Absolutely, what those kids are doing is therapeutic and developmentally healthy in lots of ways, maybe why it resonates so nicely with the viewer. Differentiating from parents and family, choosing their own new social connections, using their bodies, building competence and learning to communicate and cooperate, experiencing the powerful archetypes of musical form, coordinated group movement and organic form, it’s all good.

As long as it doesn’t lead to sex!

There will be people complaining about this column because there isn't enough cynical bile in it. Tough luck. This is about the only kind of column that can be written about a flaky trend like dance shows. Havrilesky did a difficult writing assignment with honor.

And it's kind of Havrilesky to show appreciation for some of these shows. No, not even the shows; the people with actual talent looking for a place to exercise it. A pity they won't have much greater opportunities than to dance, in a mob, behind a lame pop singer in a music video. It isn't A Chorus Line for them; they're only "flesh noise" behind Madonna.

As far as Dance Machine and the other reality shows that humiliate poor people who want their fifteen seconds of fame...it's hard to say who is more despicable, the contestants who volunteer to be shat upon, or the producers and show runners who are producing the fecal matter for dumping.

There's a new book out called A CRITICAL HISTORY OF SOUL TRAIN ON TELEVISION, published by McFarland & Company. It looks at the show's evolution from a Chicago-only program in 1970 to a nationally syndicated series and franchise in 2008. Interviews with former dancers, guests and colleagues of Don Cornelius are in the book. Here is the weblink. http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-3669-9

OK, we're missing something here. In the late fifties, the Arthur Murray Show did a lot to revive ballroom dancing. Up to that point ballroom dancing was on life support.

Heather should have gone one step further and commented on the crappiness that pervades dance floors in general. Mostly in the United States, where crap is synonymous with American values. Whether you're at a wedding, or at a ballroom, most dancing is crap. A typical American dances like crap.

"Dancing With The Stars" helps ballroom studios immensely. Even though the material is show biz, some TV viewers get off their overweight butts and try to learn to dance. (International ballroom competitions get almost no coverage.)

Hip Hop is not ballroom dancing. Neither was the twist, or the Watusi. But if people want to make fools of themselves, that's OK. Crap is good. Excellence is unachievable.

I like to watch ABDC, too, Heather. I couldn't quite put my finger on why I liked it as I tend to dislike competition shows. But I think you nailed it. The charm from this show is in these young people who are working hard towards something creative, and dare I say, positive? Somehow it makes me want to be a part of group.

My partner and I are fans of both SYTYCD and ABDC. And yes, these shows have inspired us to take some dance classes (me in my thirties), just to experience the joy of movement and have a tiny taste of the physical grace we see on the screen.

We like them partially for the talent that Heather mentions. The producers don't choose people to be the quirky guy or the explosion-waiting-to-happen person or the most-likely-to-sleep-with-multiple-contestants girl. They choose people who are really good at what they do. I don't believe for a second that they make their choices solely based on talent -- in fact, on SYTYCD they are pretty clear that they are looking for personality too. But they're talking about a personality that makes an audience connect with an artistic performance, which is a legitimate part of performance art, not the type of pathological personality that reality casting directors usually pick. The drama-milking is a much smaller percent of screen time on these shows.

Second, and to me more importantly, these shows are about cooperation as much as they are about competition. It makes sense that they don't feature the behind-the-scenes squabbling that most reality shows recycle endlessly. You don't start out a season of ABDC or SYTYCD wondering who will be the bad guy or gal of the year, because there aren't film clips about who hates who or who dissed who or whatnot. That makes sense, because ABDC is about the creativity and performance vitality that comes from being part of a group. SYTYCD is even further removed from the usual in-it-to-win-it reality show attitude, because to win you have to work very closely with other contestants, and you are unlikely to get very far if you make your fellow performers look bad. It also helps that there is more than just one grand prize on that show, because the top ten contestants get to go on a national tour. That's a fair consolation prize, I think, and maybe that makes it a little less of a zero-sum-game.

I agree that Step it up and Dance was a far inferior show (though there were a few good performances thrown into the mix here and there). There are tons of reasons for it's relative crappitude, starting with performances taped time after time in front of a theater empty of any observers other than the bored-looking judges. Step it up and Dress Rehearsal! And it is absolutely true that the casting was transparently about creating melodramatic fodder rather than a tough competition. Most important to me, the show featured endless clips of behind-the-scenes bad attitude. Actual dancing happened for maybe 5 minutes of a 45-minute show. To me, that means the show wasn't about dancing. It was about a select group of dancers whose talent was, for many of them, very often overshadowed by their narcissism, rudeness, and general creepiness.

and lived vicariously as a Robin Leach knockoff's booming voice told us about Jay-Z's solid platinum toilet for his pit bulls.

Now we just thrill to watching people who actually can MOVE.

So you think you can snore and drool?