn't
like I rearranged."

Which would include the spouses of her daughters.

"I thought that David was much more Darlene's type and that Mark went
better with Becky.  I guess I was wrong but I still think they'd be more
compatible the other way around so in my writing I did what any good
mother would do, I fixed it."

Absolutely brilliant ending!  She didn't abandon us after all.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 23:01:12 GMT
From: G8rTammy <g8rtammy@aol.com>

 I wonder if Roseanne really had it in mind when she launched the Lottery
foolishness that has dominated the past year.

I think you are right.  I think that the whole lottery thing was in the
book.  I will have to watch it again, I am sure to get a lot of stuff,
like the Becky/Mark/David/Darlene thing.  It was sad.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 11:18:46 -0700
From: Hani Durzy <hdurzy@alexander-pr.com>

My belief is that the book started at the point on Roseanne's birthday
several years ago when Dan and the kids unveiled her new writing room.
remember, in her "book", DJ referenced it as "one of the best brithdays
you ever had."  AND, this took place before Becky and Darlene ended up
with Mark and David (or vice versa, in reality), so that explains that as
well.  She began writing immediately after that episode where she got the
writing room.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 03:22:51 GMT
From: Dennis McLaughlin <denmc28@anet-chi.com>
Subject: The End

Self-indulgent, preachy nonsense.

Nonetheless, I cried like a baby during those last 15 minutes.

Thank you, and goodbye, Roseanne.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 03:59:38 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

On Tue, 20 May 1997 21:01:03 -0700, Anna <arwolk@erols.com> wrote:

>I had a lot of interruptions during tonight's series finale, especially
>during the last 15 minutes...i'm a little hazy on what happened during
>the end scene.  what was the deal with that?  obviously it was
>roseanne's imagination...was it a book she was writing AFTER it all, or
>was it implying that the whole series was a book?  i'm a little
>confused...someone want to clear it up?  (email preferred)

The show's last scene began with the Conner family eating Chinese food
around the kitchen table and celebrating the arrival of Darlene and
David's daughter into the house. Their two gay friends, Roseanne and
Jackee's mother, and Sandra Bernhard's character were also there.

A voiceover narration by Roseanne began, and it talked about the two gay
guys -- I think their names are Leon and Fred. The voiceover described
them as they talked, and Roseanne said that both were based on people she
knew.

This is where it became evident that Roseanne's narrative was talking
about the series as if it was a book she wrote. This hearkened back to a
few scenes early in the episode about how the basement was being set up as
Roseanne's writing room, and also the only flashback to an earlier
episode, in which the writing room was being set up by Dan and a much
younger Becky and Darlene.

Roseanne the narrator then discussed her mother, and said that she wasn't
a lesbian in real life. She talked about how her mother grew up in a
generation that believed women must be submissive, and Roseanne herself
rejected that notion.

The narrator then talked about Jackie, saying that in real life it was she
who was the lesbian, and her "pillar of strength." This was the first
dramatic deviation from the Conner family that we've watched for nine
years.

The next person the narrator focused on was Sandra Bernhard's character.
Roseanne said in her narrative that Sandra's no-account husband was a
source of trouble for her, and though she didn't know where he ended up in
real life, he was sent into outer space in her book. This was a funny way
of referring to Tom Arnold's character, who really was written out of the
show this way.

As the family was eating and Roseanne was rapidly deconstructing the
fictional Conner family, a very brief shot appeared to show Dan Conner
choking on his food. I couldn't go back to the tape to verify this, but I
got the strong impression Dan was choking. I expected Roseanne's narrative
to be interrupted by an effort by someone to save his life.

Roseanne's narrative wasn't interrupted, though. She still had to talk
about D.J., Darlene and David, Mark and Becky, Dan and herself.  Roseanne
said that D.J. has been described in real life as a nerd, but that Stephen
Spielberg was often described in the same terms in his childhood.

The next shot was of David talking about going to a poetry reading with
Becky, and kissing her. This was pretty jarring, because David had just
come home with his wife and child. Mark was then shown asking Darlene to
get him a beer, and being told to get it himself. Roseanne said that these
two couples were reversed in her book, because she thought her daughters
made better couples with the other spouses.

Finally, Roseanne came to Dan, and the most depressing part of this
narrative took place. She said that Dan died when he had a heart attack a
year ago -- which was depicted as being something he survived on the show.
The fictional Dan disappeared from the kitchen table, and the happy scene
faded like Roseanne closed the book on them. She said, "He is my first
thought every morning and my last thought before I go to bed."

Suddenly, the Conner house seemed very empty, and Roseanne sat in her
basement -- which in her real life had become a writing room.

Roseanne the narrator then described the past year's shows as a flight of
fancy brought on by her grief over Dan's "betrayal" -- his death that left
her behind. She compared it to an affair that he could have had, which I
believe had parallels on the show this past year when Dan strayed, and
said her own budding romance with another man was more fantasy.  book.
This was a funny way of referring to Tom Arnold's charact Roseanne said
the health problems of Darlene's baby forced her out of her grief and into
active life again. She said her family needed her to get over Dan's death
so they could get over it. She left her writing room behind, and you could
hear the voices of her younger self, Dan, Darlene and Becky talking about
her newly constructed writing room. "This is how Stephen King got
started," a proud Dan said to her.

The show ended with Roseanne's statement that love is stronger than hate,
and some other things I wish I remembered better. She was left alone on
the Conner family couch, because the rest of her household was sleeping --
it was her only time to write.

The couch and the living room were as they appeared before the lottery
win. A quote was superimposed on the screen:

"Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the
day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous
men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible."
-- T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia)

This ending was a very melancholy one from the narrator's perspective:
She is a Roseanne who is still feeling the loss of her husband Dan, though
she's thankful for the healthy arrival of her granddaughter and the rest
of her family. The completion of her book also marks a turning point for
her.

It's easy to see this as a depressing show, but this narrator is just
another fictional Roseanne Conner. The one we've been watching most (if
not all) of these years had a happy ending -- Dan was alive and back with
Roseanne, her children were parents or parents-to-be, and her friends were
all doing well.

I wish the whole episode was as well done as the last 10 minutes, which
were not shown to critics before the show aired. The series Roseanne was
capable of real insight at times, though those times were far removed from
this year's shows about the Lottery-rich Conner family.

However, it was still a terrific and unexpected sendoff for Roseanne.  It
was a game attempt to explain some of the unbelievable episodes of the
past year. Watching Dan choke and then disappear was a haunting image, and
the metafictional ending will be remembered for years.

That is, of course, if anyone else actually watched the show ...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:24:22 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

Dear Rogers-Thank you for your incredible description of last night's
show.  I have to agree with you.  I loved the "metafictional" ending but I
cry everytime I think that Roseanne (the character) lost her one true love
after all.  Having lost a son two years ago, I know all too well that bad
things do happen to people every day...Dan's early death from a heart
attack could really happen.  Anyway, I just wanted to add my thanks to you
for taking the time to minutely describe the last ten minutes of the show
which I will never forget.  Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 17:28:46 GMT
From: "John J. Hlavaty" <jhlavaty@argon.helios.nd.edu>

One of the tabloids stated that Roseanne's original thoughts were to have
HER die and go to heaven.  At that time, she would meet God, portrayed by
Bob Dylan.  The ABC exec.'s apparently didn't like this idea.  Of course,
keep in mind that this came from a tabloid - believe it if you will.

I did see this "Roseanne" - although sadly, I watched few other ones.
This was NOT because of the "lottery-rich" family (which Roseanne Conner,
in her narration, claimed was created to compensate for Dan's death), but
simply because I have not watched much TV during the past year.

There were plenty of hints of a "fake-setting" in this last episode prior
to the narration by Roseanne Conner.  Darlene and Roseanne making up to
the point where they both agree that Darlene will live there forever
seemed almost "too nice" for the real relationship they showed over the
years.  Dan and Roseanne both "coming home" to as a "happy couple" also
seemed tough to believe after the drifting of the past year.  The fact
that all couples not only were blessed with children (either born or
coming) and that they were all doing incredibly well also differs from the
past seasons where there was considerable strife.  And Roseanne Conner's
suddenly religious turn and thankfulness seemed almost out of character
for her.  The joy, the generosity and the happiness of the household,
while an underlying theme throughout the many years, was never before so
openly displayed.  This made me suspect a tragic ending.  I had thought
that perhaps the tabloids were right - perhaps now that all is finally
well in Roseanne's life - children, finances, family - that she will no
longer be "needed" and her life will come to an end.

But it was a far more powerful ending for us to be zapped back into the
"Conner reality" where Dan doesn't survive and there is no lottery
fortune.  This left a quite haunting effect on me as this would be far
more true to reality than what the entire season presented.  One could
suddenly sympathize with the Roseanne Conner character for the past
season.  We all fantasize about happiness and wealth and in a time of a
tragic loss, those fantasies may grow even stronger.  A part of me though
wanted to root for that "little guy" - the chance that we can achieve a
financially secure, happy family that has undergone quite a bit of grief.
People don't always die from their first heart attack, people do win the
lottery, babies can survive, families can reunite.  It gave us hope - but
as the ratings indicated, while we Americans do like hope, having ALL of
the above is clearly fantasy.  The real Roseanne's harsh slap in the face
back into the "real world"  of Roseanne Conner showed if we are lucky,
only one (in this case the survival of Darlene's daughter) of the above
will occur in our lives.

The last 15 or so minutes were tough - we had grown used to Roseanne
Conner's success.  Even in previous seasons, turmoil worked itself out.
But here, there is only "reality" - a reality that many of us face all too
often.  And this is why it was haunting.  Had critics seen this ending, I
think they too would have been as stunned and impressed as I.  I do hope
people were watching - this is the Roseanne Conner we fell in love with,
the Roseanne Conner that represented us all.  In real life, Roseanne has
now achieved her wealth and has been blessed with children.  But as her
many divorces indicate, one questions if she's ever found love (despite
her current relationship).  While I think she looks fine, the fact that
she is overweight indicates an area that will always be a struggle for
her.  So, we can still relate to the real Roseanne as much as we can
relate to the fictional Roseanne Conner.

It's just too bad that the series/season ended now.  It would be
interesting to see how Roseanne Conner coped with life without Dan.  I
love John Goodman and I'm glad that he stayed for one more "fictional
season" - the interplay between Goodman and Roseanne truly made the show.
That said, how the Conner family lived life without Dan and how they
"real" pairings of the Conner children with their spouses and families
would have made for some very interesting shows.  While Americans may have
tired of Roseanne this year, it is sad to see this show end.  Unlike many
other situation comedies, this show presented reality and how it was dealt
with in a humorous manner.  There was unemployment and arguments and
divorces.  Few situation comedies have characters even raising their
voices unless it's in a comedic situation.  Not all Conner dilemmas were
solved - the family just moved on.  Again, this contrasts to virtually all
situation comedies where the "tragedy"  is always solved in an all too
gushy happy ending.  I hope the real Roseanne does come back to TV - she
presents an interesting and real view of the world.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 18:15:31 GMT
From: "Michael C. Cerone" <m-mj-cerone@worldnet.att.net>

Benjoey@aol.com (Andrea and Joshua Barol) wrote:
>Dear Rogers-Thank you for your incredible description of last night's
>show.

Thanks from me too!  That really took a lot of time and its really
appreciated!

MJ

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 08:51:26 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com> wrote:

>Dear Rogers-Thank you for your incredible description of last night's
>show.  I have to agree with you.  I loved the "metafictional" ending but I

I have to agree. I was totally blown away. This show affected me more than
any tv show I have ever watched. I just sat there staring at the screen as
Roseanne started talking, and I got chills. I still don't understand
exactly when the fiction began - when she got the writing room? when Dan
had his heart attack at Darlene's wedding? at the beginning of the bad
seasons? (7-9, IMO)? No kidding, I was unable to sleep last night and
couldn't get it out of my head. The first inkling I

got that something strange was going to maybe happen was when they brought
in the Chinese food - everyone seemed to be in character but adlibbing. I
had just watched the season finale of Mad About You (My other favorite
sitcom - I watched it and taped Roseanne to keep), and for the first half
hour I thought that it was going to be yet another bad episode. Bev has
gotten to where I can't stand her at all, and Jackie is getting there,
unfortunately, but I was cutting her some slack because I thought maybe
the atmosphere of it being the last show was affecting Laurie Metcalf. An
ad ran, and then suddenly we got a great Roseanne/Darlene scene that made
me feel better, and then she went down to talk to DJ in the basement. I
have never felt a bond between the characters of Roseanne and DJ, but he
didn't seem to be DJ last night - he seemed to be just himself, the real
life actor who plays DJ, and I felt a bond between him and the real life
Roseanne. Throughout the show I had seen the whole family deliver dialogue
that seemed to be perfect setups for flashbacks...and then no flashbacks.
Then with DJ, he started talking about the writing room, and we saw it. I
didn't realize how significant it would be. Later, when David and Darlene
were talking in the kitchen, the dialogue seemed forced, as did the parade
of visitors to see the baby. The food came, and, fittingly, the last scene
was between Roseanne and Darlene, and Roseanne asked her to stay forever.
I remember in the first few seasons they tried to say that Roseanne was
closer to Becky, while Dan was closer to Darlene, and I never bought it.
Roseanne (in real life) and Sara Gilbert always clicked, and I find it
quite fitting that the last scene before the monologue of Roseanne's was
with Darlene.

At first I thought she was talking as the real Roseanne, especially when
she talked about her sister and mom, and then when she showed Darlene and
Mark as a couple and Becky and David as a couple, it started to sink in,
but when she showed Dan's empty chair, I lost it. That really hit me hard.
That was when I got it - she DID use her writing room, and she created a
fictional story because her life was too hard to deal with. It makes me so
so sad for the Roseanne and Dan characters - they had so much to deal
with, and they lost the bike shop & all that...and then he really did die
after all.

I am not sure why this seems to transcend the Dallas scenario of Bobby
walking out of the shower or Pam or whoever it was, and declaring that the
past season had just been a dream, but it does. Roseanne (the real life
Roseanne) is a damn genius, and whether or not she intended this (I
suspect she did), it all makes perfect sense now. Even though I don't get
it completely, I DO get it. It has always felt to me like after season 6
things just went to hell, that she had lost touch with her original
character, the one that spoke for so many of us who had financial problems
and lived in the real world, unlike any other sitcom character.

What really clinched it for me was when she went upstairs, and suddenly
their sleek new kitchen and living room was gone. Even down to the
original linoleum (I notice it because we have the same linoleum in our
kitchen). She came upstairs, to an empty house (and that is sad too,
because her last scene was of a full house, a house full of love and
family, eating together and it was fiction after all), and she walked
across her kitchen and went to sit on that old comfy sofa and clicked the
remote control. Alone. No fuzzy cast goodbyes or curtain calls, just
Roseanne. The song played, and the quote from Lawrence of Arabia, which
fit so well, and then Roseanne, getting the last laugh. I don't know if it
affected anyone else as strongly as it did me, but I wanted to try to put
it into words.

Roseanne, if you ever read this, bravo.

--Cyndi

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 16:04:07 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>

Roger- Well done!  I wish I would have read your synopsis first... It
makes sense now... Did anyone else note the two times she refers to God.

I found that interesting as she sort of stood agnostic during the whole
series as well as in everyday life...
Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 17:45:28 GMT
From: KLHVA <klhva@aol.com>

I am sitting here getting emotional after reading your post...I could not
agree more. My husband came into the bed room to find me sobbing
uncontrollably after watching the show.  I'm still not okay about it.
Roseanne has taken alot of criticism over the years, but anyone who can't
understand what she did last night..  she took the show right back to its
roots.  Knocking the wind out of all of us as she did it.  I cried because
I felt the sense of aloneness and struggle.  Finding out that Dan didn't
survive the heart attack...that was the roughest and most surprising part
of the show.  Wow.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:49:11 -0500
From: Chris <patricks@qni.com>

Here's MY take on the final episode:I noticed things getting a little
eerie when they showed the sweeping view of the table and the family
eating chinese (like the opening sequence to one of the older seasons).

The daughter's husband's thing is made very clear:

"When Becky BROUGHT DAVID HOME a few years ago, I thought `This is
wrong' he's much more Darlene's type.
(David and Becky talk about going out later that evening)

"When Darlene met Mark I thought he went better with Becky"
(Mark kisses Darlene and asks for a beer)

"I guess I was wrong, but I still think they'd be more compatible the
other way around." (Mark/Becky, David/Darlene)  "In my writing, I did what
any good mother would do....I FIXED it"

Before Roseanne starts talking about the daughters it shows Dan choking on
food and Bev patting him on the back, but it shows him smiling at Roseanne
a couple frames later, so it couldn't have been a big deal?

What I STILL have a little question about is when the writing started.  It
seems like the writing started when Dan setup the basement since a good
part of the episode is centered around that and since the basement is
STILL a writing room at the end of the show and not a bedroom.  But with
Jackie being gay, it would make the Booker/Jackie make no sense because
that was BEFORE Roseanne got the writing room.....unless she admitted she
was gay AFTER her thing with Booker.

Overall the final episode had a great effect.  Some might complain that it
still leaves you hanging, but i think that makes it all the more
entertaining.  Like some good novels that make you imagine how the story
would continue.

Chris
patricks@qni.com
http://www.qni.com/~patricks

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 06:01:29 GMT
From: TOMALHE <tomalhe@aol.com>

Add my thanks to the building crowd Rogers,

As I had a meeting to attend and since my VCR only plays (and not records)
I had to settle for the "next" best" thing... audiotape with a 120
cassette... but I had to start it 5 minutes before the top of the hour,
and the tape ran out right after she mentioned the heart attack. (right as
mine broke, dontcha know.)

And at the risk of bending the thread, it should be noted that the only
cast member who knew the ending was Roseanne herself. According to an
on-set report replayed Tuesday morning on ABC's overnight show World News
now, the CASTMEMBERS THEMSELVES were going to have to watch the show that
evening to find out how Rosie had ened the show. (Hence the short tapes
sent out to critics.)

To Rogers, thanks again.

To Roseanne,
Thanks for the most gay friendly, pro-woman, blue collar, hipocracy
exposing, anti-establishment, pro-family show on network tv.


Tom Heald
This Night In History
Late Show News

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:00:31 GMT
From: "Bryan F. Irrera" <bryan@mindless.com>

Chris <patricks@qni.com> wrote:

>What I STILL have a little question about is when the writing started.
>It seems like the writing started when Dan setup the basement since a
>good part of the episode is centered around that and since the basement
>is STILL a writing room at the end of the show and not a bedroom.  But
>with Jackie being gay, it would make the Booker/Jackie make no sense
>because that was BEFORE Roseanne got the writing room.....unless she
>admitted she was gay AFTER her thing with Booker.

Considering that in our society, most lesbians tend to come out later in
life, both to themselves and to society (maybe not quite as old as Bev
was, but that had made sense to me, too!), this would make sense.  Also,
considering how many men she was with and she was never really happy, she
might not have realized herself what she was lacking for many years
(blaming it on the men).  Also, look back to Jackie's friendship with
Nancy.  Perhaps, instead of sleeping with Arnie, she slept with Nancy?

Bryan

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:59:39 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

I happen to think that the entire TV series was the book that Roseanne
started writing after Dan's death.  About Jackie coming out - here again
Roseanne "FIXED IT" in her writing. Anyone remember when Jackie declared
that she would be perfectly happy without Fred as her husband?  She was
talking to her son Andy and told him, "And, if you turn out to be gay,
I'll march right with you on Pride Day."  Makes you think....

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 02:15:53 GMT
From: first last <chips@eskimo.com>

Let's see if i can explain this in a compact manner.

The *entire* series was a dramatization of mrs conner's fiction novel.
All the characters existed and a lot of the situations occurred to mrs
conner but she took certain literary licenses, which she explained in the
last five minutes.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:53:57 -0500
From: patricks <patricks@qni.com>

That doesn't make much sense because in Roseanne Connor's "real" life,
Mark had been going out with Darlene and David with Becky.  The
relationships began MUCH before Dan died.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 03:54:51 GMT
From: Corinne Funk <cfunk@fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: last episode

Tonight was *terrific*!  The last five minutes was breathtaking -- and it
helped to make sense of the plot this season!  I loved the room of one's
own motif!

Cheesy, sure, but soooo great.

Corinne

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 04:35:08 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: episode on may 13

On Thu, 15 May 1997, BLo wrote:

>According to a Village Voice (www.villagevoice.com) columnist who's
>seen the finale, this is indeed the reaction to expect.

Roseanne didn't let critics see the surprise ending in the last 10 minutes
of the show. Because of this, most reviewers appear to have panned the
episode as being more of the same crap from a show that lasted too long.

I think critics would have been more receptive if they saw the whole
thing.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:02:05 -0600
From: laconia@webtv.net

Steven Acevedo <steven64@phoenixat.com> wrote:

>Was it just me, or was the most recent episode on may
>13, where Debbie Reynolds plays Dan's mom

Debbie Reynolds?? I thought Dan's mother was played by the "sexy" Ann
Wedgeworth. The Grey haired Debbie Reynolds must have been Dan's mother
only in Roseanne's book.

> At least Rosie and Dan are together again.

Nope, Dan's gone.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:35:20 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

They did in fact use a different actress in the next to last episode.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 06:30:30 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

        I haven't reall watched Roseanne the last few seasons. I tuned in
occasionally and sort of kept up with what was going on, but I haven't
really been watching it. I saw that it was leaving us, though, so I
decided to tune in. I like the Conners a lot, I could almost say I love
them. When I saw those last fifteen minutes, I realized just how much I
would miss them being gone. I had so many different feelings about it
though. I hated it that things weren't as okay as they seemed. I felt
betrayed as things were revealed to be different than they were. I know
they are only characters, but to say that everything was suddenly not what
it seemed was a heartbreaker. But most of all . . . I was sad. I don't
know what it was, but I teared up big time while watching tonight. It was
sort of scary in a way. The Conners had been through so much, it was
heart-wrenching to see not all worked out perfectly. I know life isn't
really the way sitcoms portray it, but damnit <sniff> they don't have to
show us that. Overall, I would have to say I loved it. I miss them
already. I don't know if I can look at the show in the same way again. It
sounds silly, yes, but that's the way it is. Anyway, that's how I felt
about it.

Lost Soul

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 02:34:02 GMT
From: MAXIMOFF <maximoff@aol.com>
Subject: Theory...

I know this is my first post here, but I saw the last part of the Roseanne
episode, and I remember that on a rerun, Roseanne did get a thesaurus and
other writing materials, and that might have been when the "fake" timeline
started.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 06:47:25 GMT
From: ~Jen~ <bprice@nidlink.com>
Subject: The end of Roseanne

Tonight, my heart is breaking.

I grew up watching this show, Roseanne could have been my mom.

I'll miss her very much

:o(

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 01:28:13 -0500
From: "Albert D. Hwang" <a-hwang@nwu.edu>
Subject: Why no old Becky on series finale?

Anybody want to field this one?

Why was Lecy Goranson not included as a part of the series finale?  (or
was she...I missed a few minutes here and there.)  I remember when she had
a cameo appearance as a babysitter or something sometime after Sarah
Chalke took over.

As the old Becky, she was a huge part of the show...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 23:49:27 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>

Lecy is a student at Yale.  That is why she only did the very first part
of the season, she was on break then but had to go back to school.

I would rather know why there was no Crystal or Ed, afterall Ed was a new
great grandpa!  By the way, does all this mean they were never married and
had their two kids either?

Speaking of favorite episodes, mine were when Dan and Roseanne were stuck
at the airport while the girls had a party.  The "pick a mineral Barry"
and "how about if I dress up in my old cop uniform" lines were classic.  I
also loved Darlene peom episode and the mother's day one that included
Bonnie and Annmarie.  And one of the best scenes was when Poseanne and
Jackie were selling the accountant the motorcycle.  That one cracks me up
everytime.  And who could ever forget the bowling episode. Geart stuff!!
She did have some of the best moments on tv.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Why no old Becky on series finale?

I loved the episode when Darlene got stranded at a rock concert since her
neighbor friend left her to go and get stoned with one of the guys she
picked up.  "Darlene is one of the things we own straight out."  Somryhing
like that.

Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 02:54:39 GMT
From: SWC555 <swc555@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Best Roseanne Episodes of All-Time

I think the best Rosanne episode was when they all went to the Grand
Canyon and they took their maid Alice.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:44:19 -0400
From: Heather A <heathera@coil.com>

taylor wrote:

>Favs:  Becky "cutting the cheese" at the Student Council meeting, meeting
>with the school principal after thinking that Becky "shot the birdie" in
>the school photo, Jackie getting hooked on AOL.

After seeing the finale we now know that most of this was "fiction" that
Roseanne wrote in her book. The finale has ruined the series for me :( I
will always look at it differently now, but I have to say that the Finale
was my Favorite episode, just because it threw me through a totally
unexpected loop.

>I don't have a lot of TV trivia savy so, please, someone tell me about the
>Becky switches:  Why did the first one go?  Why did she come back and then
>go again? I didn't much care for Becky #2.

The first Becky left to go to college. She came back I believe because
Rosanne asked her to.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 18:55:17 GMT
From: JIMBO4159 <jimbo4159@aol.com>

Hey there, just wanted to let you know that my two favorite episodes of
all time are:

-Rosanne's father's death

and

-the episode in which Dan catches David and Darlene making out in the
basement after they'd been caught living together in Chicago (when Darlene
"rats out" Rosanne).

Some of the most genius writing in television history!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 18:56:10 GMT
From: JIMBO4159 <jimbo4159@aol.com>

Another all-time classic line from Rosanne is after the power goes out as
Rosanne opens the refrigerator door and she looks at Dan and says:

"Well, middle class was fun."  as she slams the fridge door.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:15:33 GMT
From: Papaleonardos <Papaleonardos.1@osu.nospam.edu>

"Heather A" <heathera@coil.com> wrote:

>After seeing the finale we now know that most of this was "fiction" that
>Roseanne wrote in her book. The finale has ruined the series for me :( I
>will always look at it differently now, but I have to say that the Finale
>was my Favorite episode, just because it threw me through a totally
>unexpected loop.

The finale did not necessarily invalidate everything.  The gist of it, as
I see it, as that most of the series was Roseanne Connor's book, but a
book that was pretty much based on her own life, with a couple of changes
(mom and sister's sexuality, daughters' husbands), but otherwise pretty
much telling the story of her own -- Roseanne Connor's -- life.  All
except for this year's shows which I take it were nearly complete fiction
(Dan recovering, winning the lottery, the separation, etc.)  Everything
else can be taken to be the real life of the Connor family, with some
fictional embellishment and literary flourishes (Bev and Jackie's
sexuality, Becky and Darlene's different pairings, Arnie being sent off
into space, etc.).  LOTS of writers draw on their own real life
experiences for their work, changing the details a bit, consolidating some
events or people for better story-telling, etc.  So, yes, the entire
series has been changed, but not necessarily ruined.  We thought we had
been seeing the Conners going about their lives, but find out now that
what we were actually watching was Roseanne Connor's
fictionalized-but-based-in-reality *portrayal* of her family's life --
which is really just a reflection on _Roseanne_ the series, which in many
ways is a fictionalized account of Roseanne's [nee Barr nee Arnold] own
life and family and friends.  Brilliant.

[My only advice to Roseanne Connor, The Writer, is: for your next book,
stick to the real-life stuff that made up the first 7/9ths of your book --
much better and funnier than the totally imaginary stuff that you tried in
the latter part] :-)

I, too, will miss Roseanne.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 22:45:50 -0400
From: Gentleman-X <jerry01@erols.com>

One of the best episodes:  When Becky decided to go on birth control.  It
was such a well done episode, and funny.

Another real good one...D.J. getting religous.

There are so many, but those two stick out in my head.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 02:12:28 GMT
From: Asher97788 <asher97788@aol.com>

1. the masturbation episode. I never laughed harder than I did at the
dinner table scene.

2. Roseanne and Jackie's dad dies- classic converstaion with Auntie
Barbara.

3. Any Hallowe'en episode.

I'm sure there are more that I can't think of.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 97 13:26:40 GMT
From: "Ben F. Schumin" <bschumin@rica.net>

Asher97788 wrote:
> 3. Any Hallowe'en episode.

ANY Halloween episode?  I don't know... the last one was pretty pitiful.

But the others were pretty cool, like the one where Roseanne was visited
by the ghosts of Halloween past, present, and future.

Ben F. Schumin :-)

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:41 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Gentleman-X wrote:

>One of the best episodes:  When Becky decided to go on birth control.
>It was such a well done episode, and funny.

"and then there's your condom-sponge combo--fort knox protection at a
price you can afford"  jackie to becky

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 16:39:06 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>

1. Roseanne and Jackie go to Kansas City to see their father's mistress.

2. Jackie onstage in Cyrano without knowing the lines. "less confused"

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:26:08 -0400
From: Andrew Barnett <andrewpd@erols.com>

Ben F. Schumin wrote:

> ANY Halloween episode?  I don't know... the last one was pretty  pitiful.
> But the others were pretty cool, like the one where Roseanne was visited by
> the ghosts of Halloween past, present, and future.

