wendyg

GenL: I wish you'd add alt.scientology.war to the resources list. Most of what's in it isn't in the other sources (but it was meticulously researched!)

Both of John Sweeney's BBC Panorama documentaries are on YouTube. The first, Scientology and Me, features a famous clip the CoS posted to try to discredit him, in which he blows up at the two PRs detailed to ensure he got the right story. One of these was Mike Rinder, the other Tommy Davis. The CoS also fielded several celebrity spokespeople for interviews: Mimi Rogers, Kirstie Alley, Juliette Lewis, and Leah Remini. A couple of years later, Sweeney did a follow-up, The Secrets of Scientology, which featured Rinder, who had left by then, and who told the behind-the-scenes story of Sweeney's previous documentary from the CoS side. The book Church of Fear tells the story of both documentaries. There is much prior art from earlier decades. The first book ever written about the CoS was by Paulette Cooper in the 1960s; she was framed on a drugs charge as an early example of "Fair Game". There were two very skeptical biographies of Hubbard in the 1980s called Messiah or Madman? and Bare-Faced Messiah. There are prior books by defected Scientologiests such as Jon Atack. I would, however, draw your attention to two pieces you can access online. The first is 1987's Time magazine piece, "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power", by Richard Behar. The article cost Time $10 million and seven years (or possibly $7 million and 10 years...) to defend against the resulting CoS litigation. There's a copy here: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html The other, "alt.scientology.war", is from 1994/1995, and appeared in Wired. It tells the story of Scientology's first skirmishes with the Net when disaffected former Scientologists began posting the secret documents (the ones Remini talks about in "The Bridge") online for all to see. It is not so well-known now, but the notice-and-takedown rules we all still live by were developed because of this particular series of incidents. It's here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.12/alt.scientology.war_pr.html That article ends with this quote, from a former head Scientology PR: "The Internet will be Scientology's Vietnam". I would argue that what we're seeing now with all these high-level defections is less the result of the Hole and other abuses (because the older books suggest there have always been abuses) than it is of the Internet. Remini's autobiography (which I reviewed for Skeptical Inquirer) says the first thing that gave her pause was that no one would tell her what had happened to David Miscavige's wife, who had disappeared from view, and they told her she shouldn't be asking. She's recorded telling Sweeney she never looked at the Internet...but now she *did*, and what she found was the kind of criticism and discussion that Scientology tried to hide or chase off the Net back in 1995. The other recent defectors' stories I've read also talk about the Internet: it didn't make them ask their first questions, but when they *did* start having questions it gave them access to a wealth of alternative views that could have and would have been kept from them in earlier decades. So I believe the Internet has played a crucial role in all this, just as Vaughan Young predicted in 1994.

Maisy Stella's voice is really maturing; she sounded great. She's going to have serious vocal power as an adult.

Re the cancellation discussion: there's an interesting interview with the showrunner, Kevin Falls, about the show and its prospects here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/pitch-finale-explained-season-two-plans-954181. WARNING: contains spoilers for episode 10. I had not realized that Major League Baseball was involved with the show. That explains the (to me) mysterious and unrealistic lack of any discussion of steroids and other contentious issues.

I wish they'd put a mathematician in the show. That person could legitimately tell Sheldon, "Without us, you are nothing." I have never heard anyone refer to microbiology or neuroscience as "soft sciences". Psychology, anthropology, etc, yes.

In a situation where someone is writing non-fiction about real, living people, family or not, the publisher may well demand signed releases giving permission. In any case, a lot depends on what you want your future relationship with your family to be. If you are happy to risk alienating the people you care about and who care about you, by all means publish without asking them how they feel about it. In a case like this, Rory can't tell her own story without disclosing details that Lorelai might regard as private. And even if she doesn't, it's inevitable that she will tell stories that will rupture the already-fragile relationship Lorelai has with Emily. There is plenty of prior art for this throughout the series. You may prefer to have the works of literature that upset authors' families, but you aren't the one who lives with the cost if said author loses her family. Today, of course, this is a balance every blogger must find, not just book authors.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for a close friend to say, "I think you'd make a great mom, but having a baby in order to fix yourself and your life isn't going to work for either you or the child, and this is a big decision because you can't just take the child back to the store if you don't like it. Maybe think about it a little longer, and try reading to kids at the library and see if you still want to do it in a few months."

