I think what has to be emphasized in all Curb discussions is that first of all, the season is the unit, not the episode, and second, that its basis in improvisation and objective is different from any other show of its type, ever.

Of course adding in more acting talent, and lots of expecation, gave things a boost- how could it not? But again, calling this season 'uneven' or the show 'overrated' or whatever... that is just filler, anyone can say that about anything. Such statements are applicable, for example, to both Hamlet and Waiting for Godot. And one is forced to note that while pigeons are constantly defecating on statues, none of them are sculpting any.

It would appear, judging by a heightened frequency, that our ILTW correspondent is being pressed to write more reviews, and perhaps to go more against the grain, and to be more accessible and talk less about sea donkeys and chickens and our pathetic consumer culture... in other words, the stuff that made this column worth reading in the first place.

Having said that, perhaps the denouement is that Heather soon takes her talents to more fertile ground, which might be best for all concerned. Too many years of writing about the mostly pap in a mostly declining medium in a rapidly declining culture can't be healthy, and seems to be becoming less fun for all concerned.

than stated in this article, and I know it is... my son is at Camp Lejeune. With some of the problems mentioned here, and with all of the dysfunctionality happening all around him. It is harrowing. Anyone motivated at all to speak up or out and take any reasonable action, please do. We need you.

A few points off for not mentioning this wastrel previously trying to cash in on Jesus, and for omitting the histrionic, unwatchable "acting" on "Charles in Charge" that made Scott Baio seem like Richard Burton by comparison. As a second banana Aames had less talent than a plantain, and undoubtedly would taste worse fried. Still, more than workwomanlike, and a much better way to keep those toddlers fed. This is why I like to read ILTW. Solid.

Ouch. I am hoping that this was suggested by some editor type and delivered on deadline so that young children could be fed. That makes it excusable, but no less horrendous. For ILTW, Worst. Column. Ever.

The standard formula just collapses here, and it is not a pretty thing. One envisions an email or phone call arriving in Toddler Hell suggesting this, and the recipient contemplating the alternatives: resign and write that novel? throw up in your mouth and start writing? Children cry in hunger. Option B chosen, and this the result.

These shows have nothing to do with one another at all, and that is the first hint of doom here. Third remake of a cheesy made for TV scifi melodrama, and CYE? It's like a food review where the two restaurants visited serve dung and duck l'orange. Compare and contrast? How about call in sick, or write the novel?

Jason Alexander a brilliant comic actor? In what universe? What has he ever done before or after Seinfeld other than poker shows, in which it becomes clear that the difference between him and George Costanza is a couple dozen IQ points and a large pile of cash, or what the I Ching would call 'great good fortune.' Jerry Seinfeld is so bad an actor he couldn't even play himself... but it worked, because being someone so pathetic that even their real life was just fodder for observational standup was hysterical, in a clinical sort of way, and the guy could do standup. The real talents were Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Wayne Gross, Elaine and Newman. They could actually play other characters, unlike Alexander and the equally lucky Michael Richards.

CYE is developed using a process that is unique, neither scripted nor unscripted (and thus unlike the usual fare that is cleverly juxtaposed here, interlaced with nihilistic pop culture observations (when this format works, which it often does)), and has as two of its primary targets LA (where this columnist lives) and TV (which this columnist has to, in order to feed those hungry children, pretend to somewhat take seriously, but with enough ironic distance to maintain some sort of integrity). The 'Producers' season, as one example, was a season-long, unified, multilayered work of art unprecedented in TV history. And what do we get? This. Sad.

Larry David's core insight is that funny is sometimes weird, weird is sometimes funny, and the resulting discomfort is funny, and interesting. He explores this realm without sparing his ego, or anyone's, and respects no boundaries whatsoever. Where Dave Chapelle did not go (in not releasing a version of Charlie Murphy's True Hollywood Story involving violence directed at the disabled), Larry David improvises a scene on an idea and puts it out there. If it makes this writer, or anyone else, uncomfortable in any way, that's the point. That he refuses to 'act' is the point. Taking any of it seriously... missing the point.

There's a story about Larry in his standup days, where he was doing this sort of humor and failing repeatedly, utterly, even grandiosely... that he looked out at an audience before beginning his act, and saw a sea of blue hair and white shoes, a veritable convention of the ironically deprived. Supposedly, he looked that them, shook his head, and said, "No... no." And left, and that was his act for the night.

Absent children to feed, the columnist should have taken a similar position. Instead, it is left to us to read this column, and shake our heads, and say "No.... no" and leave, quietly.

clue is in new hanks/howard movie... are hidden atop the us capitol building (deep irony;-)... am climbing now...

FOUND 'EM!