Yeah, that was the one with the Ab-Fab people, right? Well, I think that
was pretty stupid as well. I didn't much like anything in the last season,
and I found the series finale very disappointing.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 03:01:06 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: finale

Yes, I think that the entire series was supposed to be a "Bobby Ewing, St.
Elsewhere" figment of the imagination scenario.  It was bittersweet. On
one hand, I would like to think the meaness she developed as a character
would just be imaginary from the cool Roseanne in the first years of the
show.  There were so many lines in that last fifteen minutes that did say
none of it really did happen to character and that Roseanne did make it
up.  And, that makes the entire series pretty bogus.  I agree, what the
hell was going on?????  Who are Darlene and Becky supposed to be married
to?  And what about Jackie?  Does that mean that there was never an Andy
(or a Fred or even Gary either)?  And all the other characters we came to
love, were they even supposed to be real people to Roseanne Conner or just
characters for "the book".  Forget about the lottery, were all the jobs
and trials and tribulations just material for a story.  I, for one, was
very disappointed.  I never really expected a happy ending, but every
event from the entire series was left so up in the air, it was like no
ending at all.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 07:11:47 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

Most of what she wrote was probably very much what really happened to her
and her family. She just changed some of the characters around and altered
parts of their personality. It may sound like a petty thing for her to do,
but there are probably many writers out there who have done the same.
Besides, I got the impression she was writing the book for herself more
than for anyone else.

Lost Soul
-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:39:39 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

I don't understand why people have so much of a problem with this ending.
The Roseanne episodes are no less real because a fictional Roseanne the
Author wrote them.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:57:00 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>

Gay in life not homosexual... (Jackie)

ANd the fantasy begins at the time of dan's heartattach.   She said she
would have reversed the set up of Becky etc... but did not.
Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:44:25 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

> I, for one, was very disappointed.  I never really expected a happy
> ending, but every event from the entire series was left so up in the air,
> it was like no ending at all.

Hell, it was like no BEGINNING!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 16:54:37 GMT
From: AliceBeard <alicebeard@aol.com>

Pam wrote,

>ANd the fantasy begins at the time of dan's heartattach.
>She said she would have reversed the set up of Becky
>etc... but did not.

"would have reversed." Are you sure she said "would have," as in "but did
not"?

Damn! I wish I had taped that program last night! Double damn! I hope it
comes out on video soon so I can BUY it!! It will probably never be
re-run. DAMN! I just was not prepared to pay such close attention when
Roseanne Connor began the voice-over looking down on how she was imagining
her family was. I'd been lulled for the first 3/4 of the show just to
expect a rather uninspiring but acceptable finish. Then: wooooSH! It
changed gears so fast it was almost over before I realized what the voice
over was and what it was meaning.

DAMN! I sure hope Roseanne the real-life real-life gets it out on video
soon!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:03:53 -0400
From: Stephan Mynarkiewicz <stevieb@iw1.net>

I watched the tape again.  She says (and I'm not quoting this word for
word) "I thought it would be better the other way around (ie David and
Darlene, and Mark and Becky), so in my writing, I fixed it".  In other
words, David and Becky were a couple and Mark and Darlene were a couple in
"reality".  Now *whose* baby was it???

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 20:17:16 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

Easy, Darlene's. She said "And then Darlene had the baby and it almost
died." She says that is waht brought her out of mourning.

Lost Soul

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:42 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

>DAMN! I sure hope Roseanne the real-life real-life gets it out on video
>soon!

Really?  do they often release TV episodes on video?

Lucky me -- I made it a point to video tape (on a permanent tape)  all of
this year's series finales (well, at least 4 of them).

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 07:04:14 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>
Subject: Series Finale

        A lot of people seem confused by tonight's episode. Let me see if
I can explain it. The entire series has been a book that Roseanne (the
character)  has been writing. Beginning to end, everything is as she wrote
it, and not as it really happened. Most is based on what actually happened
to the characters, with the exception of the last season which was almost
complete fabrication. She began writing the book when Dan died. The last
part explained major things that she had changed in her life. I'll try to
list them as the actually were, and not ass she wrote them:

1. Leon is really gay, but a big dork.
2. His boyfriend is pretty much them same as he was portrayed
3. D.J. is probably a little nerdier than the series portrayed
4. Roseanne's mother isn't really gay.
5. Jackie really is gay
6. Nancy is a good person.
7. The pairings of Becky and Darlene are actually reversed; Becky with
David,  Darlene with Mark
8. Dan actually died of the heart attack
9. Nobody won the lottery

Anyway, these are what I remember. I'm gonna miss them all.

Lost Soul (maybe not so lost anymore)

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 07:00:18 GMT
From: Maria I Beltran <ac808@rgfn.epcc.edu>
Subject: Roseanne's finale

Hello!
  I don't usually post to these groups, but I do read them.  After viewing
Roseanne's final episode, I felt compelled to write to this NG.  It did
not occur to me that there might even be NG for the show (big oversight),
but after I finished watching today's show, I wondered if anyone else was
affected by it as I was, and I thought of the NG's.
  The previews for the episode promised a very unexpected ending...I guess
that was the only way it could be described.  It was not even outrageous,
like *I* expected, which is the only thing I thought I could expect. I sat
down to watch the show with this in mind, so as I saw the episode
progress, I kept that in mind and eagerly awaited.  When it was almost
over, I could hardly stand it, and that's when it started.  The way she
started talking about Leon and Steve (I believe), I thought what was going
to follow was a narrative about how REAL life people had inspired her
show.  This perception continued as she talked about her mom and Jackie. I
am glad I was also taping it, because what then followed threw me for
curve. I was so surprised I practically missed the rest of the end.  I had
to go back on my tape and replay it.  After replaying it a few times to be
able to grasp all she had said at the end, I felt it was brilliant.
  I have not been able to stop thinkking about it since.  I consider
myself a semi-loyal fan of the show, because although I do enjoy it very
much I must admit towards the last couple of seasons I did not watch as
much.  The second to the last season I was just too busy to watch, but the
last season I must agree with other people here and say that the plots of
the shows turned me off.  I can watch the older stuff and I think nine
times out of ten I think I could recite the punch lines to their jokes.  I
thought those were the best, which is why the implication that not all of
the show's story was "real" even in terms of the characters themselves
bugged me.  I now find myself wondering what parts of the show were real
or not.  The implications are endless, and that's one of the reasons I
thought the end was interesting.  I found it so interesting how much it
bugged me to see the girls with the switched boyfriends. I always liked
Roseanne for it's way of not sugar-coating real life.  I realized,
however, that the show did portray some idealism...  looking back on it, I
cherished how well Darlene and David fit together, and realized they might
have fit too well.  Even after that, however, I wanted them to be together
anyway.  At that point I think I caught on as to what Roseanne's feelings
were on the actual couples.
  I could type on for hours, I think, but am not sure how many would be
willing to read all of it..I do wonder how many have stuck through to the
end of this post. :)  I would love to discuss this episode more and
possibly find more ideas behind.  One thing I know about the show is it
is....was...a source of alot of original and interesting ideas.  One of
the many things that I have gotten from this episode a better appreciation
for minds of writers....both because it was shown through Roseanne the
charcater, and because of the writers who came up with the idea.  I can
say this show is the only one who can make me laugh out loud...more than
once at the same jokes.  I will miss it.

M.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 03:23:05 GMT
From: Baldloogie <baldloogie@aol.com>
Subject: Stuff

Hey, everyone. This is the first time I've looked at this message thing,
so I figured I'd brighten all of your days (or not) with my input. =)
First of all, I think it's awesome that Roseanne is planning her own talk
show, if that's true. Second of all, I can't believe you all don't
understand the last episode. Obviously, everything that has happened this
last season was just her writings. It put me in tears. I've never seen
anything so sad. Anyhoo's, I think Roseanne is an amazing woman and I love
her. That's all I have to say.

-Loogie-

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:39:15 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

If I'm bursting your bubble, hate to do it, but everything in THE ENTIRE
SERIES was part of her book, not just the last season.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 04:11:07 GMT
From: Papaleonardos <Papaleonardos.1@osu.nospam.edu>

Is this certain?  This is certainly plausible.  But perhaps equally
plausible is that everything after the episode (in Season 2?) where they
set up her writing room in the basement is part of her book, whereas
everything before it was the "real-life" Connors.  In any case, the book
WAS NOT just the last season, but either the entire series, or ALMOST the
entire series (after the aforementioned episode).

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:46:41 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@no_spam.bc.sympatico.ca>

Nope, it;s the whole series. And I'll tell you why. Jackie is and always
has been Gay. Therefore ANY scene with Jackie in it is part of the book.
And Jackie was there since the very first episode.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 23:05:27 -0500
From: patricks <patricks@qni.com>

I believe that the book started with the writing room episode (season
finale of season 2) because most of the final episode is centered around
the writing room.  Roseanne and Dan were married for 15 years before the
season started, so the book could have started at any time before then,
but i still believe it all started with the writing room

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:44 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Do we know anything for sure or are we just speculating?  Where is the
proof?  Has Roseanne actually said this?

Personally, I hope it's just the last season that didn't happen.  If
Roseanne actually intends for it to be the entire series then I will NEVER
never ever watch the syndicated episodes again.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:42:01 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

It can't just be the last season.  Roseanne makes way too many references
to things that happened before.  I mean the only things she said that
relates directly to the last season is 1. it was inspired by the grief she
felt for Dan and 2. her mother is not really gay.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1997 11:01:52 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

Everyone here is just speculating. No one really knows. We are all waiting
for Roseanne to do some press or something and let us know

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:09:04 -0500
From: Victoria <Smile@life.its.great>

It's kind of hard to see the old repeats now and see Darlene & David and
Becky & Mark ... it's hard to know what to believe now.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:44:20 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Was Dan choking in last episode?

Shortly before it was revealed that Dan died of a heart attack, it
looked like his fictional duplicate was choking on his food as the
family ate around the table. I didn't tape it -- did anyone else think
he was choking, and find it to be interesting foreshadowing to the
revelation that was going to come a few moments later about him?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:14:19 -0700
From: Rat <shadorat@dns.best.com>

I thought the same thing, and then wondered what was going on when they
just seemed to gloss over it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 03:58:15 GMT
From: Pd <p@imstressed.com>
Subject: Re: Was Dan choking in last episode?

I hadn't even thought about it until reading your post, so I went back to
the tape and watched that portion again. Dan was choking on his food;
Becky and Beverly were patting him on the back and smiling. On the
camera's next pass, Dan was smiling, with his hand in front of his throat,
very slightly waving it back and forth. He could have been motioning
toward Mark, or it could have been a "cut" sign... more foreshadowing
maybe? 2 seconds later he disappeared.

Pete

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 04:45:57 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Maybe Dan was drawing his finger over his neck as if to say, "Whew! I was
almost a goner when I choked on that food." I wish I had taped it;  the
whole Dan sequence around the table is a haunting one.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 02:43:11 GMT
From: G8rTammy <g8rtammy@aol.com>

I think he was choking.  I have it taped and I watched it a second time,
he definetly is chocking.  I'll tell you, it was errie, even the first
time I saw it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:59:26 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

It seemed strange because he was choking and then right before the camera
turned to his empty chair you see Dan smiling.  I kind of feel now that it
was kind of this way of saying he's out of his misery or that he's at
peace or something.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 06:36:46 GMT
From: Sean Wilkinson <swilkinson@mail.techplus.com>

        I also interpreted his final, broad smile as a kind of "thank you"
to all his fans and admirers.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:22:14 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

I didn't think very much about the choking until just now.  I thought it
was the actor really choking on horrible cold prop Chinese food.  But if
it was part of the show really..it could have been that Roseanne the
writer was about to kill off the fantasy Dan.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 10:41:26 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Why do you people keep saying KILL OFF - it implies there was some kind of
vicious intent which no one can possibly know for sure.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 00:59:49 -0700
From: Ryan Stults <mls@halcyon.com>
Subject: *SORROW*

Hello,
        I only found this place two days ago! And now, it's all over.
        I loved the show, it's something that was very meaningfull, and it
was a constant in a not-so-constant world.
        I hope Roseanne knows what a wonderfull thing this wshow was.
                I will miss it dearly.
                        Ryan

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 08:28:14 GMT
From: Robert & Judy <jfong@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Darlene's baby

In Roseanne's "real life", if Darlene and Mark are a couple, and Becky and
David are a couple, whose baby is it?  I think the baby girl belongs to
Darlene and Mark...

Any opinions?

Judy

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 10:22:22 GMT
From: AliceBeard <alicebeard@aol.com>

My interpretation was that Darlene and David were the real-life couple who
were parents of the baby. And that Becky and Mark were the real-life
couple. That she just showed at the end how she would switch them in her
writing.

Did someone else have another read on that?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 20:25:21 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

Well, she said that it was Darlene's baby and the fact that it almost died
is what brought her out of mourning for Dan.Lost Soul

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 20:27:28 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

Now, at the end she showed what actually was. The whole series is what was
in her book. Actually "real-life" couples were Beck and David and Darlene
and Mark.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:46:51 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Darlene's baby

Yes I interpreted that as well although I don't think the baby was even
born, I think that was a part of the fantasy?  I think everything that
happened after the Wedding/ heart attack day was in Roseanne's book /
fantasy....  Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:02:08 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

AliceBeard wrote:

>My interpretation was that Darlene and David were the real-life couple who
>were parents of the baby. And that Becky and Mark were the real-life
>couple. That she just showed at the end how she would switch them in her
>writing.

Darlene and Mark were identified as the real couple, according to
Roseanne's narrative talking about her book, and Becky and David were the
other couple. The last 10 minutes of the show were a depiction of the
"reality": a gay Jackie, a straight but crazy Bev, a dead Dan.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 15:23:00 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

Didn't anyone else find Mark's anger & griping in the waiting room a bit
much for it not to be his baby? I thought that in the finale it would come
out that he had fathered the baby instead of David. How weird that that is
now the "reality" we are to accept, only instead of it being that she
cheated on David, she was never really with David at all.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:35:40 -0400
From: Jenny Dean <sfbswg6@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>

didn't she say that when Becky brought David home that she thought he
would be better for Darlene? and the other way around with Darlene and
Mark? i dont know, maybe i'm confused

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 07:46:10 -0400
From: Stephan Mynarkiewicz <stevieb@iw1.net>

Just curious, does that episode negate pretty much everything that
happened over the past 3 or 4 years?!?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 15:21:01 -0400
From: Stephanie Rendino <beau@CAM.ORG>

Hi, I'm a lurker.  I just watched the series closer, and I'm of the
opinion that the whole series was a book that Roseanne was writing, and
concluding in the last scene.  If Darlene/David and Becky/Mark hadn't ever
been together "really" then it follows that the whole series was just her
fantasy about what the Connor story should have been like.  On one hand I
think that twist was clever, on the other I think it was a cheap shot,
taking all the situations that had meant something to the viewer and
saying, "See?  It never really happened that way at all."

Ultimately, I feel cheated.  My opinion, for what it's worth.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 08:04:58 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I interpreted it to be that the baby WAS born as Darlene proposed to David
because she was pregnant. Dan died at the wedding... Darlene was pregnant,
however Mark, not David, is the father and her husband.  I am not sure
about baby Jerry or Andy though.....

Jonny B.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 17:50:40 GMT
From: "Juan D. Martinez" <martinej@dolphin.upenn.edu>

AliceBeard wrote:

: My interpretation was that Darlene and David were the real-life couple who
: were parents of the baby. And that Becky and Mark were the real-life
: couple. That she just showed at the end how she would switch them in her
: writing.
: Did someone else have another read on that?

        What you wrote below makes a lot of sense, EXCEPT that how would
        you explain Roseanne's line during her narrative which went
        something like, " ... but when Becky brought David home ..."?

Best,

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 02:13:16 GMT
From: pidge@antispam.on.ca
Subject: Re: Darlene's baby

On Wed, 21 May 1997 17:35:40 -0400, Jenny Dean wrote:

>didn't she say that when Becky brought David home that she thought he
>would be better for Darlene? and the other way around with Darlene and
>Mark? i dont know, maybe i'm confused

Correct, she said "When Becky brought home David...."

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:16:53 -0400
From: Stephan Mynarkiewicz <stevieb@iw1.net>

That was exactly how she said it...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 02:11:52 GMT
From: pidge@antispam.on.ca

Yes, the baby was born.  Roseanne (the writer) stated "when Darlene's baby
nearly died..."

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 13:14:26 -0700
From: Jessica <NO_SPAM!!!!!!!@nowhere.com>

AliceBeard wrote:

> My interpretation was that Darlene and David were the real-life couple who
> were parents of the baby. And that Becky and Mark were the real-life
> couple. That she just showed at the end how she would switch them in her
> writing.

Yes, I believe the situation was that Darlene and Mark WERE the real
couple, but Roseanne didn't like them together so she wrote it the other
way around. Thats why we saw Darlene and David together, because the
entire series was Roseanne's book.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 09:52:46 GMT
From: KLHVA <klhva@aol.com>
Subject: Finale

I have watched the final 15 minutes of Rosanne about 3-5 times and cried
like a baby each time.  Even though I haven't enjoyed this season as much
as past ones, this ending redeems it all in my mind.  I cried at the
revelation of what her character was actually going through - the death of
her husband.  I don't feel the slightest bit cheated...everyone is worried
about the reality of what was the show.  Well, losing a husband and
wanting to create a fantasy in order to bear the pain is about as real as
I can imagine.  Hearing the words " I lost Dan..."  Man, the shock was
overwhelming.  I am seriously getting teary eyes just reading everyone's
posts.

The whole husband swapping thing had me a bit confused as to when this
story actually started.  But ya know, it just doesn't matter.  There is a
bigger story here which focuses on Roseanne...and her dream of being a
writer.  I am a bit confused as to why she chose to focus on this part of
herself after neglecting it in the story line for what seems like YEARS.

But then again, if the show has been her writing...it hasn't been
neglected...it was just finally shown to us.

I have spend a great deal of time watching this show and falling in love
with the Conner family.  Roseanne, you have created one of the most
endearing families in television history.  Thank you for a meaningful
ending to a wonderful story.  I'll miss ya...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:42:45 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>

I agree, I do not feel cheated in the least.  I think the writers of
Roseanne out did thereselves.  The ending was very dramatic and tied in
the whole unrealistic Fantasy season.  The way Roseanne would have made it
if she could of... Wow.  surprise surprise... I will miss the Conner
family as well.  Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:12:59 GMT
From: Clarksville Street Department <joey@iglou.com>

Hearing Roseanne say "I lost Dan. He's my first thought in the morning and
my last thought at night" had me bawling! I just had to feel sorry for her
character as *she* had to create a fantasy in order to cope with her loss.
I have watched this show throughout my 20's and now it's no more. I'm
definitely going to miss it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:46:17 -0800
From: Laura Medrud <Laura_Medrud@dbug.org>

The part of the finale episode that really got to me was where Roseanne
reveals that she "lost Dan last year", and then the screen becomes darker
and she hears the haunting sound of him saying "Roseanne?"  "Rosie?" ....
It simply gave me chills and I got all teary eyed.  It just touched me
deeply, and I'm not sure why.

Laura

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 21:26:10 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

My husband told me that he was close to tears telling his staff about
Roseanne last night.  I cried like a baby well after the show was over.
And, today, telling my mom what happened (since she watched Mad About You)
I cried again and not just little tears... Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 15:43:12 GMT
From: ConnieV <christof.voelker@netway.at>
Subject: Re: Finale

Has anyone time to sum up the last episode for me?
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 11:09:17 GMT
From: G8tscott <g8tscott@aol.com>
Subject: Thanks, Rogers

Thanks for your great overview of the entire finale.  I missed it and was
sooo sad.  But now i feel as if i almost saw the entire show.
Pat Scott

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:03:03 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks, Rogers

Thanks. I was surprised I remembered most of it, but I think that had to
do with what a stunning, terrific ending it was. I couldn't give a recap
of the prior 45 minutes.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:42:16 -0700
From: me <me@here.com>
Subject: Let me get this straight

So, last night's "Roseanne" series finale was absolutely phenomenal.
Totally poignant and introspective. I am just confused about one thing:
the ENTIRE nine years has been the character's story, right?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:53:52 GMT
From: Linda <linda232@erols.com>

I got the impression that just the last year was a story. Although
that would not explain Becky and David, Darlene with Mark.That throws
me off. But I thought the story began this year, after Dan died with
that heart attack.
Linda

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 20:17:54 GMT
From: NeshX <neshx@aol.com>

I *think* so... I was confused at that at first too... I know it explains
why this last season has been so wierd, but what about the past?  I think
it is safe to assume that the whole thing was her story, and was her way
of getting on with her life after Dan died.  But if this is the case, then
why was it this season alone that was wierd?  And does anyone really
understand the Darlene-Becky-David-Mark thing?  Can someone explain?  In
*real* life, they are opposite couples?  Strange.. so she had the baby
with MARK?

--Nesh

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:42:39 -0700
From: Anastasia Marie <anastasia@mindspring.com>

Here's my take - we saw what Roseanne "the writer" wrote about her life as
it was happening. In essence, she was telling the viewers her life story,
but because it was actually her writing, and not "reality" she could
change the little details she had no power over in the real world, to the
way she thought things should have been.  The final season was so weird
because she was so overcome by grief, she couldn't write anything that was
close to reality.  Her entire life had been full of bad things she could
deal with, but after Dan died she couldn't bear reliving that in her
writings, so instead not only made up his survival, but gave the family
one thing they had always lacked - money, and lots of it.  All the crazy
things she wrote about after winning the lottery helped take her mind
further away from the reality of Dan's death.

> And does anyone really
> understand the Darlene-Becky-David-Mark thing?  Can someone
> explain?  In
> *real* life, they are opposite couples?  Strange.. so she had the
> baby
> with MARK?

I think everyone agrees this is beyond weird.  I can understand making
Jackie heterosexual (she didn't want to deal with the truth) and her
mother being gay instead (her way at "getting back at her").  I laughed at
the part about "Arnie" (Tom Arnold), when she finally admitted he wasn't
abducted by aliens, but simply disappeared. (Although that contradicts
itself, as Arnie did return after that and disappear again later.)

I wish she would have just left the characters of David, Darlene, Becky
and Mark as they were.  She could have revealed little things about them,
but to alter their lives to the extent of who they married leaves the mind
spinning.  I highly doubt Roseanne "the writer" told the story of one
daughter as though it were the other, so all we really have to do is
switch the characters of Mark and David.  Anything we saw happening to
Darlene and David actually happened to Darlene and Mark.  Anything about
Becky and Mark really involved Becky and David.  If you put it in that
light, I think it lets up SOME of the confusion.

I've never posted to this group before, all though I watched the series
from the beginning.  I missed most of this final season because, like lots
of people, the show just wasn't the same after that.  It wasn't the
Roseanne we had come to like so much, the one who experienced the types of
things lots of middle class families go through.  When she won $108
million in the lottery, she took herself out of that class, and people
stopped feeling that connection to the show.  Now that I've seen it was
all fantasy, I can't wait to see this season in syndication.

I was 15 when the show began, and now, at 24, the family I identified with
so much in the early years, is gone.  Now I wished I had taped this final
episode (I was doing the channel flipping thing, trying to catch the birth
of the "Mad About You" baby as well).  If anyone would be kind enough to
make a copy of this for me, I would greatly appreciate it.  I can mail a
tape and pay for the shipping.....this show is definitely a collector's
item - the perfect swan song for an incredible series.

Anastasia

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:05:55 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

This season was a flight of fantasy for Roseanne because she was
inconsolable about Dan's death. Past seasons were more grounded in her
reality, because it was a reality she could handle. The reality of his
unexpected death was more than she could take.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 08:13:18 GMT
From: SBerry7541 <sberry7541@aol.com>

Anastasia Marie writes:

>I wish she would have just left the characters of David, Darlene, Becky
>and Mark as they were.  She could have revealed little things about
>them, but to alter their lives to the extent of who they married leaves
>the mind spinning.  I highly doubt Roseanne "the writer" told the story
>of one daughter as though it were the other, so all we really have to do
>is switch the characters of Mark and David.  Anything we saw happening
>to Darlene and David actually happened to Darlene and Mark.  Anything
>about Becky and Mark really involved Becky and David.  If you put it in
>that light, I think it lets up SOME of the confusion.

I also wish that Roseanne would have left the David, Darlene, Mark, &
Becky as they were.  I think that really surprised everyone when we
discovered that they were paired differently than we thought.  IMO, she
should have just shared some little secret about each of them.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 16:11:51 GMT
From: Robodoc30 <robodoc30@aol.com>
Subject: Roseanne on God

I found it very interesting that Roseanne referenced her belief in God...
All through the show she seemed somewhat agnostic, and in true life she
has been fuzzy on the subject as well... Interesting ending.. Bravo... The
best series ending I have ever seen...Can anyone think of a series which
ended better?  I don't mean Happier, I mean better?  Pam

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 18:34:50 GMT
From: MAXIMOFF <maximoff@aol.com>

How about Newhart.  That finale was pretty strange, how the whole series
was a dream of Bob's character in his old Bob Newhart show.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:32:37 -0700
From: Suzanne Smith <smiths@dt.uh.edu>

How about St. Elsewhere.  I entire series was in the mind of an autistic
child.

Suzi
"I DO BELIEVE"

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 22:05:12 GMT
From: Corinne Funk <cfunk@fas.harvard.edu>

It was funny: the God thing bothered me for awhile, for precisely the
reason you mentioned -- it seemed so unlike Roseanne Connor.  But, hell,
it's actually kind of touching. <20> You're the real live Roseanne, and you
have ten minutes to say anything you want to about life.  Kind of sweet to
give props to the big guy.  Besides, it just sort of put into words what
has been clear all along -- a major think that separates "Roseanne" from
"Married with Children" is that it has a spiritual/moral dimension.  OK,
and a lot of other things too, but that's a big one.  :)  Roseanne Connor
has always been my hero; now Roseanne Barr/Arnold/justRoseanne is too.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:08:45 GMT
From: "Bryan F. Irrera" <bryan@mindless.com>

Robodoc30 wrote:

>Can anyone think of a series which
>ended better?  I don't mean Happier, I mean better?

I still get chills and cry like a baby at the ending of Mash...and I cry
at the end of Mary Tyler Moore too!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:04:25 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

Have you ever heard her old standup album "I Enjoy Being a Girl" (or
something like that)?  She talks briefly about what it was like growing up
Jewish in Salt Lake City.  My guess is that she grew up not feeling
comfortable talking about the subject because she was a religious outcast
as a child.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:42:47 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Irony of that song

The song that played during the commercail for Roseanne's series finale
was chillingly appropriate."I chewed it up, and spit it out"  "I did it my
way"

Indeed she did. She changed her life and wrote it differently and showed
it to us. And that was just the CHARACTER!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 16:51:25 GMT
From: Jach1005 <jach1005@aol.com>
Subject: Finale:  Planned or reaction to bad press?

I personally think that the last ten minutes of Roseanne last night were
among the best of its nine season run.  However, the cynical part of me is
wondering something:  Was this whole idea of a fictional Connor family
planned from the beginning of the season?  Or did Roseanne create this
twist to combat bad reviews and win back fans of the show who were put off
by this season's storyline?

If the ending was, in fact, part of the original plan for the season, it
was easilly one of the most heart-wrenching and innovative finales ever
seen on television.  (On par with Newhart's final episode revealing his
entire series as being a bad dream...)

But if this was something that Roseanne cooked up just to appease fans and
the media, it was the most manipulative and hollow episode of the series.

I pray this was not the case, and I don't believe it was, but you never
know...(after all, there was a rumor circulating a couple of months ago
that Roseanne wanted her character to die in the final episode)

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:04:57 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

There have been rumors floating around for many months -- some prior to
this last season -- that Roseanne was planning something remarkable at the
end, and that it probably involved Dan's death. I think she probably was
thinking about doing it last summer in the wake of Dan's heart attack.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 20:31:32 GMT
From: RobynJC <robynjc@aol.com>

A few comparisons have been made between Roseanne's ending and Newhart/St.
Elsewhere/Dallas.  With all due respect, and not to sound like a Roseanne
suck-up, I think what she did was a good deal more profound.  She wasn't
trying to make a final, great joke (a la Newhart) or repair a casting
problem (Dallas).  She was making a fundamental, near-religious statement
about the power of dreams, the role of fantasy, and the dynamic interplay
between life and art.  I hated this entire past season and stopped
watching a while ago, but the message of this last fifteen minutes is
undeniably powerful.