I think an episode where Sheldon insisted on an exact 50-50 split of the jointly owned stuff and having to decide which beloved item he was going to give up would have been much funnier. The continued nearly-complete separation of Raj-Howard-Bernadette from Sheldon-Leonard-Penny-Amy is making me wonder whether this is the showrunners' preparation for the possibility that Jim Parsons, Kaley Cuoco, and Johnny Galecki aren't going to want to renew their contracts. I think I've read somewhere that Parsons in particular wants to move on to other things, and (as others have observed), Cuoco doesn't get much to do any more. In the show as originally constituted, AIUI the essential persons were deemed to be Parsons, Galecki, and Cuoco, but the show has changed far away from its original template, and it's possible that they figure if they could keep 2 1/2 Men running for several more years despite losing Charlie Sheen they can reconfigure this into something that will work.

tarotx: Actually, that's not true (the thing about very few books being successful). It really depends on what you want the written-a-book credit *for*. The simple fact of having written a book and having had it published can push you to a higher level of authority on the book's topic - that's why so many business people insist on writing their very dull books pitching their sole slogan. If the publisher promotes it at the beginning, you can gain a somewhat higher profile by appearing on radio/TV/book stores/etc. to promote it and establish yourself as an expert on whatever topic; for at least a year you can use the book to get you assignments writing on related topics as well as work teaching workshops and classes for other writers. Many, many writers do not make money *directly* from writing books - I haven't, so far - but may benefit hugely in other ways, as I have. In Rory's case, Gilmore Girls can get her gigs writing about single mothers, for a start. Maybe also stories about "life inside the super-rich bubble", if she's willing to be a little candid. Very few writers make a living just from writing. But books really do help you make a name for yourself, even though very few make serious money.

AmandaPanda: See, that's what I don't understand. Writing a Talk of the Town piece for The New Yorker *is* your big break. The smart freelance goes back a couple of weeks later and pitches them another one, and then another one, and another one, until she's successfully done a few and then asks for a meeting with a features editor and pitches features ideas. Meanwhile, she uses the New Yorker credit to land assignments from other titles. Of course, Rory's *first* mistake was to do a journalism degree. Nothing to write *about*. I always tell prospective journalists to study a SUBJECT.

As a freelance writer myself, what strikes me is that the GG writers have no idea that being a freelance journalist doesn't work the way being a freelance screenwriter does. Item: Why is Rory meeting "Conde Nast"? Conde Nast is the publisher of The New Yorker, Wired, GQ, and many other titles. If you want assignments, you talk to the editors of those titles. Freelance screenwriters do meet studio suits to pitch idea; freelance journalists do not do the same with *publishers*. Item: The "lines pitch" was incredibly vague. There's no *story* there. Accurate enough that Rory actually didn't get an assignment; write it "on spec" (on speculation) is perfectly valid, but a freelance with credits from Slate, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker, doesn't do it that way. Instead, she chats to a few people she sees hanging around onlines, finds a *story* idea, and pitches that to get a commission before spending more than a couple of hours on it. (What, are we British now? Since when do New Yorkers have the patience to stand online for anything?) Item: Her interview skills are *terrible*. It's one thing to interview someone as background research for, say, a TV series or a movie, but for journalism you usually don't whip out the tape recorder two seconds after introducing yourself. Instead, you chat for a bit, establish some rapport, and wait until the person starts to say something acctually interesting, and *then* you say, actually, I'm collecting some personal stories for a piece I'm writing, do you mind if I record this? And *then*, later still when they're still comfortable, you ask their name and whether you can quote them. I can't remember what show it was now, but last week I saw something wherre a supposed journalist interviewing a hostile source calleed up and immediately blurted out the most contentious question. Immediate hang-up, of course. You're suposed to boil the frog, not electrocute it! Item: As for the Buzzfeedish interview, I actually think Rory let herself be played. If a site had been chasing me for a *year* (what hot, new, fast-moving website would do that? A year is probably six business models to them) and started demanding that I produce ideas when I finally said I'd come in to talk about the possibility, I'd say, "You've been chasing me for a year. What did you have in mind for me to do? Which pieces that you read made you think I was a good fit for this site?" And by the time they finished telling me I'd probably have an idea or two. Again, I think this is Hollywood really not understanding how publishing works as a business. Writers are low on the totem pole in Hollywood, and being gamed in that way is (I believe) very common. But really good writers who can attract readers in large numbers are always in demand, and even an arrogant twerp with an inflated position is probably not going to be quite so cavalier about pissing them off. I was headhunted once, to freelance for a national newspaper that was launching a section on internet-related stuff, and the editor took me out for a meal and explained what he was planning. It wasn't a job interview; he knew he wanted me to write for him. Same should have gone for this, so a) the writers are clueless and b) Sandee was supposed to be something of the kind of bitch who just likes to see people grovel. Rory should have reacted very differently. However, her lack of confidence could be down to a lull in finding work. It happens to every freelance, and we all always panic. After nine years, I'd expect her to be better at handling it, though. I assume the book lunatic bought her plane tickets.

