“Game of Thrones” is the story of a power struggle in a feudal society, filled with political intrigue, betrayal, violence, moral ambiguity, and character drama.

You wouldn’t know this if you’d read the vast majority of the media feedback on the show, however.

No, if all you knew about “Game of Thrones” came from reviews and entertainment news outlets, you would think that “Game of Thrones” is about boobs. Lots and lots of boobs.

Boobs.

Boobs on naked women. Boobs on semi-naked women. Boobs on women having sex. Boobs on women getting dressed. Boobs on women getting undressed. Boobs.

Tired of that topic yet? Yeah, exactly. That’s probably how a“Game of Thrones” fan reading reviews of the show feels too: entertainment news and the blogosphere can’t seem to keep from hyper-focusing on the show’s ample nudity and sex.

And believe you me: There is a lot of nudity and sex in “Game of Thrones.”

No one is disputing that. The problem is that people are choosing to focus on the mature content at the expense of the show’s other redeeming qualities. Worse still, the nudity and sex is being touted as a hugely offensive, negative part of the show… instead of, say, the equally humongous amounts of graphic violence.

According to entertainment news, we are apparently living in a world where suggestiveness is way, way worse than violence and abuse. It’s a world where a scene in which Margaery Tyrell willingly disrobes (boobs!) is so awful it must be commented upon incessantly, but the sight of Eddard Stark’s decapitated head stuck on a pike is not worth mentioning.

This discrepancy has become so obvious that 9Gag.com has created a chart documenting the amount of nudity per episode. A chart depicting deaths or violent acts, however, has yet to be created. Apparently it isn’t as worth talking about as all of the boobs.

The subject of nakedness in “Game of Thrones” has become so pervasive that reviewers are taking special note of when it’s not included in an episode, as in this article from Wired. It’s a subject for intense journalistic discourse, requiring both opponents and defenders, and it’s been parodied by SNL.

Leading lady Emilia Clarke, who plays Daenerys Targaryen, can’t even get through a single interview or profile without someone asking her about what she thinks of being unclothed so often on the show. Exhibits A, B, and C. Of less note, apparently, is her character’s emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with her brother, or the violence done on her behalf and by her orders.

Last year we covered NYT reporter Ginia Bellafonte’s woefully condescending and point-missing early review of “Game of Thrones,” in which she, too, commented on the provocativeness as a point against the show. Her point seemed to be that the target demographic was obsessed with boobs, yet she herself failed to note what the story is actually about.

If anyone is “obsessed” with boobs, it’s not the audience: it’s the apparently puritanical reviewers.

The trend of clutching one’s journalistic pearls over the sight of nudity in “Game of Thrones” is disturbing on a number of levels.

First, sex and nudity are a pretty natural part of life and relationships, a fact that shouldn’t shock most of the TV-viewing public. Beheadings, impalings, torture, executions, brutal maiming, fights to the death, and brawls on the other hand, are not part of daily life, nor should they be. The fact that the graphic violence of “Game of Thrones” is somehow more acceptable to reviewers and bloggers than the sight of Daenerys Targaryen’s breasts is rather… well, backward.

It’s hypocritical and frankly weird that this aspect of “Game of Thrones” has incited a more negative reaction than the violence and death. Not that there’s anything wrong with the violence in “Game of Thrones,” either, it’s just… where are our priorities?

If we’re waving our arms around in outrage over nudity, shouting “Think of the children!”, shouldn’t we be more upset by the exposure to grisly deaths and violence than the very normal and benign sight of the naked human body?

It probably says much more about our society’s outlook on human sexuality­­—and female sexuality, in particular—than it does about the show’s “gratuitous” use of it.

Perhaps the show’s focus on sexuality matter of taste. After all, much of it is plot-related, and the show would suffer for its exclusion. The very first episode of season one ends with a young child being hurled from a tower after peering in on an incestuous (twincestuous?), adulterous coupling that he was never meant to see. That scene shapes the beginning of the conflict between two major houses, and reveals the secret that will eventually start a war.

Then again, there’s also Esme Bianco’s Ros, a character invented for the show (she doesn’t appear in the books, though she does replace a few prostitutes from the novels) as a vehicle of exposition. Purists might say that the busty redhead (who spends a great deal of time in her birthday suit) is not essential to the plot, and is an unnecessary distraction, even if she clarifies plot points through dialogue.

Matters of personal taste aside: is there truly anything wrong with including salacious material in the show, whether or not it was explicitly shown or even implied in the books?

No. There’s not. There’s really not, and viewers or reviewers who are offended might just need to kindly grow the hell up.

There can be no comparison between “The Hunger Games” and “The Twilight Saga” because (and I want to make this abundantly clear) "The Hunger Games” is actually -- good.

A summary (Because if we literally covered every possible way in which “The Hunger Games” is better than ‘Twilight’ we’d be writing a book, not an article, and it would still be better written than ‘Twilight’)

Ever since Suzanne Collins’s “The Hunger Games” trilogy arrived on the young adult literature scene, it has been compared to “The Twilight Saga” by Stephenie Meyer. Now that “The Hunger Games” movie is coming out, more and more we’ll be hearing that it is “the next ‘Twilight.’” Not only is this comparison completely illogical and bizarre, but it’s offensive. To compare “The Hunger Games” to “The Twilight Saga” is to suggest that they are at least equal in quality, which is of course preposterous.

We compare apples to oranges. We do not compare apples to moldy, putrefying globs of vegetable matter that hate Christmas and kill puppies for fun. Thus, there can be no comparison between “The Hunger Games” and “The Twilight Saga” because (and I want to make this abundantly clear) “The Hunger Games” is actually – good.

There are those who believe that “Twilight” is a good book. They’re wrong.

