Until it squicks me too hard, and then I’ll stop. (It’s been precariously close since the first episode, to be honest.)

With that tip of the hat to fairness, I don’t know if I can wade through three episodes of Californication. Hank’s self-loathing is just too tedious to make good television. Furthermore, not only is he a loser, but he’s a generic loser, which is the kiss of death right there. I’ve seen his type played before, and played better, in movies and novels like Wonder Boys.

I hate to seem like I’m playing the wishy-washy fencesitter, but the one thing that I’m undecided about is whether the show itself is misogynist. Hank’s unquestionably a misogynist, immature twerp, but that’s not necessarily equivalent to the show having those qualities. So far, it’s far too difficult for me to imagine that the writers are trying to get me to identify and sympathize with this dolt to imagine that we’re unambiguously supposed to embrace his attitudes. The predominant emotion that Hank and I could share was his self-loathing. Will the writers continue to play his despicable character traits for cheap laughs, or will they develop storylines that give us deeper insight into Hank’s character, even if he himself is too doltish to appreciate those insights? I’m willing to give them the three episodes or so before I pass final judgement on that, although I may leave it up to others to watch them for me.

So sad about David Duchovny but I was not planning on trying to watch this anyway it struck me as an unholy marriage of Red Shoe Diaries, Nip/Tuck and Entourage.

Well, there was The Sopranos, with Janice and Ralphie, but that was a character/plot thing and a way for Tony to play Ralphie once he bribed Janice to tell him about Ralphie’s proclivities.

OTOH, it seemed like Tony, but not the show itself, judged Janice for that. Tony’s closed-mindedness was also part of the equation.

And his asterisked comment about Elfman and the “vagina jokes” that “stick to your ribs”…oof. I don’t know anything about Elfman, but just from those comments, I think he’s suffering from wannabe Hipper Than Thou syndrome. That’s never pretty.

Imagine Wolcott actually wondering how the actresses must feel. Apparently he got over any desperate need to be cool a long time ago. Elfman could learn something.

And, OMG, is Duchovny ever going to do some decent post X-Files work? I know that an iconic hit like that will permanently skew a career, but Gillian Anderson has managed to do several solid pieces of work. She starred in “The House of Mirth”, but she’s also done some impressive secondary roles, like the aid worker in “The Last King of Scotland”. I guess that’s the key thing for an actor’s post TV-blockbuster career: don’t rule out ensemble work, or juicy smaller non-lead parts.

Okay, back to the topic: yup, Wolcott’s good readin’.

PS: I’ve just started watching Showtime’s “Weeds” (on DVD, part-way through the first season), and it seems like it may have viable sportfucking possibilities.

That would be “Six Feet Under.” Yes, there was often bitterness, reproachfulness and recriminations, but it had more to do with the underlying relationships than a Sex Is Bad message.

Though I suppose you could make an argument that slutty Brenda gets punished at the end by:

(1) having her husband reject her for a woman he just met
(2) having said husband promptly die after telling her he’s going to leave her
(3) did I mention she’s pregnant?
(4) now she has to raise his child, who no one is quite sure is actually his child at all, plus her own child, on her own

At least Claire and Ruth did pretty well, though. Claire didn’t even get punished for her abortion.