66 is the new 34. 60-somethings vary hugely in their physical ability and mental state, a lot of it depending on health, life experience, and the company they keep. As for dropping in on people, if you know the person doesn't like it you don't do it. But one thing I really missed when moving to a larger city was that people mostly *don't* drop in because the effort of getting to your house is too great. I have dropped in on all sorts of people, and the rule is, you join in on whatever's happening: if they're painting, you help. I once turned up at a friend's house at 1AM (all the lights were on and they were students), and we all hung out for an hour watching their cat have kittens. But you have to have the right sort of friends/ family, and if you don't, you don't.

The thing I didn't understand was why the weight loss people didn't point out to Kate that if you exercise a lot, as she was, you're building muscle, and muscle weighs more than fat, so she should judge progress by her clothes getting looser, not just by the number of pounds.

yeah, but....I know they're constrained by the actress's desire to go to college (at least, I think that's what's going on), but it's disappointing to me to have these repetitive episodes where Violet needs help, comes home, and then hatches a new scheme and leaves again. I like both the actress and the character enormously, so I'd like to see more of her and then we could have less repetitive plotlines. Violet was such a responsible character in S1, and it occurs to me that her current exploitative behavior is not as inconsistent as it maybe seems, in that having been surrounded by fuck-ups as a child she's always had a very low bar to measure up to. I'm not convinced that yelling at her was a good approach.

Actually, all but Lindsay are at least partially together: Gretchen apparently does quite well as a publicist; Jimmy's sold his second novel and seems to have no non-writing source of income (which right there is more successful than 90% of writers); Paul I'm not convinced needs to work - he *has* money, though we don't know how; Vernon is always shown as a fairly lackadaisical doctor and yet he isn't getting sued for malpractice so he must have some competence; and Dorothy, while not terribly successful, worked hard and consistently at comedy and was quite clear with herself about what she wanted. Edgar has been slowly bootstrapping himself out of the disastrous state the military left him in, and if you think of it that way he's really doing pretty well: he had his gym job, now he has a writing gig, he formed a decent relationship. Becca isn't a particularly pleasant person, but she's going along in the life she's chosen. (Edgar has consistently been shown through all three seasons to be a good and inventive cook; he could work as a personal chef for sure, but working up through restaurants would be both stressful and unsatisfying for him. In fact, he basically *is* working as Jimmy's personal chef and housekeeper, and he's got that well together, also.) Lindsay's actually now made an interesting choice, however brutally she did it. She's *not* moving back in with her sister; she's not running back to Paul; and she even praised Edgar for not giving in to her demand for a pizza. The first step to becoming a grown-up, which is what all these characters are struggling to become. I think that's why I have sympathy for all of them. They're surrounded by a fucked-up world, they don't like the role models they've been offered, and they're trying to forge paths that work both for them and in the world at large.

I loved the first half intensely. For me, everything in it felt right, especially the end where Gretchen says "We didn't resolve anything". Because I think in just about every relationship there are things you just can't fix and have to live with. The second half was less satisfying somehow, but still very good. For me, the standout episodes of S3 have been the Edgar episode and this first half.

