that I'm fairly sure no one will see this letter, but I wanted to chime in on a few points, just 'cause.

First of all, I'd like to doff my hat to Ms Havrilesky for articulating my own feelings about The L-Word so much more beautifully than I probably could myself. That goes double for her gorgeous, concise treatment of the theme song. (My husband and I don't have cable in the house, so we're spared having to hear even a note of it, as we just fast-forward the DVD.)

Second, I'd like to contribute to the On-The-Nose Dialogue Contest. Because of the abovementioned cable-free house we maintain, I don't have any TV examples. We just don't Netflix anything that sucks, which is nice. And to be honest, it's been long enough since I've seen the films I'm about to offer that I can't be sure they fit the specifics of the "On-the-Noseness" category.

That being said, however, if you want to see some absolutely excellently, richly, awful dialogue in a filmic text, nothing beats the opening series of scenes from Dante's Peak. And most of the rest of the scenes where people talk, actually. But even the priceless, "Acid eats boats!" revelation that follows the realization that the erupting volcano has somehow made the water take on the properties of sulfuric acid can't beat the early scenes. These are the ones where the mayor of the threatened town (Linda Hamilton) and Our Hero (Pierce Brosnan) lay out all the contextual facts of the film in some of the worst, most awkward film dialogue of all time.

Really, the Nature-Is-Evil-And-Wants-To-Kill-You genre is just chock full of this kind of thing. I love Twister sooooooo much, but nearly every line of dialogue in the film just sucks. (It's all redeemed by the ironic delivery of the players, but at base, it all sucks.) Volcano's great, too.

And don't forget the Nicolas Cage/Sean Connery 'thriller,' The Rock. If viewed for the bad dialogue, that movie is a thing of beauty.

:)

As a youngish lesbian in Los Angeles, I was so excited when the L Word first came out. (ha) The first two seasons had their flaws, but at least they were interesting - and there was a moral center that revolved around friendship, loyalty and the stubborn voracity it takes to live a normal life when you're gay.

Sadly, the show has deteriorated-and not in a fun crazy way like Melrose Place. I blame the Betty themesong primarily. Not only was that the beginning of shameless product placement/band placement/magazine placement - it was the beginning of this "vibe" that went along with the song. "This is the way that we live" became a selfish hipster type anthem that disconnected with the tone of the show at the time.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, was the departure of writer Guinevere Turner, who also had a brief role in the show as Gabby. A proven soulful writer- her contributions were obvious in different storylines- and the void she left was followed by questionable storylines.

On the face of many plot points-the situations seem plausible. But there is no character continuity on The L Word. Characters don't evolve, they either stay the same, or change at breakneck speed. There seems to be a sad underlying theme that certain negative personality traits are permanent, even after soul searching and personal growth (Shane is a womanizer & druggie, Tina goes back to men, etc). The worst of it? There isn't even one character left with integrity. The loyalty and love is gone, and in its place is cattiness and reluctant friendship. I don't believe any of the characters respect or like each other--and that has rubbed off on me.

I still watch the L Word--but it makes me sad that straight people watch and might think there is a speck of reality to it. So, why do I watch? Well, it's my Sapphic duty to know my pop culture... and sadly, there isn't a lot of it. Niches and festivals and so forth, yes. But when I'm at the lesbian water cooler, the L word is going to be a topic that comes up---and when I roll my eyes, I want to be able to follow it up with an informed complaint.

The gay FBI agent and gay drug dealer in "Weeds" was a hypothetical invention. It was intended to point out how some people see every gay character on TV as either a great advancement in gay culture, or a betrayal of that culture.

Sorry, but if that was your intention you utterly missed. It looked only as though you hadn't watched the show. Even now, knowing what you say your intention was, and even agreeing with that point, I don't see how it points out anything of the kind.

I wouldn't normally stoop to responding to such a petty attack, but I'm in a nasty mood after having worked overtime for no other reason than management's insecurity over a new newscast.

Y'know, although Havrilesky's supporters are a foofy lot (foofy doesn't mean "gay," it means "would-be gay but that would take too much effort and committment") they couldn't understand a bit of hyperbole. That is, hyperbole intended to make a point, rather than intended to boost Havrilesky's deservedly low self-esteem.

The gay FBI agent and gay drug dealer in "Weeds" was a hypothetical invention. It was intended to point out how some people see every gay character on TV as either a great advancement in gay culture, or a betrayal of that culture. It's almost as if having a blonde attorney on "Boston Legal" was something intended to affect the potential of all blondes everywhere, until the end of time.

I'm considered a geek and a nerd because I like comics, science fiction, comedy music and animation. I am thought to be intellectually bereft because of my affections, as if I didn't read or do anything else. But when I read letters like the one by tvnourishesme, I feel as adept and versatile as Benjamin Freaking Franklin by comparison. How limited is your perception, dude?

And hopefuly, this will be the last post in this thread, so we can all await whatever bit of backwash Havrilesky will produce next Saturday. Unless that other foofy person wants to ask what "Google" is, and how it's spelled.