Here's what I wish, though:  I wish the "revelation" had come sometime
mid-season, rather than at series end.  Then we could see the new
"reality" of Roseanne -- the "real" Roseanne Conner who's been writing the
series all this time -- play itself out on screen.  In other words, we'd
have a half-season of gay Jackie, dead Dan, and some time to adjust to the
notion of a Darlene/Mark marriage.  Mostly, though, if she had started
with this final revelation sometime in mid-year, we wouldn't have had to
suffer an entire season of terrible, phony plotlines.  The idea that she
was grieving so terribly for Dan that she couldn't stand to write the
truth -- and that the "fantasy" she created was so off the wall and inept
-- I would have like to see the repercussions of that.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:05:37 -0700
From: bogatyr lev <"linde@erols.com"@erols.com>

Actually, rather than making a St.Elsewhere/Dallas comparison, I'd say the
ending sounded suspiciously like that of "The Hotel New Hampshire"  (one
of John Irving's better novels).  Except that [IMHO] "Hotel" had slightly
better writing (and, of course, Jodie Foster, and a bear called State o'
Maine). Consider the following lines, here quoted (without permission,
alas, though for educational purposes):

"So we dream on. Thus we invent our lives. We give ourselves a sainted
mother, we make our father a hero; and someone's older brother, and
someone's older sister-they becaome our heroes, too. We invent what we
love, and what we fear. There is always a brave, lost brother-and a little
lost sister, too. We dream on and on: the best hotel, the perfect family,
the resort life. And our dreams escape us almost as vividly as we can
imagine them."

pg. 449 "The Hotel New Hampshire" (John Irving, Simon & Schuster, 1981)

ciao jeff of jeff'n'rachel

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:21:44 -0600
From: davisk3@gunet.georgetown.edu

jach1005@aol.com (Jach1005) wrote:

> I personally think that the last ten minutes of Roseanne last night were
> among the best of its nine season run.  However, the cynical part of me is
> wondering something:  Was this whole idea of a fictional Connor family
> planned from the beginning of the season?  Or did Roseanne create this
> twist to combat bad reviews and win back fans of the show who were put off
> by this season's storyline?

I think it was her way of saying "screw you" to all of the critics and
people who have been blasting this last season. I think she was saying
"Ok, you don't want the Conners to be rich and happy, I'll keep them poor
and unhappy (really unhappy)..THERE how do you like that"?

She got the proverbial, and literal, last laugh (that's how I viewed her
laugh at the very end of the bump).

Kelly

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 12:40:42 GMT
From: Lovecoffee <lovecoffee@aol.com>
Subject: planned or reaction to bad press?

i have been trying to cope with this whole series finale thing and i have
been looking for some sort of salvation in these notes to ease my mind.
this message about the reaction to bad press is the one that helped my
deal with my "loss."  it makes me feel better to think that this was a
ploy on roseanne's part in real life and it takes a comic genius to come
up with something like this.  it is sad that even for a tv family people
can't be happy for someone else when something wonderful happens like
winning the lottery.  it just goes to show that misery loves company.
roseanne i will miss you and your marvelous talent.  beth.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 15:05:54 GMT
From: Jach1005 <jach1005@aol.com>

As author of the original post, you're welcome!  I personally believe that
we shouldn't view the ending of Roseanne as being the gospel.  The more
I've reflected on it, I'm now pretty confident that the last 10 minutes
were her response to the hits she's been taking since the start of the
season, and not truely the "reality" of the Connor family.  If this plot
twist had been planned since the beginning, why were there so many
holes/unexplained comments (ala the whole becky/david, mark/darlene
thing), and why would she subject her fans to 22 episodes of garbage (not
counting the birth), if she were planning to give us this "revelation".
Why not reveal it mid-season?  I hate to say it, but this whole thing was
the equivilant of Rosie giving us all the finger.  Of course, that's why
we love her...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:56:17 GMT
From: xitaclan <xitaclan1@ix.netcom.com>

ROseanne was never about happiness, if you think that, then you must have
been watching the wrong show.  I always thought that Roseanne was about
showing that not every family is middle class and happy and content.  The
ending was not about feeling good, it was a fitting end.  Thanks
Roseanne!!!! If you want a happy ending, try watching some other show like
"Family Matters."

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 07:41:55 GMT
From: Philip Chien <nobody@nowhere.com>

Jach1005 writes:

>I personally think that the last ten minutes of Roseanne last night were
>among the best of its nine season run.

Agreed.  It had impact, it was well written, well acted, and everything
which we had enjoyed with earlier seasons of Roseanne, but was missing in
the past season.

>However, the cynical part of me is
>wondering something:  Was this whole idea of a fictional Connor family
>planned from the beginning of the season?  Or did Roseanne create this
>twist to combat bad reviews and win back fans of the show who were put off
>by this season's storyline?

I'll vote for the latter.  Roseanne, the domestic godess commedian who
rose to stardom and a lot of Hollywood power has always been the type to
go 'up yours' at Hollywood.  The entire scene seemed to be a cynical
attack at everybody who she's had a fight with - including her personal
family and ex-Husband Tom Arnold.

>But if this was something that Roseanne cooked up just to appease fans and
>the media, it was the most manipulative and hollow episode of the series.

I'll vote for this choice.  Roseanne (the producer) knew that this was her
last season, and she could basically get away with practically anything.
So why not have a season of silliness where anything goes? And then end it
all with a pathos filled episode which partially explains what happened,
and gets her some more press.

>I pray this was not the case, and I don't believe it was, but you never
>know...(after all, there was a rumor circulating a couple of months ago
>that Roseanne wanted her character to die in the final episode)

Along with a bunch of other rumors, many which have come true, many which
were incomplete ideas in the minds of the writers, and possibly even some
which were planned, but scratched once they became known.

In terms of reality the last season of Roseanne really stank in the
ratings.  Repeats of "Home Improvement" did better in the ratings than new
episodes.  So yes, the fans were certainly turned off by the unrealistic
plot lines.  But the ending did do better than the rest of the season (not
that that's saying much).

As far as syndication is concerned, it's doubtful that the final scene
will be included.  It invalidates the series - or at least the past
several years - and just confuses the viewer.  You've never seen the final
cast goodbye in "Mary Tyler Moore" syndicated shows for that reason.  And
there were reports that the primary characters were supposed to marry in
the last episode of "Who's the Boss", but the production company nixed the
idea because it would hurt syndication.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:46:41 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Explain how the becky/david, mark/darlene thing wasn't properly explained.
I mean how hard is it to just switch the names and bodies. The events
probably happened almost exactly as we saw them just that mark and david
were really given the wrong names and bodies.

I think the last 10 minutes covered everything quite effectively.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 19:38:53 GMT
From: Dennis McLaughlin <denmc28@anet-chi.com>

Dive, thoughts, down to my soul -- here Philip Chien comes:

>As far as syndication is concerned, it's doubtful that the final scene
>will be included.  It invalidates the series - or at least the past
>several years - and just confuses the viewer.  You've never seen the
>final cast goodbye in "Mary Tyler Moore" syndicated shows for that
>reason.

Really?  What happened at the end of "Mary Tyler Moore" that was excised
for syndication?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 20:28:51 GMT
From: Karyn Davis <davis@crc-corp.com>

  Wasn't the final MTM where they all hugged in the newsroom and waddled
to the door in one large mass (or something like that)?  Because if it
was, I have seen that in syndication.  I don't think it invalidates
anything.  Think of The Waltons - just because it was a book didn't make
it any less valid.  I don't really see how the final Roseanne invalidates
anything.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:28:57 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

I have seen the final episode of Mary Tyler Moore in syndication.  Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 21:32:39 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: finale part 2 P.S.

P.S.:  I agree that they should have given more time to what was really
supposed to have happened to the characters.  I would have made the whole
episode and indeed the whole series more satsifying.  I do feel very gyped
out of real conclusion to the show, happy or sad.  I think loyal fans
deserved at least that much after 9 seasons.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 21:13:09 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: Finale part 2

The more that I think about it, the more I understand why Roseanne ended
her show the way she did.

Yes, we were indeed duped.  The entire show was Roseanne Conner's
imagination.  Did anyone notice there was no mention of baby Jerry (or
Andy)?  (That would also explain how Roseanne could find out whe was
pregnant in May of '94 and not give birth until Halloween '95).  For all
the veiwer knew, Roseanne Conner is still working at the Wellman plant or
maybe even that was made up.  There could have never a Gary, Fisher or
Fred (or any of the other 3 men a year for 20 years as she told Fred),
because Roseanne said that Jackie had ALWAYS told her she was gay.

If there is someone out in internet land who taped the show, could you
quote exactly what was said about Darlene and Becky?  I am sure she said
that the HAD switch spouses, but maybe I misunderstood.

As far as the book goes, I have come to respect that creative decision by
the real Roseanne more.  I am the mother of a severely disabled child and
have often gone into flights of fancy about how different life would be if
my son had not been injured by my doctor.  I wonder how different my own
sister's life would be if whe were not gay.  And how many of us haven't
wondered about what life wouldn't have been like if we or a loved one had
married someone else.  To that end I think that it was a very interesting,
sensitive end, but in my imagination, life would be MUCH happier. Then
again, the final episode did go back to the roots of the show with a
kinder working class heroine Roseanne that we came to love at the
beginning of the series:  the one who loved her children and wanted them
to have a better life instead of the constant insults, the one the one who
could lean on her sister's shoulder because they always had each other no
matter what and who loved and depended on Dan as her soulmate and not a
punching verbal punching bag.  It really makes me feel better not only
about the last year which I didn't watch, but also about the last several
bleak, mean spirited seasons that I did sit through and wonder why.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 22:17:12 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>

Sorry, that was COULD NOT have been a Gary.........

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 21:26:30 GMT
From: ScottyG100 <scottyg100@aol.com>
Subject: Re: finale part 2 P.S.

I feel as if the final was written in an attempt to bring about the
rumored 1 more season Rosie battled for. With Dan dead, she would have
gone back to her trailer-trash roots and the new storyline would be
featuring Roseanne and DJ

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:58:06 GMT
From: Bill Donovan <bdonovan@execulink.SPAM-OFF.com>

JEMEEK wrote:
> [...]  Did anyone notice there was no mention of baby Jerry (or Andy)?

Didn't Andy appear at the crib-side?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 18:13:09 -0400
From: Stephan Mynarkiewicz <stevieb@iw1.net>

JEMEEK wrote:

>If there is someone out in internet land who taped the show, could you
>quote exactly what was said about Darlene and Becky?  I am sure she said
>that the HAD switch spouses, but maybe I misunderstood.

Here goes:
"When Becky brought David home a few years ago, I thought 'This is wrong,
he was much more Darlene's type"...(cut to Becky and David talking)
"When Darlene met Mark, I thought he went better with Becky"...(cut to Mark
and Darlene talking)

"I guess I was wrong, but I still think they'd be more compaitable the
other way around.  So, in my writing, I did what any good mother would do,
I fixed it."

Hope that clears it up somewhat :-)...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:57:37 -0400
From: Eva Whitley <ewhitley@qis.net>
Subject: The last Roseanne Episode

Okay, I figured out that it started realistic, and became more and more a
flight of fantasy...

but what about that whole deal with the Prince? What was *that* all about?
(Yeah, I know the "real" Jackie is gay, and Roseanne kept seeing her with
a guy.  But there's a big gap between Fred or Booker or Roseanne and Dan's
old biker buddy, and a Prince!)

I had a really rough time getting to sleep last night, and kept flashing
back to the show.  Wish I knew why I found it so disturbing (by constrast,
I slept like a baby after Frank Pembleton's stroke last year on the
HOMICIDE season finale).--Eva Whitley

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 12:31:42 -0700
From: "Matthew B. Tepper" <ducky.deathtospammers@deltanet.com>

The only thing that could have been more confusing would have been if the
characters had all found themselves in different bodies.  You know, like
that science fiction writer has in his novels.  Jack somebody.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: Web geek, duck admirer, SF reader, Berlioz fan

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:14:21 GMT
From: "bpc@davewc.mv.com" <bpc@davewc.mv.com>
Subject: now cast bows!!!!!!

I was very disapointed that they didn't show the cast come out at the end.
I think that's where I would have shown the most emotion.  I remember
Family Ties and Full House doing that.  That would have been the best
moment.

Brian

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:49:37 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>

EXACTLY!!!  That REALLY annoyed me!!!!!!  I don't know about you, but I
saw the commercial for this episode and it HAD a clip of the cast bows in
it!!!  So they actually DID go out and bow for the audience, but we didn't
see it!! I spent the entire hour looking forward to seeing it, and then
was disappointed. Why they failed to show that I have NO IDEA.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:18:38 -0500
From: Chris <patricks@qni.com>

I think the ending with Roseanne on the old couch in the old living room
had more emotion than the cast coming out smiling and holding hands and
bowing or something cheezy like that.  The reason Full House did that was
because the show was canceled and an appropriate series finale was never
filmed.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 08:13:17 GMT
From: SBerry7541 <sberry7541@aol.com>

I was also looking forward to the cast coming out at the end to take their
final bow.  I just knew that they would show this since the commercials
that ABC had been showing had a small clip of this.

SBerry

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:04:18 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

As much as I would like to have seen a final curtain call, I can see why
they left it out.  From an artistic standpoint, it made a much more
chilling image to see Roseanne on the couch alone.  Bringing the cast --
including Dan -- back out would have weakened the impact of the show's
ending.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1997 22:57:11 GMT
From: G8tscott <g8tscott@aol.com>

I hate to say this but maybe Roseanne didn't want to share the stage with
anyone.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 21:47:15 -0700
From: Jamie <jamschmi@indiana.edu>

I don't think so...I was also one of the many who wondered where the final
bows were, but if you think about it, it's simple. Roseanne knew people
were going to be blown away by this finale, saddened, depressed, whatever.
Without any final bows, we as an audience get no closure from the last
10-15 minuets of the series. Not seeing them all together on the stage at
the end makes it all the more depressing, and all the more realistic. We
would see Dan one last time...we would see who Darlene and Becky were
standing next to...etc., etc... I have a hunch that many people wouldn't
feel so bad if they "had" seen everyone alright at the end in the final
bows, unfortunately for us, they didn't....  Jamie

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 12:30:48 GMT
From: drol dog <102651.546@CompuServe.COM>

The cast bows were shown in full on Oprah about a month ago, when Roseanne
was a guest for the full hour...  Excellent hour of Oprah I must admit...
It was really emotional and Oprah gave Roseanne the most reverential
treatment I've seen her give ANYONE. Oprah even went as far as BOWING
repeatedly to Roseanne...  it was really sweet...  and the audience just
cheered and cheered and cheered and gave Roseanne 2 standing ovations: one
at her entrance when four guys carried her out on the beloved Conner couch
with the knit blanket and all(this was her entrance) and the second when
Oprah was hugging her saying, "look, it's me and Roseanne." Anyway, the
point was, they showed the cast bows at the beginning of Oprah, and it was
really touching to see everyone crying...  plus, EVERY cast member sent in
a special tape to Oprah giving their final farewells to Roseanne (the
person)...  they said some of the sweetest things, most notably Johnny
Galecki-David-(who said at the end of his speech to Roseanne:  Goodbye and
I love you (he was tearing up) and Michael Fischman's (DJ) speech was VERY
touching also... he told her she was more of a mother to him than his own
mother...  I didn't mean to go through all this...  I just started typing
and reminiscing...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 1997 20:49:01 -0700
From: John <jcb@primenet.com>

If anyone hears of this being repeated, please try and post it here in
advance.  I did not know about the Oprah and felt like I would have
enjoyed a good bye from Rosie and the PEOPLE not just the characters
after all these years.
- John

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:30:54 -0700
From: andywhee@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Thank You, Roseanne

Last night's finale was amazing.  Over the past nine years, this show has
done some incredible things with story and characters--and in the past two
seasons, some really horrendous things.  But through it all, Roseanne's
voice has clearly been speaking.  There's no doubt that this has always
been Roseanne's show, and the finale drove that point home.

Thanks, Roseanne, for changing the face of TV.  The final ten minutes of
"Roseanne" were a perfect ending to a wonderful series--and a very
appropriate final "F--- you, it's my show" from Roseanne to all her
critics.

I'm SO glad I taped the finale--this is one I'll be watching again.

-andy.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 21:41:24 GMT
From: Wild Wes J <wildwesj@aol.com>
Subject: Thanks Roseanne (Was: Let me get this straight)

<<< I think it is safe to assume that the whole thing was her story, and
was her way of getting on with her life after Dan died.  But if this is
the case, then why was it this season alone that was wierd?>>>

Supposedly because she couldn't come to terms with the fact that Dan was
dead. She didn't want to write it that way.  It was fun writing about the
family together up til that point, and when she had to deal with his
passing in print...  it was easier for her to avoid it, sending her off
into a weird tangent for the last season.  It was denial, and running
away.  Like she said, it was almost as if Dan had betrayed her by dying,
so she had him run off with another woman in the book.  But in the end,
she couldn't do that to the Dan she had loved, and frankly, the Dan we had
loved for all those years.  I said to my wife, about 1/2 an hour before we
discovered that Roseanne had been writing it all, that I felt a bit
betrayed by what had been done to Dan's character in the last season.  I
was glad he was back, and that the chemistry had been returned at the end.
 When I found out he had been gone the whole time, it made more sense
character wise, and strangely, I felt better about them.  And sad as well.
Especially since Roseanne had made clear that she loved the full house,
the family and children about her, and yet when she finished writing, it
was clear that she was all alone in the big house now (looking exactly as
it had before the fictional lottery win).  Very sad.  A terrific ending
Roseanne.  You retored the faith, and brought a tear.  Thanks.

Wes

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 00:04:27 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

She wasn't necessarily alone in that house. She mentioned in the narrative
that the middle of the night was the only time she could write, because
that's when everyone else is asleep and the place is quiet. Darlene, Mark,
their baby, and D.J. might all be living with the "real" Roseanne.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:39:51 GMT
From: Scott Padulsky <quimby2@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: The finale (did you notice....)

I've been reading the discussion regarding the finale with interest.  One
nice touch that I haven't seen posted elsewhere was that the camera's pan
around the table when everyone was eating chinese food was nearly
identical to the opening credits from a few seasons. I thought it was
great.

A wonderful finale to an excellent series.

Scott

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 21:19:41 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

Scott-Yes, I couldn't agree more.  I did notice the Chinese Food scene and
see the similarities.  I am going to miss Roseanne so much.  Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:27:12 -0500
From: Chris <patricks@qni.com>

Read My Post:
RE: Roseanne's unexpected metafictional ending

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 07:33:24 GMT
From: Lynn and Larry Payne <lynnpayne@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: The finale (did you notice....)

I, too, noticed this as the scene played out and boy, it sent chills down
my spine.  It would have been great to play that in the opening of maybe a
"reunion show" five years down the raod...but I don't think that will
happen now.  Oh well....thanks for the memories Roseanne!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:35:06 -0600
From: mkitta@mail.win.org
Subject: Roseanne's Farwell

I think that the entire premise that the entire show was a fantasy made up
by a broken woman, as well as being sad, is a very good one...  I only
wish that the last show could have been a season finale... Only because I
thought it was sad that we really didn't get to know anybody.  The only
thing we knew of the real Roseanne was what we saw at the end.  I found it
saddening that the Roseanne that we saw sitting on the couch at the very
end was a stanger of sorts...  Well those are my toughts...

I have much respect for Roseanne for making this show that touched my life
as well as millions of others, Thank You Roseanne!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:13:45 -0500
From: CRAMER234 <CRAMER234@prodigy.net>
Subject: final episode

Maybe I'm way off base -- but due to the numerous references to Roseannes
"writing room" during the final episode, I thought perhaps her "book" was
begun at the point Dan built the room for her. Her "book" has been writing
a running commentary of their life, switching characters such as Mark and
David, and changing parts of peoples personalities address her desire to
mold their lives. The story line in the series (her book) took a tidal
wave when Dan passed away. The fact that she admits the real Conner
"reality" into the last minutes of the series is an admission that life
doesn't allow us to change people or to resolve all conflict with money or
within a 30 minute time frame. The ending disturbed me, and I admit I felt
betrayed, but I also got the feeling that Roseanne Conner had faced her
"reality" and was going to be okay anyway. The sitcom addict in me would
have been more content without the last 15 minutes though. Even though
these are not real people I would be much happier thinking Dan and
Roseanne were watching Bonanza together tonight.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 23:25:36 GMT
From: Mike Isaacs <isaacs-mike@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Let's call the finale for what it was: a gimmick

The much awaited final 15 minutes of "Roseanne" played like a spiral that
turned back on itself and provided fans of the show with an intriguing
mind game of sorts: what has been "real" over the last nine years and what
has not?

In fact, the game may have been so intriguing that it has kept fans from
asking the most important question about the controversial ending: what's
the point?

The sad truth is that clever as this wrap-up may have been, it really was
little more than a "gimmick" packaged in "artistic" window dressing to try
to validate the show's disappointing and often unwatchable final season.

If considered completely in a vacuum, the ending had its effective moments
as difficult to shake off as anything on recent prime time television. The
way Roseanne filmed the "idea" of Dan's death, for example, is certainly
to be remembered forever: the fade from the happiness of the familiar
kitchen to the dark and loneliness of Roseanne's writing room -- Dan's
voice calling for her softly in her memory. This brief "goodbye"  was so
good at casting a mood of loss and loneliness that it is no wonder so many
people posting here have felt so moved.

But let's put the ending back into the context of what the show has been
about for nearly a decade. As effective as the ending was at evoking a
somber and heartfelt mood, you're left thinking only this: How much better
this last season would have been had the show actually attempted to deal
with a working class mother with a new baby and other children fully grown
dealing with the loss of her husband.

In that way, "Roseanne" would have been able to carry on the way it had in
its first eight years by finding unexplored ground to cover, by taking on
more challenges in getting inside the turmoil of everyday life through the
eyes of a working class mother.

What must be asked, I believe, is what's the artistic or political point:

What's the point of learning that Jackie is gay and that the whole series
did not depict the real character we thought it did? What's the point in
learning that the relationships we had trusted -- Darlene and David and
Mark and Becky -- were not the "real" relationships we believed them to
be.

It's great to spin convention on its head, as Roseanne has done so
magnificently so often, but only when there is reason to do so -- when an
artist is going after higher ground. That was not the case here. What
these shocking revelations did -- once you strip away the kind of artistic
pretentiousness in which they were presented -- was provide the series
with twists and turns as it ground to a halt. The biggest disappointment
of the last season (and the last episode) was making us realize that
Roseanne, the artist, had lost touch with an audience she had so
successfully reached in the past.

"Roseanne" minus the last year is among the best prime-time television
shows ever aired. Its depiction of family life from a working class
perspective and its ability to deal with gender, race and class in a way
that was devoid of all heavy-handedness, remains a true network miracle.
When Roseanne laughed at the end of the opening credits of each episode,
we always got the feeling she was laughing in part at conventional
television that refused to portray family life grounded in reality. After
that laugh, each "Roseanne" episode in its own way went on to explode the
sanitized traditions of situation comedy as we had known it.

But when Roseanne left her writing room Tuesday and sat on the old couch
in her old house one last time, her laugh was heard yet again and I felt,
for the first time in nine years, that she was laughing at me.

Mike

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:55:56 -0700
From: Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com>

I'm one of those fans who did want to know "what's the point" . . . and I,
for one, have come to the conclusion that "the point" was aself-serving
spit-in-the-face to anyone even remotely involved with the series:  from
the critics who've blasted her right on down to the fans who dropped like
flies this season because of the stupidity of what the series had become.

> The sad truth is that clever as this wrap-up may have been, it really was
> little more than a "gimmick" packaged in "artistic" window dressing to try
> to validate the show's disappointing and often unwatchable final season.

Preach, my brother, preach!

> If considered completely in a vacuum, the ending had its effective moments
> as difficult to shake off as anything on recent prime time television. The
> way Roseanne filmed the "idea" of Dan's death, for example, is certainly to
> be remembered forever: the fade from the happiness of the familiar kitchen
> to the dark and loneliness of Roseanne's writing room -- Dan's voice
> calling for her softly in her memory. This brief "goodbye"  was so good at
> casting a mood of loss and loneliness that it is no wonder so many people
> posting here have felt so moved.

Agreed.  The ending was powerful . . . but I am sick and tired of programs
that attempt to manipulate my emotions simply because it might make "good
tv".  The "Bobby in the shower" scene of Dallas was idiocy.  I was
disgusted with how St. Elsewhere was trashed in the final moment of its
series finale.  The Newhart finale I could accept, simply because the
series was based on lunacy, and that's what was expected.

When I want manipulation and deceit, I'll watch the X-Files.  At least it
doesn't pretend to be something it's not.  Roseanne, however, was a comedy
. . . a comedy that, for several years, created and developed a strong
cast of characters.  When you tuned in, you knew what to expect.

> In that way, "Roseanne" would have been able to carry on the way it had in
> its first eight years by finding  unexplored ground to cover, by taking on
> more challenges in getting inside the turmoil of everyday life through the
> eyes of a working class mother.

Yeah, that probably would make for interesting tv . . . for another
series.

Personally, I think that over the past season, Roseanne absolutely crapped
all over one of the best characters in tv history:  Dan.  She spends the
entire season painting him as an adulterer who abandoned his children . .
. and then kills him off in the end . . . for no apparant reason other
than shock value.  I can't help but think that it was a revenge, of sorts,
because John Goodman had the audacity to want to leave the show.

> What must be asked, I believe, is what's the artistic or political point:
> What's the point of learning that Jackie is gay and that the whole series
> did not depict the real character we thought it did?

Simple . . . none.

>What's the point in learning that the relationships we had trusted -- Darlene
>and David and Mark and Becky -- were not the "real" relationships we believed
>them to be.

Again . . . none.

> It's great to spin convention on its head, as Roseanne has done so
> magnificently so often, but only when there is reason to do so -- when an
> artist is going after higher ground. That was not the case here. What these
> shocking revelations did -- once you strip away the kind of artistic
> pretentiousness in which they were presented -- was provide the series with
> twists and turns as it ground to a halt. The biggest disappointment of the
> last season (and the last episode) was making us realize that Roseanne, the
> artist, had lost touch with an audience she had so successfully reached in
> the past.

Beautifully put.

> "Roseanne" minus the last year is among the best prime-time television
> shows ever aired. Its depiction of family life from a working class
> perspective and its ability to deal with gender, race and class in a way
> that was devoid of all heavy-handedness, remains a true network miracle.
> When Roseanne laughed at the end of the opening credits of each episode, we
> always got the feeling she was laughing in part at conventional television
> that refused to portray family life grounded in reality. After that laugh,
> each "Roseanne" episode in its own way went on to explode the sanitized
> traditions of situation comedy as we had known it.
>
> But when Roseanne left her writing room Tuesday and sat on the old couch in
> her old house one last time, her laugh was heard yet again and I felt, for
> the first time in nine years, that she was laughing at me.

And she was.  She laughed at you, she laughed at me, and she laughed at
all of those who had helped to put her where she is now.  I wouldn't be
surprised if a crotch-grab and a hearty "F--- You!" were edited out just
before the final laugh.

Regardless of how she wants to paint the picture, the fact remains that
she spoke of departing from the shows original format and doing truly off
the wall shows for this season.  She turned her back on the Connors . . .
and she turned her back on those who cared about them.  The show's
longtime fans found no humor in the direction she took them . . . found no
substance . . . found nothing to relate too . . . so they turned their
backs on her.  Ratings plummeted, and somebody finally took a stand and
decided it was time for the show to die.  In my opinion, she simply got
pissed and decided, "Well, I'll show them all . . . "

And yes, she did.

In a matter of minutes she totally trashed everything she, and the others,
had worked so hard to build.

In closing, I would like to say, "Nice work, Mike."  I'm glad that not
everyone was snowed by the "brilliance" of the final season and the final
show.  I'm really surprised that more people don't feel betrayed by this
heap of garbage that was shoveled to them.

I find it hard to feel pity for Roseanne, sitting all alone in her quiet,
dark house.  In the end, she, herself, gave her home the emptiness that it
now holds.

Later,
Troy

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:03:48 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Troy Brackett wrote:

> In a matter of minutes she totally trashed everything she, and the
> others, had worked so hard to build.

It's funny how most people would disagree with you.  I just don't see how
the changes she said she made "trashed everything she, and the others, had
worked so hard to build."  I felt that the finale brought the show right
back to it's roots.  It seemed to get even more realistic then it has ever
been which is an accomplishment for a show that was always known for its
realism.  I mean anyone who writes anything based on reality would make
changes simply because it allows you to escape into a bit of personal
fantasy and explore your creative side.  In the end Roseanne explained
everything and it is one of the best shows ever to be seen on tv.

> And she was.  She laughed at you, she laughed at me, and she laughed at
> all of those who had helped to put her where she is now.  I wouldn't be
> surprised if a crotch-grab and a hearty "F--- You!" were edited out just
> before the final laugh.

Considering she has ended every show for years with a laugh I don't see
where you get all this bull.  I mean that laugh was an exact duplicate of
the others they've used for a long time.  It wasn't this big planned Fuck
You otherwise she probably would have put some more into it like
re-recording it.  I felt that if the laugh meant anything specific it was
more like the laugh of a survivor.  She lived through a lot of pain and
can still laugh about the strange things life throws in our direction.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:45:52 -0400
From: Heather A <heathera@coil.com>

 Mike Isaacs wrote:

>But when Roseanne left her writing room Tuesday and sat on the old couch in
>her old house one last time, her laugh was heard yet again and I felt, for
>the first time in nine years, that she was laughing at me.

Very well written. I kind of had that feeling yesterday as I re-watched
the episode with my husband. Thank you for putting it so eloquently.

I am still not sure what I feel about this episode. I think it was
brilliantly played, but as I watched a re-run yesterday on FOX, I really
had a hard time getting past the whole premis of the ending of the series.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 14:55:09 GMT
From: RobocopKlr <robocopklr@aol.com>

Thank you so much for that fitting description of this artsy-fartsy
rationalization for Roseanne's virtually MOONING us in that crappy final
season! It's was just an obvious attempt to fool the audience into
believing that there WAS no crappy final season, that it was all a DREAM!

