Well, TRex pretty much summed it up. Heather Havrilesky writes TV reviews for people who don't watch TV. It doesn't matter what the content of an article is, it's the style of the writing! She could be writing loop-de-loops about the patterns of Christmas wrapping paper or the miserable filthy TV-watchers that beg her for change outside Starbuck's, and there's a class of people who would just adore her for what she wrote! This is clearly how Ann Coulter keeps her job.

Well, lacking syncopants, if you don't count the people who will insult me for insisting that a TV columm should be ABOUT television, I'll trudge on. And point out something that Havrilesky could have noted, if she was observant. "Match Game" - by which I presume she means "Match Game '73" rather than the 1962 version - was of a class of game show that allowed the audience to see the "real" stars of Hollywood. It really began with a 1969 show called "The Movie Game" which established the pattern: drag in some quasi-employed celebrities, pay them Guild minimum, let them play an amusing game five times in one day (feeding them between show 3 and 4) and asking them to be their relatively charming selves.

Yes, they weren't the "real" personalities of the celebs. Putting aside philosophy about whether one can ever know the "reality" of a person at all, they were at least charming and sometimes funny. Certainly better than the hardcore civilian-only game shows like "Sale of the Century" or "The Joker's Wild" with their annoying music and insistent pressure and panic.

Unlike the earlier version of a celeb show, 1963's "The Hollywood Squares" which promoted mostly the stars of its home network NBC, there was very little pre-written humor on these shows. So the actors had to do some of their own talking and thinking. Or at least hire their own writers, and figure out a celebrity personality they could adapt.

That is clearly impossible today. Few of the actors on today's TV shows could ad-lib going to the bathroom, let alone play a game where they have to guess the answers to common questions, or talk about something besides a pre-written blurb for their latest project. What someone like Red Buttons could do without ruffling a cuff would cause Kelly Ripa to wrinkle.

Today, a show like "Show Me The Money" or "Deal or No Deal" have only one celeb, hosted by the last remaining celebs who can talk with some personal charm. The difference between "Match Game" and today's shows is the difference between a talent pool of functional entertainers and a collection of fashion-wearing mannequins. Kind of like the difference between a dedicated TV critic and Heather Havrilesky.

JKD said:

"The difference between "Match Game" and today's shows is the difference between a talent pool of functional entertainers and a collection of fashion-wearing mannequins."

Funny, that sounds like something Heather might say.

Only if someone like I said it first. Look for it in an upcoming column, probably expanded out with pointless verbiage and her usual self-preening. Besides, why would she hate mannequins, unless she was jealous over their comparative intelligence and animation?

As for Richard Dawson, IMDB reports that he hosted "Family Feud" from '76 to '85. He had plenty of time before and after that to be a panelist on "Match Game." During that time, it'd only be his second work day: one hosting "Feud," one playing "Match." That would make him twice as busy as Brett Somers, who only paneled on "Feud."

This brings up a good point (and maybe Havrilesky will "glean" this idea too). That talent pool I mentioned doesn't exist much any more because it's harder to make a living just being charming and witty. Most game show panelists didn't have busy careers. About the only regular "Match Game" panelist with steady work was Charles Nelson Reilly, doing kid shows and guest shots with Dean Martin. Compare his IMDB listings with Brett Somers. For a real shock, compare it to the later listings of Judy Tenuda, the "Weird Al" Yankovic wannabe who regularly paneled on the last incarnation of "Match Game."

Perhaps it's us; being charming isn't valued in a time when we have to fight the Black Friday crowds for affordable gifts, or fight to retain our miserable jobs to avoid living in cardboard boxes. But it's undeniable; you'd at least be interested to be in a room with Reilly, or even Tenuda. Being in a room with Havrilesky would make you long for double root canals.

WhoNVitedHim, you really ARE Heather Havrilesky, aren't you?

You sound like her. You have the same obnoxious class superiority. Your sentences are even written with the same rambling, close-enough-for-jazz directionlessness.

If you really are Havrilesky, I have another charge to levy against you: cowardice. You have access to Salon's database. You know who and where I am, and you can talk out your complaints against what I say in person or on e-mail. Putting on a phony user name and acting as "Heather's Biggest Fan" is not only desperate, it's pathetic.

If you aren't Havrilesky, well, you wouldn't be the first person to fall for an evil woman. You apparently found my web site, so you can confess all to me there. And my offer stands: any convention I attend, we can have a full-scale debate in front of an audience. Assuming, of course, you're willing to come from behind a screen name. Never met a troll who was willing to do that: you could be the first.