I think the rule these days with BBT is you can expect a genuinely funny episode only when there's a top-class guest star booked and everyone puts forth their best effort (and, I suspect, Lorre and Prady pay close personal attention). On another note, I feel sorry for anyone who didn't see this week's vanity card, which I thought was hilarious.

IJWTS that besides really liking the show itself, one of the great enjoyments is coming here to read the reactions and experiences of people who've worked in retail. It's not an experience I've ever had myself (for which I am duly grateful). I will add, however, that a friend who worked in a florist's shop told us the story of the Valentine's Day when she took a call from a guy who ordered two bunches of flowers, each with a card saying, "You are the only woman in my life."

Kleyra: slowing down during the Paul-centric stuff might show you he's not as thinly developed as you think. I think that unlike most of the other characters he really does try to do the right thing, and the result is he's someone who gets trampled by the stronger characters around him and is despised as a result (which makes him more desperate to be liked). Plus, he really *does* look like a young Roger Ebert!

Nah, we have spin in tennis. :)

The website for the vanity cards is www.chucklorre.com. He's been doing them all the way back to DHARMA AND GREG - basically, as soon as VCRs allowing freeze-frame came in.

btw, what's a "cutter"?

raja et al: thanks for the explanation. Actually, *tennis* is the sport where there's no tie and you have to go out and win it. (Tennis is also the only sport I know anything about.) You can't send in a replacement or wait out the clock. Tennis plays a tiebreak when (most) sets get to 6-6, but you still have to win by two points, and it's entirely possible even for a tiebreak to extend infinitely. See also Isner vs. Mahut, Wimbledon 2010, first round, 70-68 in the final set, in a match that took three days to finish.

I loved the wandering camera. It's how I always feel at weddings, like you spend hours and hours wandering aimlessly talking to people more or less at random, dipping in and out of other people's conversations. As for Jimmy and success...his finances make no sense to me, and the only way I can explain what's going on is to think that TV screenwriters have no clue how little money novelists generally make. I know many writers, and of them only *one* got a six-figure advance for her first novel. These days, writers in any field who are largely unknown generally get advances of $10,000 or less. Novels may be even *less* because many non-fiction titles are in fields where at least some amount of readers genuinely need the information contained in them. We know from the chronology the show has supplied that Jimmy's first novel is relatively new when season 1 opens - so his money from the novel has to have been from the advance. We saw him get his (presumably) first royalty check, for $17 and change. Now, that's interesting: he would only be getting royalties because the amount of royalties earned has now surpassed the amount of the original advance (which is against royalties). So he *could* now be netting much larger payments if the book is selling well - except that in season 1 it didn't seem to be. For other income, we've seen him write one magazine piece (which would probably put him out of the running to write for any serious magazine - sleeping with your source is really not considered acceptable) and give up on both research for another author and novelizing CSI: LA. Edgar pays rent by being his servant; Gretchen we only saw pay rent once (but she may have continued). Jimmy seems not to worry about money *at all* - he buys drinks, drugs, groceries, etc., without apparently ever counting the cost. Now, he presumably sold the "book proposal" (novels don't generally have proposals; they have whole drafts you write on spec unless you have a contract, which Jimmy doesn't, if his agent set up an auction) for serious cash - but then again, that's interesting, too, because how much a publisher will pay for your 2nd novel is usually highly dependent on how well your first one sold, how much of an advance you got, and whether it earned out. Unless, as I guess we're meant to conclude, the publisher thinks your book is wildly commercial and they know just how they can market it. I guess we're supposed to think the book he's working on is of the class of "Fifty Shades of Grey". But that at least had fans already; we've never seen Jimmy write a blog or do anything else online to market himself and his work. I'm not convinced Gretchen cares whether Jimmy is successful for herself. I think she cares for *his* peace with himself, and also, she was sufficiently hurt by his comment to pick the thing she knew would really sting. But for herself, she was happy in that apartment with the faulty wiring.

iMonrey: Seems to me more likely that Lorre wanted someone for a small part and thought of an actress he knew and liked - or ran into her at a party and she said she liked the show. Or whatever. Loads of actors who've been on his shows turn up in small parts later. He seems to get on well with most of the people who've worked with him who aren't themselves divas.