And a BEAUTIFUL, SIGNIFIGANT dream at that!

Let's have the TRUE account of what "really" happened: For all those who
want to know the "REAL" way it happened!

Rosanne is rolling around in all the money that ABC paid her, UP-FRONT,
for her final season contract, since everyone KNOWS that ANYTHING that
Rosanne makes will be GREAT. Next, she screams (in her usual ladylike
manner), "FUCK THE AUDIENCE!  I'VE GOT MINE!" and goes to work instead on
her list of people who have abused her and are responsible for her life
being as crappy as it is, poor wrecthed little thing.

To avoid getting getting sued by ABC, she flips out some nonsensical
rediculous crap about winning the lottery and living happily ever after
and lots of other stuff she stole from "road-runner" cartoons. Then, the
closes with some sentimental dimestore tear-jerking "voice-overview" that
ends up centering, quite naturally, on HERSELF, with some more nice
fucking with the heads of the audience over what "really" happened as
opposed to what we just SAW for the last 10 years. God what a let-down:
it's over, and the fat lady didn't even SING!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 15:15:36 GMT
From: RobocopKlr <robocopklr@aol.com>

>I find it hard to feel pity for Roseanne, sitting all alone in her
>quiet, dark house.  In the end, she, herself, gave her home the
>emptiness that it now holds.

Yes, and the sad thing is that she blames everyone else for it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 18:58:12 GMT
From: Andy Domonkos <domonkos@erols.com>

Definitely a let down, with Roseanne laughing at us in the end, instead of
singing.

I've never seen a sitcom detriorate into bitterness the way this did. I
still watch the syndicated re-runs, love them to no end, but this last
season, and the way it ended were a sad tribute to an otherwise great
show..

Reminded me of bad expired milk, should have been put out long ago, but we
had to go back for one last drink anyway (like the milk episode a few
years ago where no one threw it but put it back in the fridge).

Glad it's over...

Andy

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:08:42 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>
Subject: The BEST!!!!

Hello, I am writing to alleviate some of the final-episode stress.  I am
going to tell you about my favourite Roseanne scene ever, and I will try
to remember it as best as I can.

It is the morning after the power has been shut off.  Jackie comes in, she
picks up the phone and dials her answering machine.

She says she hasn't even been home since last night. She gets bread out of
Roseanne's fridge. The fridge light is off. "You might want to fix that,"
she says.She says she went to a singles bar last night. She crosses the
room and puts the bread in the toaster. She says she met this great guy,
and she really hit it off with him, and they have been having sex all
night and she came straight to Roseanne's house from his. She pours a
glass of milk. She gets a breakfast milkshake-thing out of the cupboard.
"There's a message on here from you, Roseanne." She puts the milkshake
thing in the blender and turns it on, but the blender doesn't work so she
punches the button again, and again. "Why do you need all my candles and
flashlights---oh."

I can't portray just how FUNNY that moment was, but I'll tell you I nearly
wet myself!! It was just awesome.

And now, the line you all know is coming...
Post YOUR favourite scene!!! Give us a laugh.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 02:29:30 -0700
From: Mackey McCandlish <avatar@widomaker.com>

        You really cant beat the dealing-with-DJ-Masterbating scene (altho
the lights out episode was a great one also). Due to the fact that the DJ
bit was also replayed in another episode, I must have seen it about 4
times, but Darlene's merciless wisecracks about it and DJ's total lack of
comprehension ("Who told you I was playing with my instrument in band? I'm
not even in band!") are always hilarious.

                                          -*Avatar*-

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 16:54:59 GMT
From: Kiwilerner <kiwilerner@aol.com>

>She puts the
>milkshake thing in the blender and turns it on, but the blender doesn't
>work so she punches the button again, and again. "Why do you need all my
>candles and flashlights---oh."


ROTFL, yes yes yes!!!  And the capper is Roseanne's remark:

"Well...now we know the speed of stupid!"

Brilliant!

Most of my favorite scenes involve Jackie, I must say.  Another favorite
is Jackie's reaction to Dan's beating up Fisher.  Laurie Metcalf's
constantly changing emotions were hysterical.  I'm paraphrasing here, but
when she's taking Dan to task for hitting Fisher, she says something to
the effect of: (Angrily:) "I can't believe you did something so
stupid....(sobbingly grateful:) "For ME!"  And she does that a couple more
times.

The Dan/Jackie relationship was so realistic.  Remember the episode where
Jackie takes over for Rosie, who's visiting Bev.  Jackie and Dan grow
close.  At one point she asks Dan if he remembers the first time they met,
and Dan pretends he doesn't remember...and then, as he's on the phone to
Rosie, he pauses and tells Jackie--who's on her way out the
door--everything she was wearing down to the last detail.  Jackie puts her
hand over her heart, touched and flattered, and leaves.

Sigh!  Great stuff.

-- Kira

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:50:18 -0500
From: Johnny Brave <jlusk@comm.net>
Subject: Who's your favorite character?

I know many wont agree, but I like Bev better than anyone.  I love the way
that woman plays Bev, with the floppy-neurotic thing, and I actually felt
bad about the way the others treated Bev, even though I know it's only a
show.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 09:54:34 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

Oh, I hate Bev. :)

My favorite regular is Darlene. My favorite guest (duh) is
Jerry/Steven/Dr. Phillips (Michael Des Barres).

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:40:58 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@no_spam.bc.sympatico.ca>

Oooooh I hate Bev... But she was one GREAT actress! Remember when she and
Fred were up at night smoking cigars?? that was funny.

My favourite is Roseanne herself. She is just the funniest. I love that.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 18:47:21 GMT
From: Ann <nid@bigfoot.com>

My favorite character is Jackie... She saved the show so many times with
her comedic genius... I'll miss this character very much.

~Ann

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 07:43:16 -0400
From: Vicky Trzeciakiewicz <VickyBB@webtv.net>

          Dan was my favorite character.  His absence from half of this
seasons episodes was surely felt. The best parts of the the show IMHO,
were the one- liners passed back and forth between Dan and the rest of the
characters.
           I will miss this show so much. Thank god for reruns!
           Vickybb

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 02:17:11 GMT
From: pidge@antispam.on.ca

I loved the episode when Jackie's ex-husband was sitting on the couch with
Bev alone and all of a sudden she changed her voice to a lower pitch and
that was her real voice.  They should have capitalized on that.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 19:50:18 GMT
From: "Thomas O. Huber" <th.huber@magnet.at>

Cyndi Glass says:

>My favorite regular is Darlene.

Yeah mine too. I really will miss her. Anybody know of future movie or
series plans of her?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:09:20 -0500
From: kimberly saulsberry <kimrae@webtv.net>

I know you wont believe this but the origional Becky was my favorite.  The
way her and Roseanne fought all the time is something that I could really
relate to years ago.  I would have shot her if she was my kid, but her
smart mouth always cracks me up!!!!!!!

                                Kimberly Saulsberry

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 23:01:49 -0500
From: patricks <patricks@qni.com>

I would have to say that my favorite character is Darlene.....maybe that's
because i'm a sarcastic little shit myself

Chris
patricks@qni.com
http://www.qni.com/~patricks

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 01:42:56 +0100
From: Lorraine Pearce <lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Loose meat sandwiches to go

Talk about being blown away...
My first ever posting to a newsgroup, and judging by the reaction of
those who've already tributed (or disputed) the last show, I gotta say,
Roseanne, you are worth every single syllable.

I'm in England where the last episode has not yet been shown - it'll be
next week I suppose - owing to a premature soundbite on Radio 1's News, I
thought from all the fuss it was going to be shown tonight. However thanx
to you guys Stateside, I understand the full genius of what we millions
loved to tune in for year after year...

Double thanx to Paramount Comedy (satellite channel) as they are currently
re-running all the episodes until the 'lotto win', and helping me to fill
in a few gaps where I (and apparently Lecy Goranson too) went to
University. Seemingly, like a lot of other otherwise supportive fans I
hadn't seen much of the 'fantasy' season, partly because the whole idea of
it sounded so out of whack, but now I feel like the penny is dropping with
a ton of extra weight that was just NOT expected!

I can't wait to see the well-explained finale, but I gotta say yeah - I am
disappointed about the partner switching...were the episodes about 4 - 5
seasons back when Chicago student Darlene rejects David, while then David
finds solace, support and a "coffee" buddy in Becky a big hint to that
effect?? Yeah, what's already been said about Roseanne drawing a contrast
between what should ideally happen in life with how the real- life results
often 'suck' gets extra points. I was a bit disappointed in a 'no show'
for Becky No 1, but there ya go - hey, she might just be a busy
blue-collar mum herself right now...

I've always had enormous respect for Roseanne as a comedienne (and now
especially as a writer!!), with her sheer guts to incorporate "difficult
issues" into comedy and still give it (street) credibility. What about the
way her character brought dignity to a depressingly realistic situation?
What a role model! Hell, forget Madonna (although she is also a tragic
heroine or feminist icon, whichever school of thought/gender you are) -
living in post-industrial Northern England of 1997, I'd take Rosie as a
foster Mum/big sister/best friend for inspiration anytime.

Last word (honest) to English group folk - try to catch the Larry King
interview with our heroine on CNN - its bound to be repeated - it shows
the real Roseanne with the profound, spiritual side that got revealed in
the show at last. Viva our Rosie!  Lorraine Pearce

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 17:58:32 -0700
From: JScarborough <scarboro@wolfenet.com>
Subject: looking for final wav.

Did anyone record the ending version of the theme song from the final
episode.  PLEASE send it to me....I will be your eternal slave

Thanks
       J.
               .....What doesn't kill us...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 97 01:48:02 GMT
From: Carin  <longneck@tminet.com>
Subject: Roseanne fan needs HELP!!!

I have a genuine sob story for you...yesterday was the last episode of my
favorite show-Roseanne, well I missed it. My Mom had a heart attack and I
was with her in the ER, this is no joke. I'm just wondering if anyone has
a tape...I would gladly pay you for a copy...then Mom and I can watch it
together while she recuperates...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 97 00:05:54 GMT
From: Carin  <longneck@tminet.com>
Subject: Re: Roseanne fan needs HELP!!!-THANKS

Just wanted to thank those of you who responded to my plea for help!
Before yesterday I diden't even know this newsgroup existed but I'll
definately stay with it now ('course now that theres no more show I guess
we'll have to discuss re-runs!)  Anyway, I was certainly surprised at the
quick response I got and I'll look forward to veiwing the tape very soon.
Again THANK YOU to everyone who offered to tape the show and send it to
me...you're good people!  Bless you all.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 21:42:24 -0600
From: Ena <ena_wark@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Series Finale (It was great)

I just wanted to say that I'm glad that someone finally aired a show on
t.v. that actually made us think for once.  Usually anything we see is
layed before us, and we just watch.  This is like one of Shakespeare's
plays, where you have to "dig in" to it and maybe find out what it means
for you, or what you think the producers wanted you to think.  They did an
excellent job on this particular episode.  I wish the rest of the season
had been as good.  It was a great show....

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 23:10:07 GMT
From: MAXIMOFF <maximoff@aol.com>
Subject: A strange observation...

I forgot to say this in my last post, but a friend of mine observed that
Roseanne stopped talking about writing after the episode when she got the
writing room.  For all the Roseanne fans here, is this true?

Maximoff

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 10:39:09 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>

No, Roseanne and Dan had a fight about it.  It was when they were fighting
about Bev saying that Roseanne was a good Mommy and that Jackie could have
been "special".  Dan said that they had built Roseanne the writing room
but she never used it after she said her parents could have encouraged
her.  (Remember her children's book character Pippit) I think that was the
episode anyway

-----------------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 1997 04:21:22 GMT
From: Tziper <tziper@aol.com>

References to Roseanne's wanting to be a writter were made far and few
between. I reacall one show where it was brought up in the when Darlene
wanted to be a writter.  Also I think I remember something about Rosie
refering to her writting as being like the boat Dan was building,
something that would always be around but never finished

-----------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1997 22:59:38 GMT
From: MAXIMOFF <maximoff@aol.com>
Subject: Questions and confusion...

I can't remember exactly when the "Writing room" epsiode appeared.  I'ts
been a long time since I saw that rerun.  Did it appear before or after...

Mark made his first appearence?
David made his first appearence?
Leon made his first appearence?

Maximoff
(thinks Roseanne should go online to explain this to us :)

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 13:56:14 GMT
From: RobenRox <robenrox@aol.com>

It was definitely before any of those characters were on...I'd go as far
as saying it was the first season because DJ looked about 6 or 7.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:07:25 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

I think the whole series has been her book.  However, she kept
showing/alluding to the writing room as foreshadowing of what the ending
would show, not as a marker for when the fiction began.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:00:58 GMT
From: Bill Donovan <bdonovan@execulink.SPAM-OFF.com>

The "writing room" was very early in the series.  I'm pretty sure it
preceded all the characters you mentioned.  Maybe not Leon, though.  Was
she working at Wellman's or Rodbell's then?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:08:43 GMT
From: Bill Donovan <bdonovan@execulink.SPAM-OFF.com>
Subject: Re: Questions and confusion...

OK.  I think we've established that the "writing room" appeared very early
on, but...

BrYan Westbrook wrote:
> I think the whole series has been her book. However, she kept showing/alludin
g
> to the writing room as foreshadowing of what the ending would show, not as a
> marker for when the fiction began.

D'oh!  I know how you cross-post; but how do you cross-thread?!  This
should be in the "Planned or Reaction" thread...  There's no way the
"writing room" was a foreshadowing of the whole series.

I think "the twist" maybe took root in Roseanne Barr's mind at the
beginning of this season, or last season, when she knew she'd have to wrap
things up.  And she did so in a tremendously artistic way.

But there's NO WAY this was planned from the start of "the writing room".

Roseanne Conner was quite likely portrayed as a wannabe writer early on,
simply because Roseanne Barr is very creative, and she might inject that
into the lead character, and because it's not unusual to have blue-collar
people who have such talents, but without the means, ambition or hope to
pursue it.

I can't decide whether or not it was a reaction to critical response to
the decidedly *crappy* last season.  I think maybe not, just an
independently excellent wrap-up to the inevitable ending.

btw I thought the ending was phenomenal, a very poignant and talented
denouement.  (well, "phenomenal" is right on the money... this ng has gone
from dribbling posts to the phenomenon of scores of posts... make of it
what you will)

But there's no way that the whole show was planned that way from the start
of the "writing room".

I was *very* impressed with the final 15 minutes.  I'm not going to admit
I cried, because I didn't.  I showed exceptional control, because I took
deep breaths to slow down my heart rate, and I forced my eyelids open, so
that quelling tears didn't trickle down in a mess.  I was able to recover
in a few minutes with no damage to my cheeks.  I was totally composed.  I
did not cry.

Planned or not, there is the issue of the crappy last season.  It's like
an apology.  It doesn't take away the pain of sitting through the
episodes, just because you'd been a loyal fan, repugnant though they were.
And it doesn't satisfactorily explain the actions.  But somehow, it does
"make up for it".

But I ramble...

-------------------------------------
Bill Donovan / bdonovan@execulink.com
http://www.execulink.com/~bdonovan/

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:35:37 -0500
From: patricks <patricks@qni.com>

the "writing room" episode was the season finale of the 2nd season

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:07:00 -0500
From: Tammy Birk Reader <tbirk@pop.service.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Roseanne's/my relevations

   I have to agree with all posters here who have rightly credited
Roseanne for offering us the most haunting and affecting finale I've ever
seen.
   It turns out that I -- like other posters I've read -- have been
thinking about the last 10 minutes of the finale for most of the day. I've
also been thinking about why I'm haunted by what I saw.
   I'm haunted because Roseanne rather unexpectedly revealed something
about me to myself.  I was prepared to ceremonially retire a show that I
have enjoyed -- and not enjoyed -- over the years.  I was prepared to wrap
up all of the characters, the ongoing narrative, prospects for an entirely
fictional future that I would not see. I planned to do this and then grade
some student essays before bed. Instead, I wound up staring at the screen,
replaying the last scene, and wondering why I couldn't process these 10
minutes of television.
   I think that the conclusion of this series has revealed my unexamined
investment in fictions of all sorts -- the TV shows I watch, the novels I
teach, the stories I tell people about my past, the fantasies that I
construct for my future while I'm out jogging or driving, even the lies
that I tell myself about myself.  I'd like to believe that I can carefully
separate "fiction" from "reality" (whatever that means), but I suppose
that I'm actually dependent upon a regular confusion of the two.  So -- it
turned out -- was Roseanne Connor the Writer and, I'm speculating,
Roseanne herself, the flesh-and-blood comic who tried to simultaneously
fictionalize her life and make her weekly fictions "real."
   I also think that this final episode revealed to me something about the
way that we all bang our heads against the "intractable" things of life --
unexpected and undeserved death, who others choose to love, sexual
orientation, the parents you're given,the class you inhabit. Sometimes,
like Roseanne Connor the Writer, we wind up striking a fragile balance
between acceptance and denial or (creative) opposition.  I may not have a
"writing room" in my basement that allows me the space to reinvent what

I don't understand or wish were otherwise, but I strongly identified with
the *desire* to do so.  Roseanne, the newly revealed (and somehow always
understood) Writer, mirrored something back to me that caused me to
rethink a little more than the credibility of the last season.
   I don't know if others feel the same, but I wanted to try to make some
beginning verbal sense of some pretty vague feelings.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:57:32 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: Roseanne's/my relevations

That's an insightful take on the show and why it was emotionally moving.
Even people who disliked the last episode have registered a strong
emotional response to it -- the anger and vitriol posted here is evidence
of that. It shows what we invest in a show's fictional universe, and what
we expect of a show when it ends.

Compare the reaction from Roseanne to the reaction from other longtime
shows that closed down. There aren't a lot of people walking around who
think Wings betrayed them when it flew the coop.

Even if you hated the weird ending to Roseanne, I think you have to give
them credit for making people talk about the show again one last time.
Considering how universally loathed the last year was, it's a real
accomplishment.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 05:17:05 GMT
From: DSPed <74557.3434@compuserve.com>
Subject: Reel around the table...

It's also significant that the final scene with the "entire" cast was at
the dinner table, with the camera rotating around it ... just like the
original opening credits. Kinda puts a neat little bookend on the whole
thing, I'd say.

All in all a superb finale. Class way to go out, Rosie! We'll miss ya.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 01:39:15 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>
Subject: Jerry and Andy

Are we to believe that Jerry and Andy were never born?

Jonny B.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 05:50:46 GMT
From: breitman <breitman@silicon.net>
Subject: Reeling from Roseanne

I am so moved that people took this final episode as seriously as I did.
I actually wanted to send flowers or a note to Roseanne Connor when I
learned that Dan had died.  I have been watching the show since 1991.  My
husband and I were in the process of buying a new car on a Tuesday night
in 1992, when he told the salesman, "We'll come in tomorrow and sign the
papers."

It was 8:45 p.m., and "Roseanne" was on at 9:00 p.m.

Last night, I was watching the final show and thinking that it was
sentimental and predictable, when all of the sudden the family gathered in
the dining room and the camera started to pan their faces.  It was sort of
surreal.  Once Roseanne's voice over began, I said to my husband,
"Something's happening."  Once she said, "Last year I lost Dan," I was
universe, and what we stunned.  Minutes later, my respect and admiration
for Roseanne went through the roof.  All that fantasy stuff was exactly
what she might have written after Dan died.  I was reeling from the chance
she took -- she probably lost half her audience last season (I didn't
watch her show much) but, to tell you the truth, the impact of that final
fifteen minutes wouldn't have been as intense had the show stuck to a
normal linear narrative (i.e., literally showing us what happened to the
Connor family after Dan's death).

Now, I keep imagining over and over the pain she must have felt, knowing
that Dan will never see his granddaughter, celebrate another Halloween
with her and their friends (those episodes were the best), have another
poker game in the house, play basketball with Darlene, or have a father to
son talk w/ DJ.  I remembered the episode in which Jackie was getting
beaten up by Fisher.  Dan overheard Jackie and Roseanne talking and then
left the house.  He later told Roseanne he had gone to see Fisher.  "What
did he say?" she asked.  "I don't know, it sounded like 'Ouch!  Oh, no,
not my head!"  he said.  Dan really loved Roseanne and his kids, and even
Jackie.  The show really suffered without him this season.

One more thing -- Roseanne has effectively killed my ability to watch the
reruns.  Dan's dead -- it all seems so sad.  Another thing -- there's not
going to be a "Roseanne" cast reunion movie 10 years from now.

I think Roseanne is way ahead of the rest of us.  She's dangerous -- she's
a serious artist, has incredibly high standards, takes risks, and is on a
mission -- check out the T.E. Lawrence quote that she used to end her
show.  I'm glad to have been the beneficiary of her brilliance these past
six years.

Bernice Reitman

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 13:10:28 GMT
From: Tziper <tziper@aol.com>

im behinde you 100% on Roseanne and especialy this last show.  As far as
Im concearned, Roseanne totalty justified not only this past seasons
shows, but all nine years worth. Shes brilliant

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:02:27 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

The Dan you watched for the past nine years is alive. He finished the show
alive, eating Chinese food around the table along with all of the other
fictional Conners. There's another fiction in which he died, of course,
but viewers don't know a lot about that universe at all. There are too
many differences to get a real feel for it.

Roseanne may have screwed up the ability for a reunion, though I'll bet
she could still do one and make it work in a decade or two. People will
forget their immediate visceral response to the ending narrative.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 17:13:47 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>

> Roseanne may have screwed up the ability for a reunion, though I'll
> bet she could still do one and make it work in a decade or two.

Couldn't this actually make a reunion more interesting?  We could get a
look at the "real" Connor family for the first time.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 05:21:43 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Normally, the desire to watch a reunion show is to catch up with the
people whose lives you followed for many years. If there was a Roseanne
reunion in 2007, I would want to see the Darlene/David, Becky/Mark,
man-lovin-Jackie, living-Dan version.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:06:08 -0700
From: Gord Gray <ggray@phc.igs.net>
Subject: The 4th kid?

Didn't Roseanne and Dan have another baby, 2 seasons ago?  What happened
to it?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 07:19:47 GMT
From: Sean Wilkinson <swilkinson@spaminator.techplus.com>
Subject: But what of Dan's mom?...

        I find myself wishing that Roseanne, in her ten-minute coda, had
given us some kind of status report on Dan's mother, whose mental illness
precipitated so many intense and touching episodes...to envision her lost
shows, butand alone due to Dan's death makes me shudder...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 09:22:30 -0400
From: Eva Whitley <ewhitley@qis.net>

Well, not quite.  They've made references (principally in the first
episode with Dan's father) that Dan has a brother.  True, we never saw
him, but he might have risen to the occasion.--Eva Whitley

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 04:03:56 GMT
From: AliceBeard <alicebeard@aol.com>
Subject: Trains, planes & automobiles

Recall the John Candy movie "Trains, Planes, & Automobiles." In the story,
John Candy is a happy-go-lucky goofus salesman, always talking about his
wife, and his home. At the end of the story, it's revealed that the
salesman's wife has been dead for a good long time. He just tells folks
she's alive and he has a home because it eases the pain or reality. He
creates his own illusion of reality, and eveyone buys into it, until he
reveals the truth at the end.

Roseanne Connor's story was the same. It's just that the story took more
than two hours to tell. She told her life story as it was happening,
fixing and straightening all of the details as she went along. Kind of
like the old children's story about the girl with 100 dresses.

If you have only potatoes to eat, day after day, find a way to convince
your mind it's steak, and fish, and cake, and apples.

The more I think about what the real-life real-life Rosanne did, the more
impressed I am with her talent.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 08:06:46 GMT
From: Seth Zwicker <apocalypse@mindspring.com>
Subject: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT THINK IT WAS *ALL* THE HER STORY.

        The only time we every got to see the "real" Roseanne was during
those last few minutes with her in the writing room and the couch.  The
entire show we witnessed had been written by Roseanne after Dan's death is
how I took it.  It was his death that prompted her to start writing and
I'll bet that Darlene already had the baby quite some time ago.  Some
people are saying that just this season was fiction or that it went off on
a tangent after the episode where they put together the writing room.  I
disagree primarily due to her description of the "real" Jackie who was
apparently the strong one and openly gay all along.  Obviously neither of
these traits actually applied to the Jackie we've seen.  (I think that
Leon's husband Scott was the probate lawyer she used after Dan's death.)
        Her story was probably in pretty good sync with her "real life" in
terms of the small incidents here and there with some changes and
modifications along the way.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 13:15:14 GMT
From: tomr@fred.net
Subject: The Roseanne Series Finale

[delurking on a.t.r]

I will admit that I'm not even a lukewarm Roseanne fan. I'll watch the
syndie show between eps of "The Simpsons". So, when the series finale hit,
I was elsewhere. "Oh, well, I'll find out what happened on Usenet."

I missed something BIG. Dang.

I want to thank the denizens of a.t.r for the synopsis of the ending. I
didn't even watch it and it had me unnerved and pondering for most of
yesterday and today.

I will not only give her credit... Roseanne pulled off a grand slam.

I would not be surprised if she has a copy of J. Michael Straczynski's
"Complete Book of Script Writing" on her shelf. That's a twist worthy of
The Great Maker JMS. <GG>

Again, fantastic.

--
TomR@Fred.Net
http://www.fred.net/tomr
"Boston is a great sports town. Shame it doesn't have any teams."

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:16:55 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

I'm sure they'll rerun it once at the end of the summer.  Don't miss it!
Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 03:13:49 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I wouldn't be so sure that this episode will ever air again. Most likely,
abc will continue to promote Home Improvement^<5E> and air it during
Roseanne's^<5E> time slot. Looking into the future when season 9 is
syndicated, I do not see this episode fitting in to the mix. If it does
air again, I would think the episode would be edited and perhaps end with
the family having Chinese food.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:51:20 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Why wouldn't they use it in the future.  That episode is the perfect
ending.  By making the series a book you are in one way given this total
sense of it being complete and this other feeling that you missed some. It
was a brilliant ending and I felt it actually validated the whole series.
For a show that's always been known for its realism the whole idea of
having your spouse die and not being able to cope brings the show even
closer to reality.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:25:40 -0500
From: Scott Cason <scason@edge.net>

For a television station running Roseanne in syndication, using that show
would mean ending the syndication run.

rgds,
Scott  KD4YHH

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 11:47:11 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Ok, well can you explain why the ending would end the syndication?  I mean
I will probably watch reruns of the show even though I have seen the
ending.  Maybe that's just because I don't think it changes anything.
Actually tonite they are playing the Patsy and Eddie episode and I really
want to see that one.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:25:55 GMT
From: Wade Noble <a1b00369@ultranet.ca>
Subject: Re: Jackie being gay

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

>Past seasons had to be part of the book, because anything that deals
>with Jackie being a heterosexual is not accurate, according to
>Roseanne the Writer.

I actually took Jackie's being gay to mean that she had just recently
realized it, or recently come out, like Bev did in "the book".... that
would mean that Jackie's past dalliances and marriage (and child)
still happened.  At least, that's the way I'm interpreting it.Cheers,
Wade Noble
wnoble@ultranet.ca

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 09:11:33 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

But Roseanne's line was something like "she's always told me she's gay".
That kind of indicates that this isn't really a recent revelation.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 04:54:27 GMT
From: SongLover <songlover@aol.com>

ok, now Roseanne has said that "she's always told me she's gay."  That
doesn't mean that Rosie heard it; it just means that Jackie indicated it
to her in many ways.  Take her different jobs as a cop or a trucker, for
instance.  Her bad luck with men.  But then some subtle times when Rosie
maybe changed Jackie's coming out to be someone elses, such as when Nancy
comes out or even as recent as when Bev comes out.  Jackie could easily
have been involved with men like Booker or Fred, and even had Fred's baby,
while still trying to deal with being gay.

Whatever the case, Roseanne sure put in some neat twists.  Her series has
so many different levels now.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 20:05:51 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Ummmm I dunno if you can read that much into "she's always told me".
Roseanne didn't seem like the type of character to label people who fit
stereotypes.  A lot of the characters on Roseanne seemed to fit a
stereotype but the great thing about that was this whole idea that you can
fit a stereotype, still be human being, still be a cool person etc...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 04:24:22 GMT
From: SongLover <songlover@aol.com>

ok, I'm not stereotyping anyone.  Just trying to possibly explain how
Jackie could be gay, and how Rosie could have altered the reality in her
writing.

Here's another, albeit stereotypical, instance:  when she goes in for
therapy.  Did anyone watch Ellen last season?  hello!??

anyone thought of how maybe it was Jackie who took Roseanne to the lesbian
bar where she was kissed?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 08:47:32 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>

>>anyone thought of how maybe it was Jackie who took Roseanne to the
lesbian bar where she was kissed?<<

my, my... so that is roseanne next twist... she's a lesbian!

so, when she moves to l.a. she will meet up with ellen and they will both
be interested in the same woman and then...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 11:23:34 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

SongLover wrote:

> ok, I'm not stereotyping anyone.  Just trying to possibly explain how
> Jackie could be gay, and how Rosie could have altered the reality in her
> writing.

You were to stereotyping.  You said that maybe Jackie didn't really tell
Roseanne but Roseanne just figured it out because of the trucker, police
woman and bad man count.

