For the record, I stand with those who loved Chase's ending - I've liked open endings ever since The Prisoner and The Crying of Lot 49, and this followed wonderfully in that tradition. And I say that as someone who does not find The Sopranos to be the Best Television Show Ever, or the most significant cultural moment of the last 35 years, to update Stephen Holden's old hyperbole. That being said, I share some of the ill feelings about the 11-second gap: That was the trick, and it had nothing to do with the narrative or its closure. That being said, I still think that at least half of those who hated the ending would have hated any ending other than Tony getting his brains splattered onto the camera lens (cf Children of Men, another putatively open ending that some people didn't like): I'm not sure how Meadow-walking-in-and-sitting-down-cut-to-credits would resolve anything any more than what we saw did, especially if what you really wanted was Tony to pay for his sins by any means necessary.

That being said, what is enjoyable about the letters that have come in here is the way in which they give the lie not to "this thing of ours" but to this thing about that thing:

"Yes, I know: Art is designed to provoke us! The more violently we're provoked, the more brilliant the art is! But this isn't a painting, or a sculpture, or a piece of music. This isn't a two-hour film. This is a show on TV, one that many of us have watched for eight years running."

I've followed Heather Havrilensky's work for Salon over the past few years -- enjoyed some of it, mystified by some of it (if The Sopranos is just a show on TV, then what the hell is America's Next Top Model?). But those sentences are perhaps the most astonishing thing I've ever read from anyone who purports to be a critic of anything. I'm trying to imagine Greil Marcus writing about Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols -- or Nevermind - with the same airy disdain. Or Pauline Kael writing about Taxi Driver. Or Gary Giddins about A Love Supreme. The list could go on ad infinitum.

The ongoing discussion about the final episode speaks for itself -- and it's that for which Chase should be praised, not whichever way you feel about that episode. But for a television critic to mock that discussion by way of mocking the episode by way of mocking television itself as the source of that discussion is disingenous beyond words. If TV for you isn't the equivalent of "a two-hour film" (been to the Octoplex lately?), then either don't make a career/name for yourself writing about it -- or make clear that that's how you feel from the start (read John Simon's film reviews sometime for a good example). To do otherwise is to be as arrogant and as willing to cheat an audience as David Chase has been claimed to be.

The passion both the show itself and its finale have aroused in this forum and others like it is a real phenomenon, far more real than the scripted "reality" of shows Havrilensky likes to spend her time and ours on. Its source is immaterial -- the job of the critic should be to deal with it as it is, not to will it out of significance by saying that this medium of ours isn't worth the time or effort of ordering a plate of onion rings.

As a resident of Sioux Falls and someone who has a little knowledge about the workings of the Argus Leader, let me do some 'splainin'. The Argus' endorsement of Hillary Clinton was a foregone conclusion by two days before it appeared, for two reasons: 1) She came and met with the editorial board; Obama didn't. 2) The Argus' philosophy under its current editor is one of strict antiestablishmentarianism: If elected officials in the state/city support something, the Argus will oppose it, and vice versa. The fact that current Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin support Obama, and that former Sen. Tom Daschle is a campaign leader, and that former Sen. George McGovern switched horses a couple of weeks ago, all added up to an establishment presence that the Argus would almost certainly oppose -- and it did. To be fair, Hillary has worked her butt off in this state, and if she doesn't outright win, she's going to come a lot closer than anyone would have thought a month ago. (I'm not the only one thinking that Obama is counting on the SD connections more than he should -- as noted, the failure to meet w/ the Argus counted against him.) A couple of other things worth noting: Hillary's meeting with the editorial board, according to someone who was there, was curious in that the only people "allowed" to ask questions were the newspaper's publisher and executive editor. This is apparently not the usual case; it's unclear whether that was something imposed internally or externally, but it was out of the ordinary. The source at the interview also said that they've heard vox pop comments from populi who would not ordinarily be associated with such views that there is no way they could ever bring themselves to vote for a black man and/or Muslim. I know that that is not the view of the bosses at the Argus, but they may be giving tacit acknowledgement to that sentiment. As to the previous endorsement question: The Argus endorsed Bush in 2000 and 2004; it endorsed Daschle over Thune in 2004, and Johnson and (then) Herseth in their previous races. It tends to be kind to the folks in DC, while running angry agendas (sometimes rightfully, sometimes not) against politicians at the state and local levels. As is the case in most places, Argus endorsements usually don't make a whole lot of difference; when they do, it's usually to wake up the folks on the other side.