In keeping with the closing motif of the show not being over until the fat lady sings—the first person who comes to mind is the ever-sneaky Janice—but what about Ginnie Sack? She's been continuously ridiculed and marginalized throughout the series. What if in the end, she's the one who holds all the cards? And she has a good reason to hold a grudge against both the New York and New Jersey families. She may be good for a few choice arias.

I saw "Margot" at the NY Film Festival this fall and it is well worth seeing. I agree with an earlier poster here, Tom Servo, who wrote that that we see Margot's disdain for the blue-collar Voglers as a character flaw and it shows us her snobbery and small-mindedness. And certainly we're not expected to feel "sympathy" for her--the film shows us a train-wreck of a relationship between two sisters, their flaws and the impossibility of maintaining certain sibling relationships in adulthood. This film is a thousand times more intelligent than most of the garbage out there and the female actors are central in a way we just don't see in films these days (alas). And Jack Black is terrific in his thankless role as Malcolm. He really IS all the guys we rejected in high school!

And as for any cosmetic surgery Nicole Kidman has had, I think it actually works for her in this picture. Margot's so rigid and out of touch with her feelings that Kidman's facial immobility becomes a personification of Margot's impoverished inner life.

It's insultingly disingenuous of the producers to claim that they can't agree to pay the writers for online content because they "don't know" what the potential revenue will be. Give me a break! Whatever money even super-successful TV and film writers make pales in comparison to the money the producers are raking in. Trouble is, all those entertainment conglomerates are publicly owned corporations that are under pressure to return their profits to their shareholders--not their content creators.

I wonder what kind of hell this man's wife is living in . . . although on the other hand, his "writing" may keep him occupied and out of her hair. I agree with the other posters, this is all about control and narcissism and really has nothing to do with actual creative writing. I had a similar problem with my mother's mediocre artwork; she pressured me to give an opinion on and reacted with wounded silence when I was honest with her. It's a no win situation. These narcissistic parents have a profound sense of entitlement about the need to be the center of their children's attention. It's the opposite of a normal family situation where it's the children's talents that are encouraged and cherished. I'm sure this writer's dad takes very little interested in his children or his wife's lives.

Sometimes as a parent raising young children, it can feel so claustrophobic that one can't help wondering--when can I go back to living my "real" life? And then you're watching your kid get on the school bus and catch yourself standing until the school bus pulls out of sight and you realize, this IS your "real life" and you wouldn't have it any other way. Great essay, Gary.

I think the Times hired the wretched Kristol because pathetic as he is, he probably won't rant about criminalizing women who have abortions in his Times columns. That's one thing he'll have in common with William Safire (who was more of a libertarian) and David Brooks, the other right-wing columnists at the Times. The Times doesn't like anti-abortion rhetoric and Christian proselytizing from its conservative columnists. That leaves the pickings pretty slim. That's why Kristol was hired.

I notice the site is directed towards women. Singleedition.com reminds me of some overly consoling medical web sites devoted to chronic diseases—as if being a single women is the equivalent of suffering from a malignancy. A singles site meant for a male audience would be much different, needless to say.

I sympathize with this writer . . . and she is a woman, isn't she? The fact that she's gone back to writing means a changed relationship with her family. This will be a big adjustment for them. Maybe they worry that if she's successful in her writing she'll be abandoning them in some way. And what if it were her husband doing the writing, would he be allowed to go off into his study and write while the family tiptoed around him? Probably so. Unfortunately, there's a double standard. Men seem to be better at claiming time for themselves.

Jean Kerr (a housewife and writer during the 1950s) used to drive off and sit in her car and write. She said it was the only way she could write uninterrupted. This writer may need to get out of the house (in addition to joining a writing group). As long as she's home, her kids and husband will continue to bug her.

If you do get the "room of your own" you're longing for, your kids might get up to all kinds of mischief because they know you'll be preoccupied with your writing. The only thing worse than having your kids in your face all the time is NOT having them bothering you—I think you should learn to integrate your writing into your family life. You can deal with the kids, eventually the sight of you writing at the kitchen table (you need to be keeping an eye on things) will bore them and they'll leave you alone . . . and as for your husband, just ask him to stop looking over your shoulder.