> Here's another, albeit stereotypical, instance:  when she goes in for
> therapy.  Did anyone watch Ellen last season?  hello!??

Ummmm this must be a new stereotype.  The ones you mentioned about Jackie
were real stereotypes.  People assume that lesbians are butch truck
drivers like Jackie and you basically said Jackie didn't tell Roseanne
that Roseanne just bought into the stereotype of the butch lesbian.

In real life I think it is rare for gays and lesbians to do what Ellen did
and visit a therapist but I mean people go for that type of help for
everything - they can just make it easier for you to think things through.
In real life gays and lesbians are sometimes forced by ignorant parents to
go to a shrink to get "cured" but that is so rare and also doesn't count
as a stereotype.  The fact that she made the personal decision to go seek
emotional help doesn't feed any stereotype.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 1997 19:39:22 GMT
From: SongLover <songlover@aol.com>

listen, andru, regardless of whether or not you think I'm putting Jackie
Harris in a lesbian box, I'm here to tell you I'm not.  I've been around
gays long enough to know what the trends and tendencies are, and what the
stereotypes are.  And trust me, the people I come in contact can define
and defy those stereotypes.

Jackie taking on all these "butch" jobs is not something that I originally
thought up.  Roseanne did!  And she even commented on the trucker wearing
the flannel shirt in one episode.

And none of us really knows how Jackie came out to Rosie.  I was
speculating a number of possibilities.  I'm trying to help some people see
that it was definitely possible for Jackie to be gay in "real life" where
she wasn't in Roseanne's book.  That's something that we will never know;
it's entirely speculative.

As far as the therapy, lots of gays go to therapy.  I have a gay friend
who is a therapist, and across his entire profession, gays tend to go in
to resolve certain issues that end up being related to being gay.  Some of
those are issues with parents growing up, low self-esteem, or simply
coming out and accepting being gay.  That's how it started for ellen.
Possible the same for jackie.  But in real life it is very common for gays
to see a therapist because, guess what, it is harder for gays in society.

Now, why are you accusing me about making stereotypes and then turning
around and saying it's not a valid stereotype?  Not a very convincing
argument.

And finally, are you gay?  Your posts tend to come across as very
defensive.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 19:15:46 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

SongLover wrote:

> listen, andru, regardless of whether or not you think I'm putting Jackie
> Harris in a lesbian box, I'm here to tell you I'm not.  I've been around
> gays long enough to know what the trends and tendencies are,

Trends and tendencies?  As someone I am assuming isn't gay do you really
feel you know enough gay people to be able to point out the TRENDS and
TENDENCIES of millions and millions of people?  Geez trends and tendencies
sounds like a stereotype by itself.

> and what the stereotypes are.  And trust me, the people I come in contact
> can define and defy those stereotypes.
>
> Jackie taking on all these "butch" jobs is not something that I originally
> thought up.  Roseanne did!  And she even commented on the trucker wearing
> the flannel shirt in one episode.

Ok the real argument is between you and Roseanne:

You: Maybe Jackie never told Roseanne, maybe Roseanne just guessed.
Roseanne: She's always told me she is gay.

Hmmmm who to believe.

> And none of us really knows how Jackie came out to Rosie.  I was
> speculating a number of possibilities.

I'm sorry but looking gay just doesn't seem like much of a possibility
when all we are going on is "she's always told me she is gay".

> I'm trying to help some people see
> that it was definitely possible for Jackie to be gay in "real life" where
> she wasn't in Roseanne's book.  That's something that we will never know;
> it's entirely speculative.

I think it was explained pretty clearly.  Jackie probably came out to
Roseanne a few seasons ago.

> As far as the therapy, lots of gays go to therapy.  I have a gay friend
> who is a therapist, and across his entire profession, gays tend to go in
> to resolve certain issues that end up being related to being gay.  Some of
> those are issues with parents growing up, low self-esteem, or simply
> coming out and accepting being gay.  That's how it started for ellen.
> Possible the same for jackie.  But in real life it is very common for gays
> to see a therapist because, guess what, it is harder for gays in society.

Lots of people go to therapy to try and live through what are many times
unsolve-able problems but I mean it's hardly a gay thing.

> Now, why are you accusing me about making stereotypes and then turning
> around and saying it's not a valid stereotype?  Not a very convincing
> argument.

I accused you of using a stereotype and then explained that it just
doesn't back up your opinion.

> And finally, are you gay?  Your posts tend to come across as very
> defensive.

I am gay.  Sure some of my posts are defensive.  I mean if you were gay
how many times could you hear "so if Jackie is gay that means she never
had a kid" before you wanted to beat people?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:35:17 GMT
From: Wade Noble <a1b00369@ultranet.ca>
Subject: last episode

Wow... the hour really dragged, and it got extremely squooshy for the
first 45 minutes... but the last bit, explaining the whole works...  was
very moving.

My only gripe was that I wish that she had only made the last season
"fictitional"... I don't see the point in making the Darlene/David
Becky/Mark changes that she did.... I would have much preferred that the
only divergence between "the book" and "real life" was anything that
happened since Dan's heart attack, including the lottery fiasco, Bev's
"coming out" (as versus Jackie), etc....

That would have made a lot more sense to me, and probably would have
fueled less confusion... but then again... it gives us all something to
gab about.

Cheers,
Wade Noble

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 09:57:45 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

Wade Noble <wnoble@ultranet.ca> wrote:
>My only gripe was that I wish that she had only made the last season
>"fictitional".... I don't see the point in making the Darlene/David

If she had done that, everyone would be jumping on her case for taking an
easy out to explain the last season, which many people think was horrible.
They would see it as a big copout. This way, she has really pulled off
something cool.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 10:45:08 -0400
From: Tardis <rgavelis@oeb.harvard.edu>
Subject: Jackie's show

   I heard there is going to be a spinnoff involving Jackie.  Does this
mean the fictional straight Jackie or the Lesbian Jackie the final episode
referred to?

RG
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Some people can tell the time by looking at the sun,  |
|  but I have never been able to make out the numbers   |
|                                                       |
|                rgavelis@oeb.harvard.edu               |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:09:23 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

The networks rejected the idea of a spinoff or extra season. I don't think
Roseanne would have introduced the ending narrative if she felt there was
somewhere these characters could go.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 20:58:17 GMT
From: KarenC3 <karenc3@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Jackie's show: Rosanne's spinoff

I read that Rosanne wanted a spinoff in which Rosanne Connor and D.J.
would be the only characters left from the original series.  In this
spinoff, Rosanne would have been an author and I think it said that she
and D.J. would have been living in Las Vegas or something.  It sounded
weird at the time, because I was wondering where Dan would be.  But it
makes more sense now that we have seen the ending of Rosanne. I read that
ABC rejected this spinoff, but now I would have liked to have seen it,
because it would be the only chance to see Rosanne Connor, the author.

Karen

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:10:27 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>

'roseanne connor' with just d.j. would not be anything like the 'rosie' we
all were so fond of.  what made 'roseanne' so appealing was the
interaction among all the cast members... without the 'connor' family it
will just be more Roseanne Arnold-Barr-Whatever, a good stand-up comic and
a clever writer, but the special poignancy of 'roseanne connor' is gone.

Roseanne Arnold-Barr-Whatever excercised her creative power and privilage
and effectivly killed 'roseanne connor'... it will be very hard, probably
impossibile, for her to create another character as powerful and as
appealing as 'roseanne', but she is a clever and talented woman so...
maybe... someday... maybe...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 13:28:40 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: Re "Spit in the face"

I also think that there was an element of "screw you" in the finale.  Not
only to the critics, but to the former producers and writers, to Matt
Williams, to John Goodman and most of all to the fans who also thought
that it was time to give it up.  In the end, her self indulgence was her
undoing because it no doubt effected her ability to sell a spin-off to the
other networks, not to mention the 9 year history of hard times she gave
ABC.  She probably thought we should have fought harder to save her show
when she diecided that at the 11th hour she wanted another year.  I guess
you have to watch who you step on on the way up because you might need
them later.  I would like to hope that the finale was a creative decision
rather than an act of spite because otherwise it was a really mean
spirited thing to do to the people who supported her through her real life
trial, from 3 marriages, personalty disorders, problems with her children
and still claimed her, despite all her money, as the symbol of the working
class poor.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 18:01:49 GMT
From: "Juan D. Martinez" <martinej@dolphin.upenn.edu>
Subject: The Series on videotape?

Hi!

        Does anyone know if the series will be available on videotape?
        And, if so, when will it be available? And, lastly, where one
        can write to the cast and writers of _Roseanne_? Thanks in advance.

Best,

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 02:30:03 GMT
From: SBerry7541 <sberry7541@aol.com>

The address for the cast is:

c/o Roseanne
4024 Radford Ave.
Studio City, CA  91604

You just need to address your letter to the cast member that you are
writing.  I don't know if the address is any good now that the show has
stopped production.

Hope this helps.
-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 07:51:57
From: rennied@cdc.caltech.edu
Subject: Questions - last episode

There are 2 things that are not clear to me:
1.  The choking scene - why is Dan choking or is he just fooling around? It
doesn't make sense if the last "real" thing in the story was Dan's death at
the wedding.

2.  The couples thing.  She only switched the couples in the last episode
- so everything before that was the real story and the "switching" was
only in her book.  Right?

I guess the mother was gay in just the last year so that wasn't real
either.  She just wanted her to have something "special."  And was she
referring to her real life sister being gay or the actress that plays her
real life sister being gay?

I gues I am not clear about more than 2 things.

I loved the episode though.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:07:42 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

>1.  The choking scene - why is Dan choking or is he just fooling around?  It
>doesn't make sense if the last "real" thing in the story was Dan's death at
>the wedding.

He was quickly saved by Becky and Bev, according to some other posters
here. I think Dan's choking was a bit of a nod to the idea that there's
always a happy ending in a sitcom. Dan chokes, his family saves him, cut
to the credits. That doesn't always work out in real life, as Roseanne's
narrative was about to assert.

>2.  The couples thing.  She only switched the couples in the last episode - so

>everything before that was the real story and the "switching" was only in
>her book.  Right?

The "real" couples were Mark and Darlene and David and Becky. The ones
from the show were a fictional diversion from the truth because Roseanne
thought it made a better book.

If Roseanne the Writer was willing to do this, you can't determine what
parts of the show were "real" and what part were entirely fictional. The
revelation that the "real" Jackie is gay throws everything into doubt.

>And was she referring to her real life sister being gay or the actress that
>plays her  real life sister being gay?

She was referring to Jackie, so she had to be talking about Roseanne the
Writer's real sister, not Roseanne the comedienne/actress/grouch.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 14:09:00 -0700
From: James <joebloe@aol.com>
Subject: Incredible...

I also have to admit that I was not an "every week" Roseanne watcher, but
I did tape the finale, and kept up on current events with the show.  This
was perhaps the most depressing finale I've ever seen, yet the best finale
I've ever seen. I couldn't believe how I felt after watching the last ten
minutes of the show. I don't think there is a person on this planet who
wouldn't be moved emotionally by this...It all started when she said she
had lost Dan...I just about lost it.  This is certainly a historic finale
for the ages. This will be talked about for years to come...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 13:11:03 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
Subject: New York Times article

Well, I guess Caryn James has egg on her face now.

She wrote a long article about the show, mostly sort of flattering, but
jumping on the bandwagon of course. She writes of the finale as "curiously
flat," and then she tells more about the episode. She write, "The episode
doesn't milk the sentiment of the moment (bringing Darlene's baby home),
but it's not very interesting either. It's as if everyone is going through
the motions, taking a last curtain call but eager to wrap things up." She
writes good things about the series as a whole.

But what cracked me up was this: "The last 10 minutes of the hourlong show
were not available for preview, but it's hard to imagine they could make
much difference."

Guess she can imagine it now, if she bothered to watch it. Who in their
right mind would see that the last 10 minutes were not available and not
think that maybe something IMPORTANT was there?

They made a lot of difference to me.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:17:07 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: New York Times article

Critics have to work with what they're given when it comes to review
copies of upcoming shows. As someone who has reviewed shows before they
air, I can sympathize with the critics who panned the closing episode
based on the first 45-50 minutes. I thought the first 3/4ths of the show
were surprisingly flat.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 15:53:15 GMT
From: SWC555 <swc555@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Anger at show's finale

I don't think Roseanne created the ending of her show in anger to the
audience or the critics, if this was the case (knowing Roseanne) she would
have had them all be aliens or something, but this was poignant and sad.

I also don't think her laugh at the end was on the audience or the critics
for that matter (although that would be understandable), I think it was
"Roseanne Conner's" way of saying - after what could have been a very sad
and lonely ending - "Hey cheer up, I'm Roseanne!, I'll be alright."

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 16:06:17 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

SWC555 wrote:

>I don't think Roseanne created the ending of her show in anger to the
>audience or the critics, if this was the case (knowing Roseanne) she would
>have had them all be aliens or something, but this was poignant and sad.

Yes. She showed compassion for the original characters that we liked and
grew close to. And she drew on that to make us feel what we are feeling
now for the real Roseanne Conner -the one who lost Dan and tried to create
this other world to make it bearable.

>I also don't think her laugh at the end was on the audience or the critics
>for that matter (although that would be understandable), I think it was

I would certainly like to interpret it as a laugh at the critics. Those of
us who are fans were criticizing the show because we knew what it had been
and what it had the potential to be. Critics just jumped on the bandwagon
and said it was time to hang it up. There is a big difference, and
Roseanne recognized this and showed it by the way she ended the show and
by the way that "The Miracle" was more like the old shows (from what I
have seen this was the only really good episode of season 9, but I admit I
have not seen them all).

>"Roseanne Conner's" way of saying - after what could have been a very sad
>and lonely ending - "Hey cheer up, I'm Roseanne!, I'll be alright."

I like that. I like that a lot. Thanks.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:11:44 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Cyndi Glass wrote:

>I would certainly like to interpret it as a laugh at the critics. Those
>of us who are fans were criticizing the show because we knew what it had
>been and what it had the potential to be. Critics just jumped on the
>bandwagon and said it was time to hang it up.

There were a lot of critics who loved the show during the height of its
run, and helped to make it into the success it was. Even the writers who
said it was time to hang it up were supportive of the show's general
excellence.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 23:13:15 GMT
From: Hamish Moir <moir_w@common.net>

> I also don't think her laugh at the end was on the audience or the critics
> for that matter (although that would be understandable), I think it was

I thought the laugh at the end was symbolizing the end of the series.  For
the whole series we heard Roseanne laugh at the beginning of each show.  I
think it is fitting that she laugh at the very end.  It gives the sense of
finality.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:47:04 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>
Subject: But did you cry?

Ok as far as I can tell by reading all the season finale posts practically
everyone was completely blown away by it.  But how many other people
started to cry right when the camera panned back towards the table and Dan
was gone.

I have watched the last 15 minutes like 2 times and it not only makes me
cry it's more like a big pathetic weeping tears coming out like crazy.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:26:27 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

I did not expect to cry during the last episode...I loved Dan (john
goodman) so much and when they panned back to Dan's empty chair, at the
moment I realized how much Roseanne loved and missed her husband.  And
when Roseanne heard his voice calling her....it got me right here
:::pointing to my heart:::

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 22:50:20 GMT
From: Hamish Moir <moir_w@common.net>

I know it made me cry after the show.  I used to watch the show quite abit
when I was younger.  I only followed the last season and I thought I might
aswell watch the very last episode of Roseanne.

Most of the time TV isn't that emotional, but this time it hit the heart.

The best scene is when she concludes the character analysis and the
surrondings faded and you can hear Dan's voice echoing and calling her
name.  It brings a tear to my eye thinking about it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 05:25:35 GMT
From: frank goron <frankieg@westol.com>

I think the last time I felt emotion like this from a tv show was the MASH
episode where Henry Blake is killed...after a hundred times, that one
still gets me.

Frank

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:32:46 -0700
From: cocacola <ali@igc.org>
Subject: Help! My VCR went crazy!

When I went to rewatch the (wonderful) Roseanne season finale, my whole
tape was blank! Ack! Can anyone out there make me a copy? I will gladly
pay for the tape, the shipping and your kindness. Please email me.

Thanks, ali

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:21:52 -0400
From: KLB <st931200@pip.cc.brandeis.edu>

As much as I hate me too posts.  ME TOO!!

WHAAA!!!  So, ditto.  Is there anyone out there who can make me a copy.
I'll pay for the tape, shipping, etc.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 17:47:27 -0500
From: Sandra Graham <stinsley@NOSPAMmacconnect.com>

Me too!  Please

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 23:06:27 GMT
From: SWC555 <swc555@aol.com>
Subject: Thoughts and ideas about Roseanne

I have to admit I've mostly watched Roseanne in reruns, and although I've
always liked the show, I wasn't a huge fan or anything. Yet I can't stop
thinking about the "10 minutes" of the show's finale, I've never been
effected by anything on TV (a sitcom especially) this much. Not only was
it deeply sad and unexpected, but it was totally creative and most
importantly made me think (something not done too often regarding TV).
Even if this was Roseanne's (the real person) way of explaining a terrible
season, it was still brilliant.  I imagine alot of people will watch the
reruns now in a much different way (I know I will) and in that sense she
has "renewed" the show for us. At the risk of sounding dramatic the show
will now seem deeper and slightly haunted, knowing that it is the
fantasies of a grief-stricken woman. This goes double for the last season,
which now will take on an entirely different meaning, since we know Dan
really died. It will be weird and very sad to watch the wedding/heart
attack episode.

Anyway (for those still with me here), after reading people's messages I
think there is still alot of confusion. The way I got it was > The whole
series was based on a "real" Conner family - much like they were on the
show, but with differences that Roseanne explained during the "10
minutes".  My biggest reason for believing that the whole show was the
book, is because of Jackie being gay. If Roseanne always knew Jackie was
gay, then any episode with Jackie as a heterosexual is obviously from the
book. I do believe the baby really happened (although it was
Darlene's/Mark's) and this is what pulled Rosanne out her depression and
into writing the book. This happened within a year after Dan died, and the
first episode of the show back in 88 or whenever was the beginning of the
book. When she got to the part of her life where Dan died, she - having a
hard time dealing with it - went into a fantasy world (lottery, Dan
surviving, ect.) that was much more fabricated than the rest of the book.
I can only assume Jackie's kid did not exist. I'm not sure about Rosanne's
baby, he wasn't mentioned during the "10 minutes" which leads me to
believe he was a fantasy of hers for the book. If anyone has any thoughts
on this please post them. I've never posted messages before today, and I'm
sorry if I violated any "code" regarding length.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 10:07:54 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

SWC555 wrote:

> I can only assume Jackie's kid did not exist.

Why not?  Gay people can and do have children.  If you are willing to
believe that all this time heterosexual Jackie was really gay and all the
boys she went out with either didn't exist or were girls then why couldn't
she have adopted the baby or got a sperm donor?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:08:54 -0700
From: sugarcube@earthlink.net
Subject: Jackie/Laurie new show.

Laurie's new show will not be a spinoff of Roseanne, but instead will be
completely unrelated. I think Laurie Metcalf was by far the best actress
on Roseanne; I hope they find something even better for her.Any ideas?  Do
you think she should stick to a character like Jackie's? Or would it be
more interesting to see her do something different?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1997 18:47:59 GMT
From: Teresa Pavlinek <pavlinek@interlog.com>

I think Laurie should stick to comedy - not that I doubt her talent as a
versatile actress - but because she is an actress with a gift for comedy.
She was always my favourite character on Roseanne until the last season,
because then they made her a little too wacky. She was great at playing
wacky, but it just wasn't the same character anymore. To me, the character
of Jackie was based on her being neurotic and bitter about her childhood,
and a little bit "off". She was brilliant at bringing that character to
life, and watching her deal with her life in her own neurotic way was
hilarious. But they didn't need to make her absolutely crazy, it
completely ruined the character that we had come to love. But if she were
to do a new show and play a completely wacky character, that might be
intresting.

Steven.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 22:24:49 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I agree with Stevens post about Jackie. Watching the very early episodes
of Roseanne^<5E> we see an independent together Jackie. A couple of seasons
later Jackie became a little neurotic and dependant on Roseanne. This is
the Jackie I think all of us loved best. Toward the end of the series, the
character was destroyed... remember the monopoly game on a Saturday night
when Roseanne and Dan were going out to dinner for the last time before
Jerry was to arrive?

Jackie was at her all time best when she called Auntie Barbara to tell her
that their father had passed away......  Dads gone.......... Dads passed
on........Gone...... DEAD...DAD'S DEAD!!! DEAD!!  He's fine and sends his
love.  :)  Jonny B.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 18:11:28 -0600
From: mkitta@mail.win.org
Subject: Recording

I need to ask a big favor.  I am not sure why i did not tape the last
episopde, but I would really like to have it...  Also, I would really
enjoy any clips pertaining to the season finale... I heard there was
interviews ect on some news shows.... PLEASE email me!!!

Also, I am starting a Roseanne Page, it will mainly be an episode guide
and a guide to all the characters... it is NO WHERE NEAR being done,
considering i just decided to start it yesterday :) anyhow, the basic
layout is done.. the URL is http://cwi.simplenet.com/roseanne/ lemme know
if you have any suggestions!!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 17:19:31 -0700
From: Jason Lawrence <mustang@islandnet.com>
Subject: Could anyone send me a video of the finale?

I'm desperately in need of a video copy (complete!) of the series finale.
I'll pay for the tape and shipping, if need be. Please reply!

Thanks,

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 22:52:21 +0000
From: Kirsten Hoyte <Kirsten_Hoyte@concordacademy.org>
Subject: Looking for a video tape of final episode

I haven't really watched Rosanne for two seasons now.  However Tuesday
night I tried hard to watch it and the birth of the Mad About You Baby at
the same time.  Having lost my remote control, I was so busy switching
channels I managed to miss both (i.e. I didn't know the sex of the baby or
what happened on Roseanne until I read the newsgroups).  Anyhow, I'd
really like a tape of the final episode so I could decide what happened
for myself.  I'd pay for costs & shipping & handling and blah, blah, blah.
Please reply.

Kirsten Hoyte.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 03:02:54 GMT
From: Robert Kelley <rkelley@tiac.net>
Subject: Roseanne on Oprah  Please Help!

Does anyone happen to have a tape of the appearence of Rosanne on Oprah
(where see says goodbye to the fans)...  I would love a copy, and if you
are willing to help me out, please email me at rkelley@tiac.net.

        Thanks,

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:20:48 -0700
From: Jessica <Jessica_Young@bc.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Old Becky in new opening credits?

I have a question...wasn't there a season during which the old Becky came
back? I seem to remember Lecy showing up suddenly in the opening credits.
It was during the time when the characters were morphing from young to
grown up andLecy turned into Sarah Chalke and then back again. How long
was she on the show for this second time?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 00:27:08 GMT
From: Pd <p@imstressed.com>

I believe Lecy returned to the show in the '96 season (that may be wrong
but I THINK it was that season.) She was on for several episodes, but it
didn't seem like too many to me. They may have even alternated weeks in
there somewhere. My local station re-ran her re-appearance last night and
at the end they did a take off of the Patti duke Show with the 2 Becky's.
("They're BECKY's, Truly Identical Becky's and you'll find: they walk
alike and talk alike... you could lose your mind! They're Becky's! They're
two of a kind!") It was quite funny.

==P.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 18:03:47 GMT
From: Azmacourt <azmacourt@aol.com>

You left out the best line-- "they abruptly leave the show alike"

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 23:52:14 -0600
From: laconia@webtv.net
Subject: Re: roseanne said jackie is gay ?????

  "Michael C. Cerone" wrote:
> Jason Romero wrote:
> > In the finale she mentioned this..
> >meaning...
> >the actress in real life  or Jackie's character on the
> >show.,..
> >Jason
> I think she meant on the show but who knows!

So does this mean that Jackie's Baby son Does Not exist???  Or did the
"Real Life" Jackie had an affair with a man (Fred) in order to try to
change her sexuality???  Or was Fred just a good friend of Jackie's who
donated his sperm to her so that she can have a baby???

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:36:23 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

>the actress in real life  or
>Jackie's character on the show.,..

Jackie the character.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 05:13:34 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>
Subject: What Doesn't Kill Us.....

I was wondering if Andy and Jerry were ever born?

Also, If anybody could make a copy of the final I would appreciate it. My
fianc<EFBFBD> and mother did not get to see it and it is very hard to explain to
people. I don't think that this episode will fit into syndication.

Ofcourse, I will pay for all shipping, materials etc etc.

Thank you,

** Interesting how Roseanne said that Jackie was her pillar of strength.
The show dipicted Roseanne as the strong one and Jackie the one who was
dependent on Roseanne..... Just one of those things Roseanne Connor
changed.

Jonny B.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1997 12:21:15 -0400
From: "A.B. Zammit" <zammitab@muss.cis.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Two theories on Finale

I've read all of the posts since the finale and it seems that most of us
have agreed that the book Roseanne wrote encompassed the entire nine
seasons.  With that, we have two possibilities on when this book started:

#1:  Roseanne started writing the book shortly after the episode in which
     she receives her writing room from Dan and the kids.  She has been
     writing the book over the course of nine years, each season marking a
     chapter in the book, and with each new event in her life, she would
     adjust it to her liking (eg. David/Darlene/Mark/Becky pairings). When
     Dan dies, she begins the fantasy chapter about winning the lottery
     and Dan surviving the heart attack.

                        ***OR***

#2:  Roseanne started writing the book after Dan dies.  To cope with the
     tragic loss, she creates a world where Dan survives.  In seeing how
     therapeutic writing is, she decides she might as well fix other
     things about her life in which she had no control over...Jackie being
     gay, the whole David/Darlene/Becky/Mark pairings.  So she finished
     with the fantasy chapter but decided to start over, from the
     beginning, and tells the entire story that took place over nine
     years, fixing things here and there.

The two theories are very similar but both have different motivations.
The first is motivated by Roseanne's everyday struggle, and she turned to
her writing to control in fantasy what was uncontrolable in reality.  The
second is motivated by Dan's death, she used writing to bring herself out
of a deep depression, fixing everything that lead up to Dan's death,
fixing death itself and then creating a world where nothing could ever
touch the people she cared about.

Whatever the case, the last 15 minutes of the finale were pure genius on
the part of the real-life Roseanne.

Annie :)

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:15:22 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: Two theories on Finale

I don't think this theory works, because it negates Roseanne's assertion
that the lottery win stories represented her escape from reality. Why
would Roseanne begin a book after Dan's death, write many years of their
lives with well-grounded realism and good humor, and only lose her
bearings when she gets to the point of Dan's heart attack?

I think it's more believable that she wrote the book over the course of
many years, putting a spin on the events after they happened in a diary of
sorts. It was only when Dan died that her ability to process reality into
the book's stories fell apart, and she found herself delving deeper into
fantasy.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 13:14:48 GMT
From: Papaleonardos <Papaleonardos.1@osu.nospam.edu>

A.B. Zammit wrote:

>The two theories are very similar but both have different motivations.

I don't think the motivation is any different --

>The first is motivated by Roseanne's everyday struggle, and she turned to
>her writing to control in fantasy what was uncontrolable in reality.

Agreed

>The second is motivated by Dan's death, she used writing to bring herself
>out of a deep depression, fixing everything that lead up to Dan's death,
>fixing death itself and then creating a world where nothing could ever
>touch the people she cared about.

And how is this any different than "writing to control in fantasy what was
uncontrolable in reality"?  In reality she had no control over Dan's
death.

But I agree it's unclear whether she began her writing after getting the
writing room, or if she began writing her story after Dan died, as a means
of therapy of some sort. (And yes, I agree that probably the whole series
is Roseanne Connor's fictionalized account of her family's life).

>Whatever the case, the last 15 minutes of the finale were pure genius on
>the part of the real-life Roseanne.

Agreed.

>Annie :)

Chris

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 13:18:29 -0400
From: "A.B. Zammit" <zammitab@muss.cis.McMaster.CA>
Subject: Re: Two theories on Finale

  My take is that if she did start the book after Dan's death, she started
with the final chapter (the final season).  This created a place where she
could fix absolutely everything.  Upon finishing the incredible tale of
Dan's survival, the lottery win, etc., Roseanne sees how this has helped
her to cope.  So, she goes back and starts at the beginning, reliving all
of the good times.
  She didn't start at the beginning, she started at the end.  Books aren't
necessarily written in the order from start to finish.

>I think it's more believable that she wrote the book over the course
>of many years, putting a spin on the events after they happened in a
>diary of sorts. It was only when Dan died that her ability to process
>reality into the book's stories fell apart, and she found herself
>delving deeper into fantasy.

 I agree with you here....after watching the last 15 min over and over,
I've come to feel that she had been writing over the course of 9 years,
each season representing a chapter in the book and Dan's death marking the
final season of the show.

 In my previous post, I was proposing the two theories that have arisen
from the discussions in this NG.  I think that both of them can work if
you look at what motivated Roseanne to begin writing.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 19:52:17 -0400
From: cas6033 <cas6033@is.nyu.edu>

Papaleonardos wrote:

> >Whatever the case, the last 15 minutes of the finale were pure genius on
> >the part of the real-life Roseanne.
>
> Agreed.

