I meant to say that "Witchfinder General" was released as "The Conqueror Worm," and given a little of Poe's poetry in voiceover, to make it seem like one of Roger Corman's Poe-inspired films. Proof again that writing in an impassioned state, especially in a forum form that allows no self-editing after posting (hint, hint, editors!) has its problems.

That, in fact, is the ancient prejudice that says that cartoons are "only for kids" or "aren't a distinct genre deserving of worth." It took decades for dedicated people like June Foray...yes, the voice of Tweety and Granny...to fight AMPAS to get a "best animated feature Oscar."

And although Sci Fi Channel was the first cable channel to run dramatic anime, Cartoon Network's Adult Swim was the first to run it regularly and with remarkable respect. They still censor bits of nudity and sex that right-wing Americans are too immature to accept, but their censorship is remarkably minimal. A few years ago I saw CN's presentation of "Blue Submarine No. 6" at the same time as the subtitled, uncensored Japanese version. The visual changes were minimal and the translated dubbing was very faithful to the story.

"The Boondocks" is something rare in modern culture - an individual creator's vision going nearly untrammeled to animation. (If only they'd also get Keith Knight's stuff animated with his creative input...and maybe his voice, since he's a funny and charming guy in person.) And Adult Swim, which is a separate program service on CN just as Nick at Nite is different from Nickelodeon, offers this freedom a lot. It doesn't always work - "Twelve Ounce Mouse" and "Squidbillies" are atrocious stuff only loved by the dorm-and-bong-water crowd - but unlike many animated and live shows, the flaws are clearly those of the creators. They aren't due to meddling by the network and the production executives who might demand that the characters have a Cute Dog to make a show more appealing.

My only real complaint is that CN has apparently stopped its "World Premiere Cartoons" project, which invited new animators to submit pilots to be tried out in the public eye. That brought new life and new voices into animation, and was the genesis of shows like "Powerpuff Girls" and "Courage the Cowardly Dog." They could go further...they could foster serious dramatic animation that could rival the best of anime. (Genndy Tartakofsky's "Clone Wars" shows what they can do if they only had the courage.)

By the way, notice that I didn't pick on Havrilesky this time? Thank you.

The most annoying thing about celebrity stuff is the elephant in the room: the quality of the entertainment and/or services they perform. For instance, Guns 'n' Roses, to my admittedly limited knowledge, haven't made anything close to groundbreaking music in years. I have yet to figure out what the hell Paris Hilton-Whatever does for a living; the only product I know that she's produced is a crappy cable reality show. I doubt she's even been mentioned in a Roger Ebert review as having appeared in a theatrical film.

That these people are famous for being famous goes without saying. That they will pass from this earth without leaving so much as an interesting guest star performance on a TV show is something that no one is willing to say.

It's fascinating that Havrilesky has these nail-polish-remover-inhalation delusions about magazine writing; she doesn't write for one, only an online journal. Even if she had the talent to write for one, she probably wouldn't get the job, because the print magazine business is dying.

It isn't simply a matter of "citizen journalism" providing nontraditional and original observations on the world. It's also the ownership of print magazines by megacorporations, who not only have a narrow political and sociological view of the world, but whose ideas are just plain stifled.

A good example would be "TV Guide," which in the 1960's actually critiqued the TV business from many viewpoints, and picked out curious and unusual shows that would have gone unnoticed. In the Rupert Murdoch era, it's become a venue for every bit of hype shoveled out by the networks and cable channels. There is no independent judgment of the television world, because where's the profit in that? Havrilesky couldn't ever approach the level of Cleveland Amory, the smartest critic who ever worked for "TV Guide." In the current version of the magazine, she'd bypass the critic post and wind up as managing editor - for the few people still reading it.

No, magazine newsrooms aren't like Havrilesky's description, any more than real TV newsrooms are anything like the one Mary Richards worked in. In TV, the anchor may be as dumb as Ted Baxter, but he'd be vindictive, undercutting and ruining anyone he thought was in his way. The weatherman wouldn't be a genial black guy; he'd be a closet alcoholic or he'd have emotional problems so severe he'd kill himself in a private plane crash. The writer wouldn't be a humorously frustrated literati; she'd be a typist trying to rewrite wire copy in words simple enough for the anchor to say, and drugging herself into oblivion when off duty to forget the banality of her work.

People have abandoned print for the tube, and smart people have abandoned the tube for the internet. These shows about magazines are a kind of hail-and-farewell to a dying industry. No wonder they're all about mags that cover the fashion and style industry; what better place to pretend that magazines are a vital force than a world of pretense and delusion?