I agreed with most of this very erudite analysis, but I can not agree with
the last bit. "Genius" is not erasing an entire nine year run on a whime
(and we know she did not have this planned from the beginning, no matter
what benefit of the doubt you want to give Roseanne.) Genius is wrapping
things up in an emotionally resonant way withoiut completely invalidatiung
nine years. Genius would have been ending this SIT-COM (does everyone
forget that this show was a comedy?) and making us care for ALL of the
characters, not just Roseanne. (How can we care for a bunch of characters
when we're told we don't know any of them?) This was once again a
demonstration of Roseanne's ego, and, as someone elser said, just a big
"screw you" to those of us who were loyal fans and then actually had the
nerve to say that her experiment this last season completely backfired. As
far as I'[m concerned, the episode did not happen.  -Chris

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 22:58:16 GMT
From: "Edward D. Lumsden" <mariner3@ix.netcom.com>

>#1:  Roseanne started writing the book shortly after the episode in which
>     she receives her writing room from Dan and the kids.  She has been
>     writing the book over the course of nine years, each season marking a
>     chapter in the book, and with each new event in her life, she would
>     adjust it to her liking (eg. David/Darlene/Mark/Becky pairings). When
>     Dan dies, she begins the fantasy chapter about winning the lottery
>     and Dan surviving the heart attack.

This, in my opinion, would make more sense, because she finishes writing
the book in a beautifully finished "writing room."

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 16:48:05 GMT
From: RobenRox <robenrox@aol.com>
Subject: The analysis of the final episode

#1) Above, somebody (I think Rogers) re-capped the show and said David
kissed Becky in the last 15 minutes.  Actually, it was Mark who kissed
Darlene, on the cheek.

#2) Something I thought was weird was how Mark read his fortune and it
said something like "You will find love shortly" and Becky said, "You
better not!"...then 10 seconds later, the couples are switched, with David
asking Becky about plans for the day and Mark asking Darlene to get him a
beer.  So we have dual reality going on in the kitchen.  That bugged me,
because I wanted the entire kitchen scene to be the characters as we know
them, not to switch midway to their "true identities."  I wish Roseanne
had just revealed their identities in her thought monologue only.

#3) We know Darlene had a baby because Roseanne mentioned it surviving in
the last scene in the basement.

God, did I get a little too in to it, or what???  LOL

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:24:18 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

RobenRox wrote:
>#1) Above, somebody (I think Rogers) re-capped the show and said David
>kissed Becky in the last 15 minutes.  Actually, it was Mark who kissed
>Darlene, on the cheek.

I can't go back to the tape, but I'm pretty sure David kissed Becky before
talking about going to the poetry reading with her.

>#2) Something I thought was weird was how Mark read his fortune and it
>said something like "You will find love shortly" and Becky said, "You
>better not!"...then 10 seconds later, the couples are switched, with David
>asking Becky about plans for the day and Mark asking Darlene to get him a
>beer.  So we have dual reality going on in the kitchen.  That bugged me,
>because I wanted the entire kitchen scene to be the characters as we know
>them, not to switch midway to their "true identities."  I wish Roseanne
>had just revealed their identities in her thought monologue only.

That gradually unfolding dual reality was one of the reasons the ending
was so interesting to me. That scene was lovingly constructed.  Watching
Dan choke, then evaporate entirely, was pretty affecting.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 21:54:17 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>
Subject: Re: The analysis of the final episode

> I can't go back to the tape, but I'm pretty sure David kissed Becky
> before talking about going to the poetry reading with her.

No, I have it on tape, and David didn't kiss Becky.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:16:02 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>
Subject: finale as good business move

the finale left enough potential subtext and plot twists to allow roseanne
to bring back an extended or revised version of the series anytime she
wants. she could spin off, write and/or produce separate shows based on
one or more of the 'rosanne' characters, with or without her being in the
cast.  that ending would make it fairly plausable to kill off, or have
move away, any of the actors she doesn't want to continue working with. (i
think john goodman would rather eat a pound of nails than work with her
again).  i have no faith that the networks will recognize that what made
rosie so loved by her fans was that the pre-lottery-win shows explored the
complexities of working class homes... the ambitions of 'dan' to have his
own business, 'darlene' to get an education, 'becky' to have her own
home... the reality of lousey pay in boring jobs, being there in the
crunch for each other when the only asset is love... and did so with
poignancy and some fine acting.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:22:08 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

>(i think john goodman would rather eat a pound of nails than work with
>her again).

Where do you get this idea? If John Goodman had problems working with
Roseanne, he could have quit the show many times -- his career took off
shortly after the show began. He also could have left the show entirely
instead of coming back for selected episodes in the last season. It defies
plausibility to believe he would work with Roseanne for nine seasons if he
can't stand her. He could have quit two or three years ago and still made
a huge fortune in syndication.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 15:44:36 GMT
From: "Juan D. Martinez" <martinej@dolphin.upenn.edu>

        Someone told me that Goodman DID want to leave the show, but that he wa
s
        contractually obligated to do x number of seasons. Apparently, Roseanne
        threatened to sue Goodman for breach of contract if he did not work and
        Goodman didn't or couldn't buy his contract out.

        Of course, all of this could be wrong, too.

Best,

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:50:37 -0700
From: BLo <blo@us.oracle.REMOVE_THIS_PART.com>
Subject: Negative reactions to Roseanne series finale

I haven't commented on the series finale yet, but some recent postings
about it have triggered me to make a couple passing comments.

First, there seems to be a group of people that feel completely ripped off
because the entire series has turned out to be the semi-fictional writings
of Roseanne Conner, rather than a "real" story about the Conners. I have a
hard time understanding this sense of betrayal because the TV show
Roseanne itself was a semi-fictional creation of Roseanne Barr Arnold
nothing, so how is it that much different from the story within the story
? Why is the story within the story less emotionally valid for people than
the outer story ? If anything, because we've known all along that the real
Roseanne has used the tv series Roseanne as a way to explore and reconcile
her own life, the fact that Roseanne Conner is shown to do the same thing
with her book makes her book (ie.  the TV series) even more real. In fact,
when her final monologue began, it took me a little while to realize she
was speaking as Roseanne Conner and not as Roseanne.

And importantly, remember that the explanation for the final season is not
that "it was just a dream (or fiction)". The explanation is that it was
her mind's reaction to a catastrophic event in her life - Dan's death. If
you know about the grieving process, you know that the points she made
about the various unreal events this year map to the phases of grieving -
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, grief, acceptance.  And she managed
to put it back into a blue collar context by explaining that when a blue
collar woman loses her husband, it's doesn't just impact her emotionally,
it hits her financially in a way that can completely destroy her sense of
security. When was the last time an "it was just a dream" ending made such
a soberingly real life point ?

Second, some people seem to think this ending was a last minute stunt to
excuse the whole miserably inept final season. While I agree that the
final 15 minutes completely contradicts the preceding season in quality
and tone, remember that there had been rumours of Dan's death since the
spring of 1996, and that all reports of a 10th year or a spinoff
specifically excluded his character. (I remember reading that if the 10th
year actually occurred, Dan would definitely be dead.) Also, Roseanne had
been hinting since as early as last fall, before Bev's coming out, that
the illogical, fantastical nature of this season would be explained at the
season's end. So, if this ending was intended as a stunt, the decision was
probably made quite a bit before all the critics really began ripping into
this season's shows. I grant that she could have made this season a more
enjoyable ride along the way, but I don't think it was a case of her
trying to erase this last season by pulling some stunt out of her butt at
the last minute. I think she may have intended it this way all along, but
because her skills are more attuned to the realistic, blue collar life
than the fantastic, super-rich one, the fantasy episodes wound up coming
out much weaker than she may have intended.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 18:25:36 GMT
From: "TROY N. DIGGS" <tdiggs@aztec.astate.edu>
Subject: Roseanne's Finale- One Last Clarification...

Does anybody around here remember the FIRST episode of Roseanne? =^D If
so, was it the "here's your writing room" episode?

I ask because that does make a difference in the "how much of the series
has been Rosie's book" plotline.  If it happened in the first ep, then the
whole series was the book.  If it happened at any other time, then we can
assume that the whole series from that point on was the book.

Confused as hell,

TND

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 20:15:19 GMT
From: Karyn Davis <davis@crc-corp.com>

I'm confused as hell, too, but I don't see why we have to assume that if
the writing room came later, that's when the book started.  The book could
have started at the beginning of the whole show, and one of the *chapters*
was about when she got the writing room.  My feeling is that the ending
indicated that the whole thing, from the beginning, was the book.  It
might not have originally been planned that way when the show was actually
taking place, but from what Roseanne said in the last 10 minutes, I got
the idea that the whole show was the book.  And it was a damn good book,
too.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 21:09:11 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I believe the birthday show was in the second season where Roseanne gets
her writing room in the basement. You can tell by her hair.... I believe
she had the short bob sorta cut.... That would indicate the time when she
was working in the Hair salon. If her hair was long (shoulder ) and curly
it would be the first season.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 18:45:39 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

The whole thing was fictional I don't see why quite a few people can't
grasp the idea that it's possible for things to have begun before the
writing room episode.  Chances are the episode where she gets the writing
room is part of the book as well.  I mean it's totally possible that she
got the room in her "real" life then started her life story where she
thought it was appropriate maybe in the past with the first episode.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 05:04:58 GMT
From: Maureen Goldman <inkslinger@sunshine.net>

The "writing room" episode occurred after "Roseanne" had been airing for
2-3 years, as I recall.  She could have obtained a writing room entirely
independently of the way it was shown in that episode, then written a
different version as a creative exercise.  [I haven't seen the finale, am
going from the notes I've read here.]

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:51:21 -0500
From: patricks <patricks@qni.com>

The writing room episode was the season finale of the 2nd season.  It
would seem that the book started when she got the writing room since a
good part of the last episode was centered around the writing room (it was
the ONLY flashback out of many possible ones) and since the basement was
STILL a writing room rather than a bedroom.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 12:46:09 GMT
From: Words from the Monastery <REMOVEjackechsTHE@OBVIOUSerols.com>

It goes back to when the girls where in high school at least ... cause
that's when they started dated the guys they married ...

  respectfully,

  Anthony Dauer
  http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4640/

  The message that you have just read ... goes rather nice with fava beans
  and a nice chianti ...

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:32:58 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

> The writing room episode was the season finale of the 2nd season.  It
> would seem that the book started when she got the writing room since a
> good part of the last episode was centered around the writing room (it
> was the ONLY flashback out of many possible ones) and since the basement
> was STILL a writing room rather than a bedroom.

Well if Roseanne made all these major changes to characters in her book
then why couldn't she have maybe inserted the writing room into the mix
way after it happened.  I think the whole series was her book I mean 1.
she could have gotten it when she did as we watched and started writing
her story a little in the past or 2. maybe in real life she got it right
at the beginning but felt like putting it in later in her book.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:45 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Roseanne's Finale- One Last Clarification...

andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:

>The whole thing was fictional I don't see why quite a few people can't
>grasp the idea that it's possible

How do you know this?  Did Roseanne tell you or is this just your opinion?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:47 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

It was definitely NOT the first episode.  I have the first episode on
tape.  It's the one where Roseanne was called to school because Darlene
was barking in class -- I noticed that Roseanne referred to that in the
finale.  Perhaps that is a clue within a clue . . .

The very first episode has a different actor playing DJ, by the way.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:08:17 -0700
From: Don Weinman <don@weinman.com>

Lorraine Pearce wrote:

> Don Weinman writes
> >For anyone who could look beyond Rosanne's off camera gaffes, her
> >weight, etc. it was consistantly hilarious until this season, and a few
> >of the episodes were absolute classic gems.
> >
> >The lady has talent, whatever her flaws may be
>
> Need to second that by saying that her talent is more profound with the
> out-takes etc, not in spite of them - to be able to air those 'mistakes'
> openly to the world shows strength of character and defiance, especially
> by demystifying TV production values and the media's unhealthyobsession
> with 'perfect' physical beauty.

That last point you make is very, very important!

Well said.

DPW

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 1997 05:03:01 GMT
From: August 8 <august8@aol.com>

here's my take on the ending:  roseanne conner, the fictional character,
had always been writing since the inception of the show. "roseanne" the
show is a fictional depiction of this fictional character's life (with
some adjustments, like becky being with david, bev being gay, etc.) in
fictional roseanne's "real" life, becky's with mark, jackie is gay, etc.
but the main constant is that dan died both in her "real" life off the tv,
and in her "fictional" life on tv.  merci.  thank you. and good night.
oh, the show was good, wasn't it?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:50:21 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

debbie wrote:

> How do you know this?  Did Roseanne tell you or is this just your
> opinion?

Well it's my opinion and I am not the only one that shares in this
thinking.  You know you could have quoted a lot more so I didn't have to
go back and find the original post before replying.  It just seems like
people either believe one of the 3 scenarios:

1. Roseanne Conner started writing a year after Dan's death.  <<<<< Which
I think is absurd.  I mean the whole coping thing doesn't fit in too well
with that one.  If she wrote the whole book starting with the last chapter
after Dan's death then the flight to fantasy for the last season isn't
really justified.  I mean Dan has already died in this theory and he
should effect all of the seasons not just the last.

2. Roseanne Conner started writing her book after the writing room episode
<<<<< While I do think she wrote her book in that writing room who's to
say that she didn't either start her story in the past or insert the
writing room gift later on than it really happened.  It just seems to make
more sense and seem more complete if you look at the entire series as a
book.  As for Jackie and her being gay all along etc... this would
probably go more with this example.  I mean if she was gay sure she would
have trouble with men for awhile and then maybe come to realise this in
herself.  But I mean 9 seasons full of guys - I dunno.  The first and
second maybe but if she lived with such a gay positive sister like
Roseanne I just can't see why she wouldn't be open.  When Roseanne says
Jackie has "always" told her she's gay that just makes me think she's been
open with Roseanne for at least a few years.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1997 17:03:36 GMT
From: KarenC3 <karenc3@aol.com>

I'm wondering that if when Nancy said she was gay, it was really when
Jackie found out she gay.  Because Rosanne said she admired how Nancy went
on with her life after Arnie, but didn't mention anything about her being
gay.

I think this is all very interesting, because it is fiction within
fiction.  I think the writer, Rosanne is closer to the real Rosanne,
because the events she changed seem to follow the real Rosanne's life.

Karen

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 20:49:19 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: The last Roseanne was more than a gimmick

Troy Brackett wrote:

>I'm one of those fans who did want to know "what's the point" . . . and
>I, for one, have come to the conclusion that "the point" was a
>self-serving spit-in-the-face to anyone even remotely involved with the
>series:  from the critics who've blasted her right on down to the fans
>who dropped like flies this season because of the stupidity of what the
>series had become.

I think you're unfairly discounting the amount of care that Roseanne has
put into these characters for nine years. Roseanne has been the driving
force behind this show, and she's the primary person who deserves to be
congratulated for creating such a rich cast of characters. The Conner
family is one of the most real in TV history.

While she is capable of vindictiveness and petty behavior in real life,
the excellence of the series over most of its run disputes the idea that
she would use the show as a vehicle for that. The series was occasionally
playful, or whimsical, as in the case of Arnie's abduction by aliens or
the appearance of soap-opera stars from General Hospital and One Life to
Live. However, how many times was she using the show to raise a middle
finger to the critics?

Roseanne's response to the critics was always to create the kind of show
that embodied a more "real" life than other sitcoms, and many other
dramas.

I think the last episode was an effort to bring the series back to its
roots: a blue-collar sitcom in which the travails of life don't always
make for happy endings, but the family perseveres. From the interviews
that she gave at the end of the second-to-last season, I got the
impression that the whole year was mapped out in general terms. She knew
where it was going to end before she knew the show would become such a
critical dud.

Was this misguided or mean-spirited? I don't think so. Would the show have
been better if she left out the last season's lottery win and dealt with
Dan's death? Definitely. However, that doesn't dispute what an emotionally
moving and intriguing ending she gave the series. I don't think it
justifies the season that preceding it, but I do appreciate an ending
that's more in keeping with the general excellence of the show during its
run.

>Agreed.  The ending was powerful . . . but I am sick and tired of
>programs that attempt to manipulate my emotions simply because it might
>make "good tv".  The "Bobby in the shower" scene of Dallas was idiocy.
>I was disgusted with how St. Elsewhere was trashed in the final moment
>of its series finale.

You shouldn't be so anal about continuity that an ending joke like the St.
Elsewhere closing "trashes" a show. I don't understand why the revelation
that Roseanne is a fictional show makes the Conner family any less real.
It always was fictional. Now it's just a fiction within a fiction.

 >And she was.  She laughed at you, she laughed at me, and she laughed at
 >all of those who had helped to put her where she is now.  I wouldn't be
 >surprised if a crotch-grab and a hearty "F--- You!" were edited out just
 >before the final laugh.

I think your dislike for Roseanne the person has clouded your judgment
about Roseanne the show. The last laugh on the series was about our
ability to get through life's tragedies and hardships by keeping our sense
of humor. It was important to Roseanne in her real life, and it's
important in the two fictional universes she created for Roseanne Conner.

The Roseanne sitcom broke new ground on TV, even though the only thing the
last year broke was wind. Give her -- and the other cast members and
creators -- some credit.

You will have the opportunity to bash Roseanne the person as often as
desired when her upcoming talk show begins. I can't think of anything the
world needs less.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 01:23:26 -0700
From: Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com>

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

> I think you're unfairly discounting the amount of care that Roseanne
> has put into these characters for nine years. Roseanne has been the
> driving force behind this show, and she's the primary person who
> deserves to be congratulated for creating such a rich cast of
> characters. The Conner family is one of the most real in TV history.

Sorry, but you're playing to the band on this one because I agree.  I'm
not discounting what Roseanne put into developing the characters . . .  as
a matter of fact, that's precisely my problem with how the show ended.
These are not the characters that Roseanne developed.  These people are
strangers . . . strangers who have absolutely nothing to do with the
series continuity.  Their only reason for existence was for shock value.

>However, that doesn't dispute what an emotionally moving and
>intriguing ending she gave the series.

Regardless of whether or not it was another series entirely that just used
the same title.

> I don't think it justifies the season that preceding it, but I do
> appreciate an ending that's more in keeping with the general
> excellence of the show during its run.
>
> You shouldn't be so anal about continuity that an ending joke like the
> St. Elsewhere closing "trashes" a show.

You're right . . . why should I be so "anal" about, for instance, having
strong, well developed, well _established_ characters suddenly being
turned into totally different people.  Let's really play with it some:

Remember Jim from Huck Finn?  Lessee . . . let's make him a pedeophile
with a kind, gentle heart.  Maybe we should make To Kill a Mockingbird's
Atticus Finch a fun loving drag queen.  Let's make Jules Verne's Captain
Nemo a crack-smoking swarthy fellow who has a thing for small furry
animals.  And what about Sherlock Holmes . . . maybe he should be a small
claims insurance investigater who is prone to lengthy bouts of depression
due to the faulty florescent lighting in his office.  And yeah, I think
little Laura Ingalls would have been much more interesting had she
developed a compulsive eating disorder.

Hoowee . . . this is loads of fun.

...sigh...

>I don't understand why the revelation that Roseanne is a fictional
>show makes the Conner family any less real. It always was fictional.
>Now it's just a fiction within a fiction.

And now, we find out that the great characters that had been developed are
nothing more than the figment of a fictional character's imagination.

> I think your dislike for Roseanne the person has clouded your judgment
> about Roseanne the show.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything about my dislike of Roseanne the
person.  I thought that I was pretty clear that my dislike was focused on
what had been done to the show and the characters.

>The last laugh on the series was about our ability to get through
>life's tragedies and hardships by keeping our sense of humor.

Yeah . . . cracked me up when I found out that Dan was really dead.  I
sure found the humor in it.

> The Roseanne sitcom broke new ground on TV, even though the only thing
> the last year broke was wind. Give her -- and the other cast members
> and creators -- some credit.

Actually, I feel that I give them far more credit than even Rosie did in
the end.  At least I respected the characters that had been created and
the stories that were told.

> You will have the opportunity to bash Roseanne the person as often as
> desired when her upcoming talk show begins.

Since when does opinion equal bashing?

>I can't think of anything the world needs less.

Um . . . "The Rosie and Jackie Variety Show"?

Later, Troy

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 06:13:50 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

> And now, we find out that the great characters that had been developed
> are nothing more than the figment of a fictional character's
> imagination.

Not true. The characters in the book she wrote were more than likely exact
duplicates of the ones in "real life." All she did was change a few things
here and there. Jackie being gay probably doesn't change 95% of what
happened with her on the show. Bev's not being gay changes even less
because it didn't come out until near the end. Becky, David, Darlene, and

Mark are probably exactly the same, just the partners are switched. I
don't see what your problem is. They are the same characters we all know
and love. Perhaps you feel hurt that she didn't consult you first. Perhaps
you are insulted to think that the wool could have been pulled over your
eyes without you knowing it. I think you're just jealous that you didn't
think of it. :-)

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 13:43:02 -0700
From: Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com>

If we're told the characters aren't who we've been led to believe they
were for nine years . . . that pretty much means that they aren't the same
characters, correct?  Sorry, but you can't convince me that after showing
me an apple for nine years, and telling me that it's an apple, that it's
really an orange.

>Jackie being gay probably doesn't change 95% of what happened with her
>on the show.

Really?  So, all of the conversations she and Rosie had about men problems
don't count?  I mean, after all, she had supposedly been telling Rosie
that she was gay all this time.  I guess it just wasn't as important to
illustrate that side of her as it was her men-problem side, huh?

Oh yeah, I forgot.  Rosie didn't illustrate that because she couldn't
accept it herself.  How convenient.

>Bev's not being gay changes even less because it didn't come out until
>near the end.

I like Bev being gay.

>Becky, David, Darlene, and Mark are probably exactly the same, just
>the partners are switched.

Really?

Then which one of the girls really had the job at the supermarket?  And
which one of the boyfriends went down to whichever girl's job it was to
defend her because of the harassment she had been receiving?

Which one of the girls really went off to school?

Which one of the girls really went through the "dark" stage of her life?

Was it Mark or David that was being brainwashed by the theme park cult?

How did Mark and Darlene meet?  How did David and Becky meet?  How did
their relationships begin?  If these were the "real" couples, then the
storylines would have been vastly different just based on the four
personalities involved.

And what about . . . oh hell, never mind.  I don't have enough bandwidth
to fully explore the inconsistencies.

>I don't see what your problem is.

The problem is that we've suddenly been told that the story and characters
that have been written and developed for all these years aren't really the
story and characters that we thought they were.

Astute writing skills or cheap publicity gimmick?

Puh-leeze . . .

>They are the same characters we all know and love.

Nope.  They're not.  How easily some people are lead.  Just goes to show
that you can convince most anyone of most anything if you want to.

>Perhaps you feel hurt that she didn't consult you first.

That's it exactly.  She violated our contract.

>Perhaps you are insulted to think that the wool could have been pulled
>over your eyes without you knowing it.

Not hardly.  I'm insulted that someone thinks that I'm stupid enough to
believe that an orange is really an apple.

>I think you're just jealous that you didn't think of it. :-)

Wow, that is soooo deep.  ;)

Apparently not enough people are really thinking for themselves here.
Just because someone decides to rewrite an entire series for the sake of
shock value doesn't make it a "brilliant" move.  It just shows that the
people/person in charge simply ran out of anything of real value to offer
to the consistency of the established series/characters/storylines.  So,
in a vain effort to appear profound, they simply give us new characters
and storylines using the same names and faces that we've known all along.

(Cut to scene of writer's meeting:

"But Mrs. Rosie," one timid young writer whispers, "this isn't in line
with what's been laid out in the character bible."

"Yeah, ain't that somethin'?  Don't worry about it though, ya see . . .
'cause they'll fall for it.  The American viewing audience'll fall for
anything.  Hyaa Hyaa Hyaa Hyaa!!!"

End scene)

I can't believe that some of you fell for it.  And I'm really amazed at
how many are defending this insult to their intelligence.

Later,
Troy

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 17:56:23 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

You know what, it doesn't really matter anyway. It's not real. I think you
should feel insulted that something she convinced you to be real was
suddenly different. That's what your real problem is. You were so
convinced these characters were real, the revelation that they weren't,
that Roseanne can do what she pleases with them hurt you. I tell you
something, give it up. Stop whining about being cheated out of something
that wasn't real to begin with. And get rid of your holier-than-thou
attitude that everyone else was convinced and you weren't so naturally you
must be right. If everyone else can accept it, why can't you. It's just a
show, it's for entertainment, and I found the entire series pretty damn
entertaining and nothing can take that away. I also found the last season
entertaining in its own little way, and I founf the last episode extremely
entertaining.  The problem with this world is that people have a problem
telling fantasy from reality. Roseanne is a fantasy, apparently a fantasy
based on a fantasy based on reality. So get off your high horse and try
and just appreciate the show for what it was and how you enjoyed it over
the years.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 15:01:40 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>

good grief folks, get a grip... roseanne, 'The Real Life' person, came up
with a fairly clever adaption of other series finales to try to compensate
for two poorly written years and to setup a potential for continuing at
some future date in half a dozen different ways.

the important thing is that we enjoyed the characters for many years.  we
will probably enjoy the re-runs, altho i suspect some will obsess as they
compare past shows to the finale looking for confirmation or contradiction
of their individual interpertation of what happened when and why.

it got very sloppy from the time she had the baby and went down hill
completely after she won the lottery... so what?  the early years were
incredibly good tv and we will all get to see them again, and again, and
again... some psych major will do a thesis on what

it meant, another psych major will do a thesis on why her fans are fixated
on interperting the ending this way and that way... and budding series
writers will study transcripts of each script hopeing to figure out how to
master the master of twists.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 19:31:23 GMT
From: AliceBeard <alicebeard@aol.com>
Subject: Re: The last Roseanne was more than a gimmick

shen@cdc.net wrote,

> The characters in the book she wrote were more than likely exact
> duplicates of the ones in "real life." All she did was change a few things
> here and there. . . .  Becky, David, Darlene, and
> Mark are probably exactly the same, just the partners are switched. I don't
> see what your problem is.

"Fantasy" Becky/Mark & Darlene/David versus "real" Becky/David &
Darlene/Mark presents the most difficult problem of "all she did was
change a few things here and there."

If her "reality" was that Becky brought David home, married him, and moved
into a trailer with him, I guess that was Mark who lived in the basement
for so long? Or, maybe no one lived in the basement? This is my biggest
puzzle. What? In reality, did Dan fight with Becky's husband David because
he couldn't hold down a decent job? Did anyone punch out Becky's old boss
at the grocery store?

This "reality" versus "fantasy" part would need a bit more work or just a
tad more explaining.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:41:43 -0700
From: Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com>

Lost Soul wrote:

> You know what, it doesn't really matter anyway.

...snippety snip...

Evidently it matters a great deal to you, regardless of how you try to
make it seem that I am the one who has "lost touch" on this whole thing.
You're the one who can't seem to carry on a simple discussion without
slinging insults.  But, for every discussion there is bound to be someone
like you who will do whatever it takes, even stoop to slinging insults, in
order to derail a simple discussion simply because you are either (a) too
insecure in your own opinions, (b) intimidated by a logical discussion, or
(c) think that carrying on like a jerk makes you look intelligent.

Later,
Troy

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 06:15:07 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

Slinging insults? I don't think so. I merely suggested that you try not to
consider your opinion so much higher than everybody else's, something you
clearly do in suggesting that Roseanne has "fooled" all of us and you are
the only one apparently unaffected. I may have stated it more harshly than
that, but sometimes that is what it takes. (a) I am not insecure in my own
opinions, and I frequently hold to them no matter how much oposition I
encounter. (b) As soon as you bring on the logical discussion, I am more
than willing to take part in it. (c) I don't care whether I look
intelligent in the eyes of anyone here. I simply enjoy lively discussion
and I don't think most people would agree with you on the carrying on like
a jerk thing. More along the lines of the original discussion, I just
think that people should appreciate the show for what it has given us over
the years. IMO, the last episode was planned from the beginning of the
season seeing as how it fit the season so well. Even if it was done purely
for shock value, so what. I listen to arguements all the time about people
wanting things to be more realistic. What I don't understand is why a
movie or television show must be more than it is intended to be,
entertainment. I think Roseanne gave us even more than that as she made a
lot of people think after that episode, something so few programs do these
days. Anyway, whatever the intentions behind the finale, it should be
appretiated for what it was, the end of a wonderful series that we all
enjoyed very much.


-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 05:48:18 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Troy Brackett wrote:

>If we're told the characters aren't who we've been led to believe they
>were for nine years . . . that pretty much means that they aren't the
>same characters, correct?  Sorry, but you can't convince me that after
>showing me an apple for nine years, and telling me that it's an apple,
>that it's really an orange.

There is an apple and an orange.

The apple -- the characters you have been watching for nine years -- are
still there. They had their happy ending. Why does it matter that they are
the characters in a book on a TV show written by sitcom writers, instead
of being the characters on a TV show written by sitcom writers?

The orange is the characters in the real world of Roseanne the book
writer. You might not like the orange, but it shouldn't affect your
appreciation of the apple.

The real problem here is yours, not that of Roseanne or its creators.  I
do not understand the notion that the Conner family has been made less
real. Whether they exist in a book or in a TV series, they're still
fictional. You can believe in them as easily as you believe in any
fiction.

>I'm insulted that someone thinks that I'm stupid enough to
>believe that an orange is really an apple.

Keep posting, and we'll all be much clearer on what you're stupid enough
to believe.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 05:34:08 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Troy Brackett wrote:
>>The last laugh on the series was about our ability to get through
>>life's tragedies and hardships by keeping our sense of humor.
>Yeah . . . cracked me up when I found out that Dan was really dead.  I
>sure found the humor in it.

Did you actually read the excerpt of my message you quoted? I included it
again: Nowhere do I say that Dan's death was funny; I said that its our
sense of humor that gets us through tragedies like that.

If Roseanne was laughing at you, I'm beginning to think that she had a
good reason.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:31:10 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com> wrote:

(snip snip snip , yada yada yada, blah blah blah)

>Which one of the girls really went through the "dark" stage of her life?
>
>Was it Mark or David that was being brainwashed by the theme park cult?
>
>How did Mark and Darlene meet?  How did David and Becky meet?  How did
>their relationships begin?  If these were the "real" couples, then the
>storylines would have been vastly different just based on the four
>personalities involved.

Which one started out as Kevin??

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 02:32:54 -0700
From: Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com>

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:

> The real problem here is yours, not that of Roseanne or its creators.

Umm . . . no . . .

The real _issue_ here is whether or not the viewing public will accept
anything that's thrown at it . . . even to justify, in this particular
case, an entire season's worth of poor writing and plot development, and
even "character" assasination (Dan's).

> I do not understand the notion that the Conner family has been made
> less real. Whether they exist in a book or in a TV series, they're
> still fictional.

I'm sorry, was that in dispute somewhere along the way?  Or are you just
now determining that for yourself?

I don't recall ever debating whether or not the characters were real or
fictional.  I do, however, recall discussing the fact that the characters
and the series were compromised and even invalidated for the sake of shock
value.

> >I'm insulted that someone thinks that I'm stupid enough to
> >believe that an orange is really an apple.
>
> Keep posting, and we'll all be much clearer on what you're stupid
> enough to believe.

And I'm sure that if you continue to reply, we'll be much clearer on what
you're stupid enough to attack others over. Ah, but such is the burden of
the pompous and the shallow, I suppose.  I mean, really Rogers, c'mon . .
. you're slinging insults at me because of my opinion concerning a tv
show?  And you think that's making _me_ look like the stupid one?

(...snicker...)

Evidently, appreciating another person's opinions or thoughts violates the
little world in which you have placed yourself at the center of.  I always
find it amusing when someone who attempts to present him or herself as
intelligent and enlightened breaks down in a simple discussion and resorts
to personal attacks instead of focusing on the actual points that have
been made.  For some reason or another people like that always seem to
believe that blowing out another person's candle makes their own burn
brighter.

But, Rogers, I'm sure that this really doesn't apply to you, because after
all, anyone with any intelligence would know that someone as mentally
superior as you would never dream of posting a follow-up message to this
one.

That is, unless you truly are nothing more than a pompous, shallow,
attention-starved individual who feels that you absolutely must have the
last word because, subconsciously, you're trying to overcompensate for a
lack of . . . well, you know.

Later,
Troy

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 02:49:29 -0700
From: Troy Brackett <troyb@atlanta.com>

Lost Soul wrote:

>What I don't understand is why a movie or television show must be
>more than it is intended to be, entertainment.

And there you have it . . . and I agree.

For years, Roseanne _was_ entertainment.  The series was developed to
_entertain_ (which, oddly enough, is defined as TO AMUSE; DIVERT).  The
final moments of the finale violated the premise of the entire series
because, suddenly, the series . . . a COMEDY . . . becomes "more than it
is intended to be":  a drama.

>I think Roseanne gave us even more than that as she made a lot of
>people think after that episode, something so few programs do these
>days.

And in doing so, it became "more than it is intended to be".

See?  You DO understand . . . you just don't want to ACCEPT the fact that
you understand.  :)

Later,
Troy

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 09:55:50 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Troy Brackett wrote:

> For years, Roseanne _was_ entertainment.  The series was developed to
> _entertain_ (which, oddly enough, is defined as TO AMUSE; DIVERT).  The
> final moments of the finale violated the premise of the entire series
> because, suddenly, the series . . . a COMEDY . . . becomes "more than it
> is intended to be":  a drama.

Ya we've never seen a comedy end on a dramatic note ever before right.
Geez like every comedy seems to.

> >I think Roseanne gave us even more than that as she made a lot of
> >people think after that episode, something so few programs do these
> >days.
>
> And in doing so, it became "more than it is intended to be".

Roseanne has always been about issues and making people think.  This isn't
a new idea tacked onto the end of the show.  I mean she dealt with
numerous things that other shows were affraid to address.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 1997 18:24:33 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>

Good point. Thank you very much.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 15:52:30 GMT
From: RobocopKlr <robocopklr@aol.com>

Then you admit, now, that it wasn't just meaningless fluff entertainment,
and that the structure and position of characters had a RELEVANCE in
establishing that?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 06:12:39 GMT
From: frank goron <frankieg@westol.com>

>And now, we find out that the great characters that had been developed
>are nothing more than the figment of a fictional character's
>imagination.

These characters were more than just a figment of Roseanne Conner's
imagination. Remeber, they were based on Roseanne Conners "real" family
members and friends. Although she took artistic license, she wasn't
creating these characters out of thin air. There really was a Leon, a
Nancy, a Jackie, a Dan, a Mark, etc. Roseanne said nothing about using any
sort of totally fictional or "composite" characters in her book.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:18:50 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>

berry&boucher wrote:

> good grief folks, get a grip... roseanne, 'The Real Life' person, came
> up with a fairly clever adaption of other series finales to try to
> compensate for two poorly written years and to setup a potential for
> continuing at some future date in half a dozen different ways.

Thank you for saying this!

I just want to say one more thing.  Hey people, it's ART.  Roseanne was
there for you to watch and enjoy and if you were really lucky take some
life lessons from it.  If it stimulated your imagination, all the better,
because good tv always does that.  Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 12:34:16 -0600
From: davisk3@gunet.georgetown.edu

> These characters were more than just a figment of Roseanne Conner's
> imagination. Remeber, they were based on Roseanne Conners "real" family
> members and friends. Although she took artistic license, she wasn't creating
> these characters out of thin air. There really was a Leon, a Nancy, a Jackie,
> a Dan, a Mark, etc. Roseanne said nothing about using any sort of totally
> fictional or "composite" characters in her book.

Not true. Jackie's son Andrew would have to have been made up, as Fred,
Fisher, Gary, Booker, and all of Jackie's other boyfriends had to have
been, since the "Real" Jackie was gay.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 20:09:24 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

HELLO - Adoption, Sperm Donation.

If you can believe that Jackie has been gay all this time then maybe you
could believe that just maybe some of the guys she went out with were in
"real" life women.  And instead of having sex with a man and producing a
child she found another way.

We don't know how many of the guys were made up.  But hate to break it to
you but there are tons of gays who just don't feel secure enough being in
an open relationship with someone of the opposite sex so they opt for the
easier heterosexual way of living.  It's like trading a part of yourself
away for a little comfort.  Or maybe a few of the guys were completely
real and Jackie just didn't consider herself to be gay at that point.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 15:45:04 GMT
From: RobocopKlr <robocopklr@aol.com>

 "Lost Soul" <shen@cdc.net> wrote:
> What I don't understand is why a movie
>or television show must be more than it is intended to be, entertainment.

That's because it WAS intended to be more than that; there was much social
commentary and expose, as well as public statement and lots of other
discussion of matters of extensive social signifigance. To classify this
as "meaningless entertainment" denotes that it was nothing more than a
Mickey Mouse cartoon, when actually drama is much more than that, being a
communication of metaphysical debate and analysis; THIS is what draws the
audience: the Intrigue, not just the buffoonery; and their tragicomic
intertwining is not to be dismissed by your trivializations thereof.  The
fact is, that the message to be derived from the drama is determined by
the epilogue; what if "Oedipus Rex" ended with the king laughing and
saying "Fuck you mom! Oops, I already did! Ha ha!"  Wouldn't that create a
slightly different message? Same here. There is a rational structure to
drama as with everything else, and, Shakespear aside, life is NOT "a
series of tales told by an idiot, in the end signifying nothing."  "No
greater treachery is there to brave the ravages of the earth and time,
only to fail in the end."

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 20:53:04 GMT
From: SongLover <songlover@aol.com>

Just because Jackie was gay doesn't mean she never dated men.  As a matter
of fact, part of her inability to maintain a relationship probably was a
good indicator that she wasn't supposed to be with a woman.

You know, one thing we didn't really know was if Nancy was gay or not.  We
just know she was a really cool friend.  I still think a lot of Nancy's
episodes with women could have been Jackie's, and Roseanne wrote them as
Nancy to help her deal with it, or actually to deny it more.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 21:53:23 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>

Only coming through in waves, frankieg@westol.com (frank goron) wrote:

>These characters were more than just a figment of Roseanne Conner's
>imagination. Remeber, they were based on Roseanne Conners "real" family
>members and friends. Although she took artistic license, she wasn't creating

For example, how many of the characters were inspired by people Roseanne
Barr-Pentland-Arnold-Thomas has known?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 16:54:55 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>

davisk3@gunet.georgetown..edu wrote:
> ackie's son Andrew would have to have been made up, as Fred,
> Fisher, Gary, Booker, and all of Jackie's other boyfriends had to have
> been, since the "Real" Jackie was gay.

Jackie's son could be real... but the details of his parentage (who really
is his father, and what relationship, if any, does that man have with
Jackie?) could have been fictionalized.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 1997 12:58:40 GMT
From: drol dog <102651.546@CompuServe.COM>

Troy, give it a rest.

You seem more interested in creating a shock yourself...  Man, that show
rocked.  Not only has it made me appreciate the whole past season tenfold,
it has given me a much deeper respect for Roseanne's talent than ever
before.  I was a little in awe and a little put off after watching the
ending the first time.  In fact, I was thinking that it fucking sucked.
But, after watching it maybe 4 more times (the final part), it all sunk in
so fast it almost made me a little faint.  It made such PERFECT sense.  In
fact, I couldn't see the ending done ANY differently.  As for your
comments about "shock value," I can't remember anyone in history, being a
true artist, who HASN'T created major shock waves... for this I credit
her.  She could've staged a nice perfect little "Full House" ending, where
everyone is just so fucking fake it makes you wanna throw up.  I would
have lost ALL respect for the show if that was done.  For me this
completely validates and lends MUCH credibility to the show, even from the
very beginning.  It just proved to me that no matter HOW "real" a
situation is, or how gritty and harsh the "reality," even in "real life,"
it's roots are inextricably embedded in fantasy...  what never was and
what could have always been...  the show acknowledging this lends the
whole "reality" of the Roseanne show a brand new reality- stark and clear
and smart and new- of it's own, however much it conflicted with your idea
of what the show should have been.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 20:56:01 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: Laurie Metcalf

Many have posted wondering about Laurie Metcalf sexual orientation and
whether Roseanne ws referring to that at the end.  Laurie Metcalf, when
last I heard is still living with the father of her baby son, the actor
who played Fisher on Roseanne.  Before the series began, she had been
married and had a daughter.  Roseanne's real life sister is gay.  That was
no doubt the basis for making Jackie gay in the finale.  I think that
Roseanne confused people with the "in real life" statement in the voice
over.  I hope that this will end the speculation, which I suppose is none
of our business anyway.  I think that any similarities be between Roseanne
and Roseanne Conner were supposed to be about her true personal life and
absolutely nothing about her cast members.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 09:06:57 -0500
From: Andrea and Joshua Barol <Benjoey@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Laurie Metcalf

Isn't Fisher, George Clooney?  If he is, he's not with Laurie Metcalf, and
I do believe Laurie is married.  Andrea

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 22:41:27 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: Laurie Metcalf

Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
>Clooney played a character named Booker and Fisher was played by
>Michael O'Keefe, who also starred as a young man in the Great Santini.

Oops ... O'Keefe played Fred. Matt Roth played Fisher, and he was most
recently in the sitcom Blue Skies, which lasted seven episodes in 1994.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 16:38:54 +0000
From: jam <jam@e-znet.com>

Subject: Re: Laurie MetcalfWhy the fuck would Roseanne Conner want to out
Laurie Metcalf, use your brains people.........

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 97 22:41:04 GMT
From: Erin H Coughlin <erinc@emily.oit.umass.edu>
Subject: Synopsis Needed

I can't believe I missed it, the Series finale!  Can someone please post a
synopsis of the episode?  Thank you so much!  Erin

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 12:36:22 -0700
From: Tom Yohn <thomas.yohn@Sun.COM>
Subject: Questions about Roseanne's finale

Hi,

At what point in the series did Roseanne the character start writing what
we saw? R. said she introduced Leon and Scott, which contradicts what Leon
has said.  Also, does this mean there is no Jerry Connor and that Jackie
had no baby?

Tom

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 15:23:21 GMT
From: Tesseract@ihatespam.com

I feel that she started writing when she got her "writing room" which they
showed in a flashback.  That doesn't mean that there is no Jerry or that
Jackie didn't have a baby.  We don't and won't know what "really"
happened and what didn't.  The ending indicates that when she got the
writing room she used it.  She has been writing about her family, similar
to a diary.  Except that she made changes to things she didn't like or
that didn't seem right to her.  Once she started writing, the show was a
reflection of the book she was doing.  Therefore, we have no way of
knowing what occured and what she had changed to make it seem right to
her.  The show stopped being about Roseanne Conner's life and became about
her book, which was the way Roseanne Conner thought her life sounded best
on paper.  In the end however, it is just a TV show.  One that I watched
from the first episode to the last.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 16:54:15 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>

When discussing Dan, Roseanne said that "We didn't teach our daughters to
sacrifice more than our sons."  I guess at least Jerry was around.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 17:20:46 -0700
From: Don Weinman <don@weinman.com>

Tesseract@ihatespam.com wrote:

> In the end however, it is just a TV show.  One that I watched from the first
> episode to the last.

And one of the best TV shows of the last decade, at that.

For anyone who could look beyond Rosanne's off camera gaffes, her weight,
etc. it was consistantly hilarious until this season, and a few of the
episodes were absolute classic gems.

The lady has talent, whatever her flaws may be.

DPW

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:28:38 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>

Lesbians can and do have children - ever heard of adoption or sperm
donation?  I mean if you can believe that Jackie is really gay why can't
you believe she still had the baby just differently then we saw.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:45:00 +0100
From: Lorraine Pearce <lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk>

>The lady has talent, whatever her flaws may be

Need to second that by saying that her talent is more profound with the
out-takes etc, not in spite of them - to be able to air those 'mistakes'
openly to the world shows strength of character and defiance, especially
by demystifying TV production values and the media's unhealthy obsession
with 'perfect' physical beauty.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:08:17 -0700
From: Don Weinman <don@weinman.com>

That last point you make is very, very important!

Well said.

DPW

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 22:57:30 GMT
From: XanthippeK <xanthippek@aol.com>
Subject: Why it's the perfect ending and Dan. . .

The real Roseanne (actor) showed once again that things don't always turn
out the way you wish they would have (even for her devoted audience,
leaving us without a sense of finality, always wondering, struggling).
She (character) struggled with Dan's death, an openly gay sister, two
daughters who might have had better matches for husbands, a mother who
will never change, and a son who is not the most popular kid in school.
They didn't have money.  They were confined by a system and a society.
How often we meet people who really are just in the "middle of their
books", and we're not so sure how much of their past has been
fictionalized and how much is based in truth.  Most of it is perspective
after all. What we just watched for nine years was Roseanne' (character)
in one of the most difficult moments of her life trying to put her life
back on track.  It took a book and a room of one's own to show the
weaknesses of human nature wanting to control her/his existence and the
strength of will in recognizing that it can only happen in fiction, not in
real life.  I'm so happy that she didn't put the nice little chipper
ending with the whole cast gathered around, shedding tears and saying
goodbye.  Because it is never "goodbye" after all, is it?

I have thought back quite a bit on the last season and how the real
Roseanne (character) handled Dan's death in her writings.  She "sent" him
away for quite a long period of time in her fiction and in her mind.  She
created him having the beginnings of an affair (maybe she was trying to
get angry at him for dying, trying to make him to be imperfect).  Whether
she and he had another baby also seems to be unclear - maybe that was
something that she made up, wishing that she still had had another kid,
another "little piece of him".

Kirsten Zadekia Xanthippe XanthippeK@aol.com

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 20:03:34 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>

In the closing narration Roseanne compared her feelings of Dan's death to
a betrayal... almost like he had an affair.  She also said that they
"never taught their daughters to sacrifice more than their sons".... so
Jerry did exist outside the novel.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 18:53:01 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>
Subject: Roseanne's Books

Can anyone tell me what books Roseanne has written and whether or not they
are available in soft cover?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 02:53:07 GMT
From: MsRoseanne <msroseanne@aol.com>

My Life As A Woman (1990.)  My Lives (1994.)

~Rosie

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:17:16 +0100
From: Lorraine Pearce <lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk>

Since the massive interest generated by the series finale, I got my local
bookshop to dig around for info...they found only one book by Roseanne,
called "My Lives" (some correllation to the revelation made by the final
show perhaps), which is available from the States, but is only in
hardback. English price is <20>16.99, and I'll let you know what it's like in
about 3 weeks when it arrives!

Another relevant book is the one written by Roseanne's sister, the real-
life 'Jackie', called "Roseanne: My sister" (ingenious title, huh?).
That's apparently quite an old book now, so you may have difficulty
locating it, as it's supposed to be out of print, but try public libraries
or second-hand bookshops.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 97 01:14:49 GMT
From: "Giordana Giovanni S." <lupodisierra@hotmail.com>
Subject: Sort of off the subject

Several times people here have commented that the last episode of
"Roseanne" reminded them of the final episode of "St. Elsewhere"...would
someone please be so kind as to remind me how "St. Elsewhere" ended so I
can understand what you mean when you say it was like that?  I know this
is kind of off topic and I apologize but I'm really curious now!

Thank you.

Giordana Giovanni S.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 21:44:25 -0400
From: Marc Goldberg <Mgold@webtv.net>
Subject: Fred

Hey-

    Remember Jackie's husband Fred?  What ever happened to him on the
show?  I know he left, but I don't remember the reasons why.  Does anyone
else recall this?

Thanks...

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 18:50:14 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

Jackie and Fred divorced in season 8. They explored their marriage to a
certain degree. Jackie felt Fred was boring and predictable. At the end of
one episode, Jackie and Fred were home having dinner and could hardly find
anything to talk about. Fred said something to the effect that things were
not working out and that he was leaving, Jackie agreed.  It was a very sad
ending, like many others we have seen over the years. Fred appeared
occasionaly throughout the season dealing with Andy. Fred was not in
Season 9.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 02:19:42 GMT
From: hov93 <hov93@prodigy.net>

Fred and Jackie divorced, and he was mentioned once or twice since then,
but we never saw him again.  Holly V.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1997 23:24:43 GMT
From: Hamish Moir <moir_w@common.net>
Subject: Story by: Roseanne

I remember watching the finale, and seeing story by Roseanne in the
credits, and I thought that this should be a good episode.

I had only followed the big events that had been going on through this
last season, the lottery being the biggest.  I knew from the start that
all these things were setting up for the last episode, which I presumed
was to be a happy ending.

Boy was I wrong.

The biggest thing that shocked me was Dan's death.  That all of that
season (or series) was a fantasy.  This show is so powerful that it is
something that won't be matched for quite some time.  As I have said
before the single best scene in the episode is when she finished the
character profile and when her surroundings faded, with Dan's echoing
voice calling her name, almost brought a tear to my eye right there.

Roseanne should be proud of herself, this episode could the stepping stone
to other more dramatic writing.

Roseanne ended the way it should have: sad.  The series didn't seem like a
happy series from the start, a lot of bad things happened to these
characters.  I wouldn't change anything about the ending, it was perfect.

Hamish Moir

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 22:00:41 -0500
From: kimberly saulsberry <kimrae@webtv.net>
Subject: IN THE MONEY

I personally think that the show was much more interesting before the
Conners won all of that money.  I think that the show lost alot of its
comedic value in the long run.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 14:37:01 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: George Clooney/Laurie Metcalf

George Clooney played the boss "Booker" at the Wellman plant during the
first season.  Does anyone remember the name of the actor who played
"Fisher"?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 18:54:16 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I don't remember the actor's name who played Fisher,but if you live in the
NYC area.... FOX 5 just finished running season 8 and instead of going
back to season 1, started season 5 in which he is in. You, or perhaps
someone else, can check the credits.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 05:42:48 GMT
From: november@fastrans.net
Subject: what I think of Roseanne

Dear Roseanne fans,
        When I first saw Roseanne on Letterman years ago I was moderately
amused and though the cud-chewing was incredibly annoying I did wish her
well because I was glad a woman with attitude was getting ahead.
        In fact I was so not-taken with her I never watched her show. But
in syndication at 10pm in St. Louis there was nothing else to watch so I
started. My god! It was magnificent! She hated her job. She changed jobs.
She mouthed off to her bosses. She had trouble paying bills. She was a
jerk sometimes, sometimes a sweetheart. Her sister was hot. Her mom was a
pain in the butt. Iwanted to be IN her family.
        Hell I even understand what she was trying to do with the Star
Spangled Banner and why it didn't work.
        I loved the show. I loved the inside jokes... I could go on and
on. I loved Rosanne. The last couple of seasons started to drag and, god,
the last season sucked, though I think I know what she was trying to do.
The las show was a letdown. The wrap-up monologue was a supreme attempt to
pull it all out of the fire which only partly worked.
        Thank god for syndication!

your pal,
johnny
november@fastrans.net
        
-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 15:41:47 GMT
From: JLynn <don't@emailme.crap>
Subject: Re: Where was Nana Mary? Was, Who's your favorite character?

My favourite character was the infamous chicken shirt!!!!

JLynn

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:05:38 +0100
From: Lorraine Pearce <lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Where was Nana Mary? Was, Who's your favorite character?

A question for those with a big VT library (or good memories):  The
chicken sweatshirt and logo appeared loads around the time of the
LunchBox, on aprons, shirts etc - no problem with that - but how come it
appeared way earlier in a show a season or two before Rosie & co even
thought of the diner? (Sorry can't think of which episodes, but there was
one with DJ wearing it as a pyjama top)

Whoever has the answer - please don't say Roseanne has a thing about
keeping nasty old sweatshirts....!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 17:02:48 GMT
From: debbie <dacurrie.removetoreply@ix.netcom.com>

Andrea and Joshua Barol wrote:

>My favorite recurring character was
>Nana Mary, played by Shelley Winters, who I wished had some part in the
>last show.

She was my favorite character too.  I believe she appeared in at least one
episode this final season, didn't she?  I was disappointed that she didn't
appear in the finale.  Does anyone know -- is Shelley Winters in good
health?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 13:49:01 GMT
From: Debbie in Cincinnati <techchick@rocketmail.com>

I remember reading an interview on Roseanne years ago...before the
diner...where she discussed the Chicken Shirt.  I am horrid about
remembering all the details, so I'm terribly sorry this is so sketchy, but
I remember that somewhere she got this T-shirt with the chicken stuff on
it.  She found it so incredibly hideous that she just ~~had~~to wear it on
the show!  Well, amazingly enough, there was such a response from viewers
asking the "meaning" of the chicken shirt, that she decided to keep it
going through the series and either bought the logo from the designer or
contracted with the designer for additional products.  She also discussed
the name written on a paper hung on the refrigerator door and who it was,
but I can't remember any of that...ahh, the perils of getting older and
losing those brain cells!  (:-)  Debbie

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 22:08:30 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Past Characters

I would love to have seen some people from the past pop up in the final<61>:

Crystal, Ed, Lonnie, Little Ed and the new baby Ann Marie Bonnie Kathy and
Jerry, and ofcourse Todd Booker Molly and Charlotte

I am sure it would have cost a fortune and prob. been impossible to put
together but I would have liked to see all the old faces. I never really
understood why Crystal disappeared and then made only 2 appearances over
like 5 years. Good lines from David, Darlene, and Molly at Lanford Days
celebration when Molly was hitting on David and David liking it....

Molly: I'm a vegetarian
David: Really, so am I
Darlene: No your not!
David: Well, I'm eating a lot more Chicken
Darlen: Oh, yeah I forgot.... Chicken's a vegetable

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:48:16 -0400
From: andru <aleak@chat.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Past Characters

There's only so many seats around the table.  As things were half the
people were standing anyways.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1997 21:08:02 GMT
From: RobenRox <robenrox@aol.com>

Who was Ann Marie?  Who was Kathy, Jerry, and Todd?

I'm sure I'll remember if someone helps me.  The names just don't ring a
remembell.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 02:46:18 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>

Ann Marie was Roseanne's friend from high school that she met again in the
principal's office when Becky got in trouble for flashing the bird in the
school photo.  Chuck who was in many episodes also was her husband.  They
were the only continuing characters who were black.

Jerry and Kathy were the next door neighbors, ( Kathy was the stuck up
one).  todd was their son and DJ friend.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 22:45:59 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: Just couple more favorites

Another really good scene was from the Dan in jail episode when Darlene
came to bail Dan out.

Darlene:  I bet when you picture this i was on the other side of these
bars

later:  I think you should know that a few things have changed since you
have been here.  Mom says we have a new Daddy now.

The other:

The episode when Darlene got invite to her first formal dance.  Who could
forget the trying on the dresses scene.

the best line:  Becky:  You do look like Judy Jetson

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 22:51:00 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: a couple more favorites pt 2

Let me add in any episode where John Goodman sings

Remember Jail House Rock in the jail episode, Beverly Hillbillies
theme/rap at the poker game and Sweet Home Chicago with Blue Traveler. (or
Bonnie Sheridan singing "You Really Got A Hold One Me" on the mother's day
show.)  EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1997 22:55:35 GMT
From: G8rTammy <g8rtammy@aol.com>
Subject: I just have to say.....

Hello fellow fans!!  I have been watching Roseanne since the show fist
started way back in 1988, (I was 11 at the time).  That show was so much
like my life and my family's life.  I am part of a blue collar family.  My
father works for Pepsi Cola, my mother works as a cook in a bar.  My
brother and me, well,...we are the average kids making average grades.  I
saw Roseanne alot on t.v. as a stand up comic and I always thought that
she was funny.  When she got her first show, we all watched. From then on,
we were viewers.  This show was the first show that everyone in the house
could relate to.  And it showed lifes humor.  My father had a heart attack
a few years ago, I had a baby when I was 19.  I also got married young.
On May 20th, I was at work that evening, but had the episode taped.  I
wouldn't let anyone tell me how it ended.  Today, I sat down and watched
it.  I thought it was great.  New baby at home, Roseanne and Dan together,
all the kids picking on each other, it was wonderful.  I thought "Hey,
this won't be so tough to watch after all.  It will end the way it
started, on a happy note."  Then the ending came.  I finally realized that
Dan, who reminded me so much of my own father, didn't survive his heart
attack.  I'll tell you all, however is still reading this, I felt as if I
had lost a family member.  I grew up watching this show, watching the
mirrored images of my family on the t.v.  I'll tell you all honestly, it
really hurt to see the show go.  But I am glad for the many, many episodes
of laughs.  I will be happy watching the re-runs and looking back on my
own life, for at least a half an hour every night.
Thanks for reading.
Tammy Ogram.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 20:24:34 -0700
From: me <me@here.com>
Subject: theme song

Does anyone have the lyrics to the theme song?

This is what I have...am I right?

Well, what doesn't kill us is making us stronger
We're gonna last longer
(And the greatest wall in China?)
(....?)
If there's one thing that I've learned
While waiting for my turn
Is that in each lifetime some rain falls
But you also get some sun
And we'll make it better than okay
Hear what I say, everyday.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 06:23:22 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

We're gonna last longer... than that greatest wall in China or that Bunny
with a drum.

Hope that helps

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 14:21:46 -0700
From: JScarborough <scarboro@wolfenet.com>

It goes....

If what doesn't kill us is making us stronger
We're gonna last longer
Than the greatest wall in China
or that rabbit with a drum       (...the energiser bunny...)
If there's one thing that I've learned
while waiting for my turn
Is that in each life some rain falls
but you also get some sun
and we'll make out better than okay
hear what I say
Any day

Hope this helps

-----------------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 1997 04:16:34 GMT
From: Tziper <tziper@aol.com>

We're gonna last longer that greatest wall in China
or that rabbit with the drum
(it keeps going and going and going..... get it?)

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 00:36:00 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: Michael O'Keefe

Sorry Rogers, close but no cigar.  Michael O'Keefe played Fred.  (Yes, he
is married to Bonnie Raitt to the poster who asked.)  The name of the
actor who played Fisher was Matt Roth, (I found it on the

Roseanne home page and which answers my own question).  She has a daughter
Zoe from her first marriage and Will with Matt, (they aren't married).

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 20:35:53 +0300
From: Deddi Shy <shayd@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject: D.J.'s age

These this episode once when Roseanne said D.J. is really 17 but they tell
everyone he's 12. Which is right, if either?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 14:33:56 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I believe David Jacob was 6 when the series began making him in the 15-16
age range.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 17:33:43 GMT
From: "J./B. Moore" <inartctr@inetdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Roseanne--Can someone explain it to me?

>>1) The entire series was her fictional book about her family. This is
>>what I have come to believe. The strongest supporting point of this was
>>that they portrayed Jackie as straight from the very beginning.
>>2) The fiction started when she got her writing room.

I think #2 is what we are meant to believe, given the last episode.  Of
course when they started the series they didn't know how it was to end, so
how could they go from day 1 "knowing" it was fiction? Jackie being
straight from the beginning could be explained as Jackie avoiding
admitting she was gay (i.e. Ellen) and thus being very promiscuous with
men. Also, I think we are meant to interpret the weirder episodes (like
the Gilligan's Island one) as Roseanne's attempts to work out writer's
block or to avoid writing about something painful like Dan's death.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 19:08:18 GMT
From: Soxfan32 <soxfan32@aol.com>
Subject: Roseanne finale - I have it

I am just posting this to the lsit to say that I have the finale for
anyone that missed it.  I tried to email anyone saying they missed it or
forgot to tape it, but it is hard to remember which people I emailed.  So
if there is anyone else that forgot to tape Roseanne or their VCR screwed
up, email me and we can figure something out.

Erin

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 18:26:15 -0500
From: georg@swbell.net
Subject: Finale...what else?

Okay....it was always her show whatever anyone else thought and she proved
that last Tuesday. She didn't try to be Cosby or Leave it to Beaver but
only her self. But I have to say that when shows choose to end in this
surreal way(i.e. Newhart, St. Elswhere) they often leave their fans
feeling betrayed.We were loyal for so long but that didn't matter to
Roseanne she had to have the last laugh and if you watched you know she
did.

georg

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 05:53:39 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>

Only if you're grasping for straws. I do not understand how anyone could
watch 60 minutes of the most sincere, sappy Roseanne ever and conclude
that she was flipping the bird to her fans.

A lot of fans don't feel betrayed when a show ends this way -- it
heightens interest and speculation in the ending and what it meant.
There's been more talk about Roseanne in this newsgroup lately than in
years.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 16:45:31 -0500
From: georg@swbell.net

You feel that the ending sparked interest...it did do that but you know
this was a sitcom not Twin Peaks or the Outer Limits. So I still say we
deserved a better ending...and maybe she deserved not to get her spin off.
georg

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 03:56:09 GMT
From: Rogers Cadenhead <nospam@prefect.com>
Subject: Re: Finale...what else?

A sitcom is as capable of provoking intelligent discussion as any other
kind of TV show, provided that it's a good one. The format is irrelevant.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 00:45:37 -0500
From: georg@swbell.net

Oh yeah well you are irrelevant Rog......i watch a sitcom to see a
situation comedy not some freaky revisionist history.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 21:56:32 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>
Subject: Theme

If what doesn't kill us makes us stronger
We're gonna last longer
Than the greatest wall in China
Or that rabbit with a drum

There's one thing that I've learned
While waiting for my turn
It's that in each life some rain falls
But you also get some sun

We'll make out better than okay
Hear what I say
Yeah, anyday

-----------------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1997 22:00:19 GMT
From: KKBB <kkbb@istar.ca>
Subject: credits

I thought that part one of the finale was better than a lot of the season,
but still a bit lacking.

Blame goes to the writers, Jessica Pentland and Jennifer Pentland.

I wish my mom had a t.v. show.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 15:01:36 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!?????She let her KIDS write the show????????  Aren't
they still teenagers?? That explains an AWFUL (no pun intended) lot!!!!!
I wish my mommy had her own tv show too.  Then I could be a drug addicted
runaway with an extremely obnoxious attitude AND have my writers guild
union card!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 01:13:57 GMT
From: ERGill <ergill@aol.com>

If you seriously believe that her daughters wrote one word, ever - and
that includes notes to the milkman - then... wow.  You need a rest.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 02:19:04 +0100
From: Lorraine Pearce <lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk>
Subject: To fans in the States

Could anyone who's watched each episode this season up to and including
the finale please tell me how many episodes Darlene's baby's birth show is
away from the finale? (is it the next one on?)

Mucho thanxo,

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 14:41:38 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I wish I could help you with this one, but here in the United States abc
was not standing by our Rosie and kept pre-empting the show with reruns of
Home Improvement. If you are on AOL... go to Keyword abc find Roseanne and
there is an episode guide that will tell you exactly the episode orders
for this and the past 3 or so seasons.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 1997 10:33:23 -0600
From: Cyndi Glass <cglass@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

They ran that one ("The Miracle") on Feb. 25. After that, they showed
either Roseanne re-runs or "Home Improvement" until May 13, which was the
episode where Dan's mother was trying to kill him. May 20 was the finale.

I haven't seen the AOL episode guide but the one at Roseanne Online isn't
just the last few seasons - it has them all. Go to
http://www.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~croon/roseanne/roseanne.html

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 11:51:39 -0400
From: Bob Haag <ford@newreach.net>
Subject: My Thoughts on the series Finale

Hi I am new to the newsgroup;mostly I hang around the X-Files Group.
Roesanne's finale was the most touching episode I have seen since picket
fences. She showed me how brilliant and person she really is. I remember
when she first hit the comedy clubs in the 80's. I almost fell out of my
chair laughing when she did her routine. The quote by T E Lawerence really
struck me.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 01:21:11 -0400
From: Joe <joe@cyberzone.net>
Subject: [Please Read] The Last Episode [Please READ]

Anyone:

I have watched the show forever, and I missed the last episode.  I have
heard what happened, and I would like to see it.

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF IT WILL BE REPLAYED??

Please e-mail me!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:14:35 -0500
From: Susan McClatchey <SusanMcClatchey@webtv.net>
Subject: Dan Conner

  Would a Roseanne fan please tell me the name of the actor that plays
the part of Dan Conner?  I saw him in New Orleans this weekend, helping
with the Special Olympics.  Does he have his own web page or email
address? I just want to thank him for being so nice to the kids.
SusanMcClatchey@Webtv.net.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 26 May 1997 20:12:13 GMT
From: Lost Soul <shen@cdc.net>
Subject: Re: Dan Conner

That fine actor's name is John Goodman. Don't know about a web page
though.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:36:22 -0500
From: Susan McClatchey <SusanMcClatchey@webtv.net>
Subject: Re: Dan Conner

Thank you for your information on John Goodman.  Susan

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 97 01:27:42 GMT
From: Erin H Coughlin <erinc@emily.oit.umass.edu>

Hi!
There IS a little web page for John Goodman.  You can find it
using Yahoo.
Nire

-----------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 22:38:49 GMT
From: mysterygirl@usa.net
Subject: Finale: So sad...Goodbye Roseanne, thanks for the fun

It's so sad to see it go. I never cried so much as I did in the last part
of the show. I sat there and listened to what she was saying about her
imagining to be with another man (but only for other reasons because of
guilt) and about Dan being with another woman (the feeling of betrayl of
leaving her) really touched me. I also remembered the episodes that she
was talking about....  I loved the character Dan. It was a sad way to end
such a fun show, one I will never forget. It made me realize my family
wasn't so dysfunctional. She showed us what most families were like, and
how to make the best of unfortunate situations.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 1997 01:01:02 GMT
From: G8tscott <g8tscott@aol.com>
Subject: A Tad Disappointed

When interviewed last season as to why she was going to do another season,
I recall Roseanne stating that she felt she had an obligation to bring the
characters to a "better spot"----implying that she wanted to show that
their years of struggling and growing up etc. paid off and that it "would
not been in vain" so to speak.  ---that the characters would be ina
different place.  Well they certainly were in a different place!  Does
anyone recall this interview?  I think she missed the pulse of her
audience this time.  We loved the entire family and their
interaction----not just the main character.  No matter what, I continue to
watch the reruns and find her artistry/writing to be so compelling.

ps i've enjoyed all of your thoughtful and enlightening posts.  Gracias
Pat Scott

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 01:27:07 GMT
From: ERGill <ergill@aol.com>
Subject: Re: A Tad Disappointed

SHE DIDN'T WRITE THE SHOW.  SHE DIDN'T WRITE THE SHOW.  SHE DIDN'T WRITE
THE SHOW.

There.  Point made.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 23:15:38 GMT
From: Clarksville Street Department <joey@iglou.com>

So, what are you trying to say here?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 1997 02:42:23 GMT
From: LizC11990 <lizc11990@aol.com>Subject: Johnny Galecki murder movie

A long time ago someone posted about this movie....  Well, just wanted to
pass this along....  It will air Tuesday at 7pm central time on Fox

Liz
3rd Generation Saturn Girl
Mom's got one and Grandma does too!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 23:00:21 -0700
From: Jamie <jamschmi@indiana.edu>

I just finished watching this movie...JG's performance was absolutely
first-rate. I have never seen such a thrilling TV movie in my life.  I
think he is really a great actor, and hope that his talent is seen much
more on TV and the Big Screen...  J

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 15:23:43 -0700
From: me <me@here.com>
Subject: theme q#2

The theme somg in the last season was sung by Blues Traveller, right?  But
what about the past 8 seasons?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 28 May 1997 15:26:07 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>
Subject: Re: theme q#2

I don't really know if Blues Traveller sang season 9's theme... but don't
you know that nobody sings in instrumentals?  Season 1-8 Instrumental
theme with recorded laugh at end.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 21:10:42 -0700
From: ajsf@netcom.ca

Yes, of course I know that the seasons 1-8 were intrumental, but I asked
if Blues Traveller performed it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 02:42:09 GMT
From: JEMEEK <jemeek@aol.com>
Subject: Re: theme q#2

Yes, The lead singer of Blues Traveller did sing the theme, not sure if
the band backed him up though.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 13:25:11 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>
Subject: widow 'rosie'

roseanne The Real is quite capable, if she wishes to, of creating a new
series around the widowhood. it could be something like 'those connors
women" (is it connors or conners?) and focus on her as a widow and
grandmother.  the daughters could divorce either or both of the husbands
which would take care of the who is married to whom question.  this would
establish a base connecting to all surviving spouses, grandparenting, and
the consequences of divorce.  sister jackie could take up with that nice
bookstore lesbian, ellen, (who, now that she is 'out', finds los angeles a
little too wild for her taste and moves to a small but tolerant
mid-western community and again has her own store).  jackie adopts a
yorkie she finds running the streets and decides she wants to have her own
business so she opens a grooming shop.  roseanne at first skoffs at the
idea of a doggie beauty parlor, but quickly realizes dog owners love to
indulge their four footed children so she sets up a small enterprise in
her home with leon designing and making custom clothing for pets.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 27 May 97 22:37:47 GMT
From: dsantos@cc.umanitoba.ca
Subject: could someone please give me a synopsis of the finale?

Unfortunately, my VCR ate my tape and I totally missed teh season finale.
Would some kind soul please tell me what happened on the season finale?
I'd appreciate a synopsis.

Was everyone back?  Which Becky was there?  BTW, whatever happened to Nana
Mary (Shelley Winters)?

Thanks.

Dee
dsantos@ccu.umanitoba.ca

-----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 21:20:29 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>
Subject: 'dan' lives!

some friends and i were lamenting the death of 'dan' and one of us (i
won't say who, she said modestly), pointed out that maybe 'dan' did not
die when he had the heart attack.  maybe it wasn't 'dan' who had the heart
attack.  maybe it was 'roseanne' who had the heart attack and the finale
was a hulucinatory dream she had in her hospital bed.  so... she could die
and 'dan' and the family could carry on, or she could survive. she could
have had the heart attack or been in a car accident and be in a coma,
after all this is television land where such things are common.  either of
these could have happened way before 'darlene' quit school, got pregnant
and married 'david'.  'roseanne' could come out of it and everything is
normal, well...normal for the 'conners'.  hmmm, i won't be surprised if
she does something like this in a few years to pull together whoever is
still speaking with her from the cast.  or....  'roseanne' could open each
show in her writing room and reminisce another episode.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 17:19:44 +0000
From: Terri Williams <terriw@REMOVEfrontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: Fisher

I believe the actor's name is Matt Roth.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 29 May 1997 00:06:13 GMT
From: "Barbara J. Aveni" <javeni@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Favorite episode?

What is everyones all time favorie Rosanne? Mine is when Rosanne gets
David and Darlene back together.
-K:)~

-----------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:24:24 -0700
From: Jan Junod <junod@u.washington.edu>

Mine is the scene at the funeral home after Roseanne's dad has died.  She
reads him the good-bye letter and then pops it into the casket.

Jan,
out of lurk mode

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:45:29 -0700
From: Rafael <rlymp@hotmail.com>
Subject: Dans heart attack

Someone at this ng said that dan was dead after the heart attack. This was
before the beginning of last season.  Whoever wrote that saw it coming.
Good job.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 22:19:04 GMT
From: "Edward D. Lumsden" <mariner3@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Did Roseanne end up alone???

At the end, she went upstairs and plopped down on her couch with a kind of
sad look on her face... Was she the only one living in the house??? Did
she end up alone after all that about the house never being empty? I
didn't understand if this was trying to be said... Dan is dead of
course... did the couples move out? Did D.J. grow up and move to
Hollywood? Anyone have an answer?????? :)

                                                                --Mark
-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:31:38 -0400
From: Andrew Barnett <andrewpd@erols.com>

Wow. I had never even thought about that. If that was the message they
were trying to convey, then the ending may not have been as stupid as I
originally thought. That would be a fitting ending to the episode that
made the point of the house being jammed with all the relatives and
extended family. Oh well. Anyone else notice that it seems Series Finales
are always sad?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 23:18:37 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>
Subject: Dan: Pro & Con

I remember a while back there was quite a comotion about people feeling
betrayed by the decision to make Dan have an affair.  It seemed terribly
out of character.

Looks like we were right.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 21:15:55 -0500
From: kimberly saulsberry <kimrae@webtv.net>
Subject: Pot Smoking Episode

The episode when they found the pot in basement was so hilarious!!!
Jackie rolling the joint, Dan getting paranoid, Roseanne thinking shes a
horrible mom, and best of all, Jackie saying that "she didn't have
anybody, just me and my ganja"!!!!!!!  What did you think of this
particular episode?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 07:43:45 -0500
From: Jamie <jamschmi@indiana.edu>

I loved this one too! When they were all high and starting the paranoia
stage, I thought I was gonna die! Luckily I had the chance to see it again
as a re-run about three weeks ago on the Fox. Jamie

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 14:14:55 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

<<Dan getting paranoid, >>

BIRDS.....BIRDS......BIRDS

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 14:12:00 GMT
From: RobocopKlr <robocopklr@aol.com>
Subject: NEWSFLASH: IT'S ALL FICTION!

I didn't get to see the last episode; can someone tell me what's with this
"book" crap? How are we supposed to know the "real" part of the show from
the supposedly FICTITIOUS part of the show? You just can't jerk things
around like that! If the show is supposed to be so "realisitic" and "true
to life," then you can't go back and say that "this didn't really happen"
or, as they did in "Dallas,"  "it was all just a horrible dream."  This
"revisionism" is only worthy of a Clinton-voter.  Yes, we KNOW it's
fictitious, did she think we were under the impression that "Roseanne" is
a DOCUMENTARY?  But even fiction must remain true to its own rules if it
is to be taken seriously. This lame excuse, that she "had it planned this
way all along from the beginning," is a blatant lie, an attempt to cover
up the fact that she had simply blown off the final season in a tragicomic
representation of her own pathetic life.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 14:41:44 GMT
From: Kiwilerner <kiwilerner@aol.com>
Subject: Re: NEWSFLASH: IT'S ALL FICTION!

Pathetic?  Who is more pathetic?  1) a person with amazing talent and guts
who entertains millions for years and is now a multi-millionaire with a
new husband and baby?  Or 2) someone who spews bitterness and obnoxious
insults (was the Clinton slam really necessary?) just because of an
episode in a tv show--one which s/he admits s/he didn't even see?

Hmmm.  That's a toughie.

-- Kira
-----------------------------------------
Date: 30 May 1997 18:25:15 GMT
From: RobocopKlr <robocopklr@aol.com>

A Tuffy? So MUFFLE it!

Well, the answer is, clearly, 3) someone who shamelessly kisses UP to (1,
defending ANYTHING that 1) does including attacking anyone that DARES to
say anything which smacks of BLASPHEMY against her holiness, no matter how
dead-to-rights it may be (were the numerical considerations REALLY
necessary?) FYI, Roseanne openly HATES suck-ups; save it for your
inquisitions.!

And yes, the Clinton comparison WAS necessary to show the wages of
shameless revisionism; if Roseanne wants to be worthy of a higher
standard, she should live up to it.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 04:40:04 GMT
From: Kiwilerner <kiwilerner@aol.com>

LOL!  Your response would mean a lot more if you actually knew how to
count.  I don't even know what "inquisitions" refers to.  Kind of a
frightening post, all in all.

I don't have any problem with someone who criticizes the show.  I simply
think it absurd to call Roseanne's life pathetic while doing so.  And why
are you so darn angry?  It's just a tv show!  Why is it "sucking up" to
simply defend her?

<<And yes, the Clinton comparison WAS necessary to show the wages of
shameless revisionism; if Roseanne wants to be worthy of a higher
standard, she should live up to it.>>

Anger anger anger.  Why did you watch the show if you loathe her so much?

-- Kira

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:59:47 -0500
From: Victoria <Smile@life.its.great>
Subject: Roseanne Biography

I saw a biography this weekend about Roseanne, and it was really good.

They mentioned that she worked a Bennigan's and that is when she realized
that she could do stand up because of her quick whitted responses to the
customers.

They also mentioned that she is having her own talk show.  But it won't
out for about a year or more.  So she is playing the wicked witch in
Wizard of Oz on stage for now.

They interviewed the actress that played Jackie... she was really
pretty!!!  I was quite surprised at how nice she looked.

They interviewed Dan, he mentioned how he loved doing the show but the
time had come for him to leave.  And that's all he really mentioned about
his leaving.

It was a really good biography.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 10:17:35 -0500
From: Victoria <Smile@life.its.great>
Subject: The rewritten show

Hi everyone, I am new to this newsgroup, and I had stopped watching
Roseanne after he had the heart attack and they broke up.

I thought the way they broke up was powerful, and it was really sad.  But
the season after that, I heard all kinds of bad things that made me glad I
stopped watching.  I personally didn't like the Dan had an affair, etc.

So my opinion about the series finale, is that I really thought it was
believable that a woman would rewrite history in her mind to help her deal
with the loss of a loved one.

For it to be easier to hate Dan for cheating on her, than to grieve him
for dieing, is very realistic.  Alot of widows/widowers have a hard time
dealing with guilt because they do often feel abandoned by the deceased
spouse and part of them does hate that person for leaving.

So that part of the show being rewritten I like.  But I don't understand
why she rewrite who Becky & Darlene actually married?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 97 17:29:29 GMT
From: tramp@trionet.de
Subject: where i can find pictures of Sarah Chalke

How can help me ?
I look for pictures Sarah Chalke.
But i don't no, where i find it.Please help me

tramp@trionet.de

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 21:27:35 GMT
From: "Edward D. Lumsden" <mariner3@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: I have an idea...

I have an idea... maybe it would be cool if they could start selling the
book that roseanne wrote! it would make abc some money. I'm saying that
they would make the author Roseanne Connor, and we could see just how much
of the series was actually the book. Good idea? :)

                                                --Mark

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 00:27:06 GMT
From: Gercohen <gercohen@aol.com>
Subject: Roseanne Contest

Someone told me that they were watching a tape of this past week's
Roseanne show and there was a contest drawing for a Sony Watchman and my
name was announced as the winner and I was supposed to call a number to
claim my prize.  Was my leg being pulled or is this the truth??  If true
and someone has the tape, what phone number was I to call?

-Gerry Cohen
-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 03:02:38 GMT
From: Gercohen <gercohen@aol.com>

Mystery solved.  It was a local TV station promotion on a Roseanne rerun
this week -- I had to call-in within a certain number of minutes to win a
Sony Watchman.  Wasn't watching the rerun, oh well.

-----------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 16:38:17 -0400
From: Lynn Iding <lynn.iding@xtra.ca>
Subject: a different view of the finale

I thought that in the end, when Roseanne was talking about "real life"
she was literally talking of real life - who in Roseanne's real life
inspired the characters on her show. When she said "in real life, my
sister is gay", I thought she was referring to her real life sister
Geraldine, who is indeed gay. The interpretations I have read here are new
to me. Did anyone else see it the way I saw it?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 13:24:16 -0400
From: Andrew Barnett <andrewpd@erols.com>

At first, this is what it seemed to me as well. But then when she said Dan
died, and how she fantasized about winning the lottery and everything, it
all got "weird". In the end, I think we were supposed to learn that the
entire series was a story within a story. Everything was written by
another woman, who patterned it after her life. Anyway, I would be
interested in how long this ending has been decided upon. In other words,
was the last season made to be the story within the story?

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 07:38:56 GMT
From: "Bryan F. Irrera" <bryan@mindless.com>
Subject: Christmas Episode: SPOILER WARNING

Hello, I'm new to this newsgroup but would like to ask for opinions on the
ending of tonight's episode.

Now that I've filled in the space in this area...what did you think of the
possibility that Dan is cheating on Roseanne....and that Jackie is the
only one who knows.  Will she spill the beans in the next episode to
Roseanne, or will she confront Dan first?  Is he really having an affair?

I have a feeling that there is no affair going on...at least I would hope
that it's a misunderstanding.

Bryan

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 22:11:59 -0400
From: hobbes <hobbes@soho.ios.com>
Subject: Comedy

Some people bring up a good point about the seriousness of the final
episode.  Should comedy shows sole purpose be to entertain?  Should they
discuss "serious" topics and put a funny spin on it?

My newspaper had an article about the Murphy Brown character may have
breast cancer this season. How do people think about comedies doing real
issues?

Actually one of my favorite Roseanne episodes was when her father died.
When they talked about the "grief buffet" and the scene where they were at
the funeral parlor and Jackie was freaking out was really good.  I saw
this episode soon after my father died and so much of it was sooo true.  I
could really appreciate it and it did make me laugh when I needed it.

Mary

-----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 12:07:09 -0400
From: berry&boucher <savnpets@mail.tds.net>
Subject: where is everyone?

is it my server not carrying this newsgroup any longer, or have people
stopped posting?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 1 Jun 1997 16:59:03 GMT
From: MojoRadio2 <mojoradio2@aol.com>

I don't think there is any problem with your server. The problem is that
everyone has discussed the final<61> to death. There is not new material to
discuss anymore.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 3 Jun 97 01:17:25 GMT
From: Public Access User <public@hpl.govt.nz>
Subject: becky's replacement

Whats the story behind becky being replaced with another actor and then
being replaced again with the original?

-----------------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 1997 04:35:47 GMT
From: Tziper <tziper@aol.com>
Subject: Rosseanne in Oz

I guess I could not get enough of Roseanne because I forked over $54+ to
see her in the Wizard of Oz at the Garden.  An although the show was
rather lack luster and did not contain one fifth the magic or enchantment
the film had, Roseanne was fantastic!!!!!!!! Totaly over the top, crazy
and all around hysterical. Her biggest applause came when durring the
cyclone scene she flew in on the bike and then in a flash changed into the
witch.  Most of all she looked like she was totaly enjoying herself. It
was worth the money and the tons of screaming children.  A special note to
F.O.D. who may want to go and see this show- do it, you certainly wont be
alone!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 13:50:36 +0200
From: "[iso-8859-1] J<>rgen Feldmann" <jfeldman@halifax.rwth-aachen.de>
Subject: Roseanne

Hello there,

if there anyone who could tell me some news about SARA GILBERT (Darlene
Connor)of Roseanne ?

I search for a new Biography of her and some photos.Especially I would
know what she is doing now after she had graduate in Yale on May 26 1997 (
I hope she had graduate now <20>cause there were ceremonys in Yale at the end
of May).

If there anybody who could help me or so, please e-mail it to me at

                mailto:jfeldman@halifax.rwth-aachen.de

Thanks to you

J<EFBFBD>rgen

-----------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:06:45 +0100 (BST)
From: "R. Horsley" <ICS6RH@leeds.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: a different view of the finale

Andrew Barnett wrote:

> I would be interested in how long this ending has been
> decided upon.

Just by chance, I was reading an interview with Roseanne somewhere on the
internet the other day. (Sorry I can't remember the address - it was
pretty obscure.) Anyway, this was from 1995 and, believe it or not, she
made several sly references to the revelations of the last episode. If I'd
read the interview without knowing how the series ended, I wouldn't have
understood or even picked up on the references, I don't think. I reckon
the season finale ending has been in Roseanne's mind for quite a few
years...

Ross.

-----------------------------------------
Date: 31 May 1997 11:46:22 GMT
From: drol dog <102651.546@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Let's call the finale for what it was: a gimmick

sounds like a couple of bitter faggots are pissed cuz Roseanne didn't end
her series with some bullshit fake fucking ending like goddamn Full
House...  THAT LAUGH KICKED ASS...  cuz it's people like you that have
been downing her for years now...  criticizing for the sake of hearing
yourself talk...

-----------------------------

Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 18:55:41 GMT
From: BrYan Westbrook <westbrok@hsnp.com>
Subject: Re: Christmas Episode

Only coming through in waves, bryan@mindless.com (Bryan F. Irrera) wrote:

>I have a feeling that there is no affair going on...at least I would
>hope that it's a misunderstanding.

Actually, Dan died when he had the heart attack last year.  Roseanne felt
so betrayed by his leaving her that it felt like Dan had left her for
another woman.  Therefore, Roseanne kept Dan alive in her book and created
the affair scenario.

----------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:02:51 +0100
From: Becky Garrett <becky@castle.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Johnny Galecki aka David Healy

Hi....
        I am desperately seeking pictures of Johnny Galecki. If anyone
could help me I would be very grateful.
My email address is becky@castle.demon.co.uk
--
Becky Garrett

-------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:31:10 +0100 (BST)
From: "R. Horsley" <ICS6RH@leeds.ac.uk>
Subject: Last episode on UK TV last night

God, that ending really blew me away. That final shot of Roseanne sitting
on the sofa in the middle of the huge living room...

Liked the throwback to the old scene of Dan and the kids showing Roseanne
her writing room for the first time - kind of proved that this ending has
been in the works for a long time.

Ross.

------------------
Date: 19 Jun 1997 18:58:49 GMT
From: Julie Eischens <julie_eischens@lacek.com>

I agree!  I thought the last episode was GREAT!  Everything I had hoped
for and more!  It makes me happy that such a great series generated such
great closure.  Kudos!

R. Horsley <ICS6RH@leeds.ac.uk> wrote
> God, that ending really blew me away. That final shot of
> Roseanne sitting on the sofa in the middle of the huge living
> room...
>
> Liked the throwback to the old scene of Dan and the kids
> showing Roseanne her writing room for the first time - kind
> of proved that this ending has been in the works for a long
> time.
>
> Ross.

--------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:42:11 +0100
From: Lorraine Pearce <lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk>

I've only just seen the finale episode after returning from holiday.
British fans (including me) who've kept track of the newsgroup maybe knew
what to expect, but actually seeing it for yourself - well, whoa!

The first part (interesting that Roseanne's daughters wrote the teleplay)
was a well-rounded ending to the series, resolving - at least in Roseanne
the writer's book - loose ends in the media-friendly 'happy-
but-realistic-sitcom' style viewers are accustomed to, the genre which
Roseanne the writer refers to later. For all the posters to the group who
bemoaned no official 'cast bows', then surely this did the trick with most
of the recent characters, and in a feasible, i.e. non-cheesey, way.

As for the second part, it did seem weird suddenly having to (finally)
come to terms with the realities of Roseanne the character's world, as
opposed to the snugly-fitting family dynamics we were used to for so long.
The argument over how long this has been planned is a fascinating one to
ponder, although cynics have said the finale treatment was a lazy
'cop-out' to gloss over the badly-received 'lottery' season.  Roseanne's
voice-over explaining how and why she "reframed" her situation was the
most moving part of the programme: How many other TV shows challenge the
notion that women are conditioned to be martyrs, that money is everything,
or that life 'always' goes to plan? I've never seen a long- running
programme finale more poignant or profound.

Partly because of the series ending, I've also just read Roseanne's (the
living breathing comedienne, duh!) two autobiographies, which have been
around a little while - circa 1990 and 1994. If there is anyone out there
who would like to add another dimension to the finale, or even the whole
series, then reading these will certainly do that for you: The intended
parallels between comedienne and character make "Roseanne" the series all
the more intriguing.

A last note for the cynics mentioned above - I'm not in the habit of
gushing about any old TV programme; in fact, I'm a graduate of Media
Studies so I suppose I know what I'm talking about (not trying to pose,
I'm just defending myself!). Personally, Roseanne's quote from the writing
room says it all:
        "...We women are the ones who transform everything we touch
          and nothing is higher than that."

              <<<<<<< lorraine@zenergy.demon.co.uk >>>>>>>

"What is essential is invisible to the eye"  - ANTOINE de SAINT-EXUPERY

 [-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
 [ (c) HOE E'ZINE -- http://www.hoe.nu   HOE #1109, BY ANONYMOUS - 6/28/00 ]