Those who believe that the movies based on the “Twilight” books are good are also wrong. And those who believe that there are books based on the “Twilight” movies are wrongest of all, on a number of levels.

We can allow for different literary and film taste. After all, there’s something for everyone, and there must be someone out there (some out-of-their-mind person) for whom “The Twilight Saga” is the be-all and end-all of literary greatness (they’re wrong, of course, but let’s humor them for the sake of discourse). Their high opinion of “Twilight” is valid as far as opinions are concerned, and so we shouldn’t look down on someone simply for their love of “Twilight” (though we do).

No, Twihards are welcome to love “Twilight”. But the moment they imply that the affront to the English language and feminist sensibilities that is their sparkly glorified abusive relationship story is equal to “The Hunger Games”, those of us with fully functioning brains must take a stand.

Ladies, gentlemen, and Twihards: “The Hunger Games” is in no uncertain terms way better than “Twilight” and I’ll tell you why.

For one thing, “The Hunger Games” has a plot. If we’re just focusing on the first book in either series, on one side of the arena we have a complex coming-of-age story with a heroine who defies both authority and gender roles in the name of survival and building a better world, which deals with adult themes of life-and-death magnitude. On the other side we have a story about the importance of having a cute boyfriend, to paraphrase Stephen King.

Nothing happens in “Twilight.” We spend the first three quarters of the book marveling over Bella’s hackneyed descriptions of Edward’s hunky marble ass and watching her brush her teeth. Then Stephenie Meyer remembers that books are supposed to involve some kind of conflict, so she throws in a bunch of meany-pants vampires who conveniently want to suck our heroine’s (and I use that word lightly) heart out through her neck. It’s lazy writing, and it means that about 70% of “Twilight” could’ve benefitted from the backspace key.

By contrast, a whole helluva lot happens in “The Hunger Games.” We begin the story by getting introduced to our heroine and her world. Collins sets up clear rules and systems for Katniss’s society right away, and then the rest of the plot revolves around how Katniss alternately bends to those rules, or learns to break them. There are characters outside of the love triangle who are fully-realized and important to both Katniss and the plot. And speaking of the love triangle: It exists, but is not the most important thing in “The Hunger Games”.

The most noticeable difference between “Twilight” and “The Hunger Games” is the main character. For one thing, “The Hunger Games” has one. Don’t ask me why Stephenie Meyer thought it was cool to have a limp noodle narrate her magnum opus. I’m still trying to figure out why she thought it was ok to cast all the people of color in “Twilight” as savage beasts (the appalling cultural appropriation rampant in “Twilight” is for another article).

Nothing happens in “Twilight.” We spend the first three quarters of the book marveling over Bella’s hackneyed descriptions of Edward’s hunky marble ass and watching her brush her teeth.

Bella Swan is both a blank slate and a completely negative role model. Meyer has been quoted as saying that she deliberately wrote Bella with very little character description so the reader could more easily slip into her skin and experience the story as Bella. For one thing: That’s a bullshit excuse for lazy writing. For another: Writing a character who spends every waking moment criticizing herself, thinking poorly of herself, and submitting to the wills of other (male) characters as a vehicle for the imaginations of impressionable teenage girls is utterly reprehensible. If I had a teenage daughter who was at all unsure of herself, I would be terrified to expose her to the ideas of self-loathing that are glorified in “Twilight.”

Not only does Bella have literally nothing good to say about herself, but she is perfectly willing to let others walk all over her, or to walk all over others. She has one of two reactions to everyone around her: 1) “I worship the ground you walk on and will endure physical pain and emotional degradation if you so wish,” or 2) “I can’t be bothered to acknowledge you exist or care about your petty feelings, Charlie, Jessica, Mike, Angela, Eric, or all of my other so-called ‘friends.’”

Katniss, on the other hand, is a fully-realized and complex character. She has mommy issues. She was raised in abject poverty. She makes decisions fueled alternately by a calculating ruthlessness and desperate emotional instinct. Katniss is a person in a way that Bella could never be because Katniss is not a blank slate, and yet she is still remarkably easy for readers both male and female to relate to. Katniss has a strong sense of self that allows her both to admit that she is in the Hunger Games to survive, and to admit that she is confused and conflicted about her feelings for Peeta and Gale. She is strong in her moments of weakness. She is a contradictory character… much like real people in the real world.

Then there’s the romance. Again, “Twilight” is a story marketed to teenage girls. And speaking as a former teenage girl, I know what balls of unpredictable hormones and self-consciousness they can be.  The Prince Charming romance is tried and true, but in “Twilight” it takes a darker twist.

Bella’s relationship with Edward is horrifying. He sneaks into her room at night to watch her sleep. He stalks her. He dictates who she can spend time with and when. He controls her comings and goings. He admits to wanting to kill her. He withholds physical intimacy and makes her feel guilty for having perfectly normal feelings of attraction. When they consummate their relationship he leaves her black and blue from head to toe, and by that time she’s so indoctrinated into the Cult of Edward that she basically tells him “Oh no, dear. It’s perfectly fine that you severely injured me during my first sexual encounter. I completely forgive you for not being able to control yourself and avoid hurting me. It’s perfectly understandable”

Parents of teenage girls: This is not a healthy relationship. This is not a relationship you want your daughters fantasizing about. This is not the relationship you want your daughters to find normal when they’re grown up and at the mercy of real life Edwards who will terrorize and abuse them. Stephenie Meyer is blatantly irresponsible by glorifying an abusive relationship to teenagers.

To be fair, Katniss’s relationships with Peeta and Gale are by no means healthy, but they are at least semi-normal. And Katniss’s romance with Peeta in particular subverts gender roles in a way that is both empowering to young people reading the books and utterly romantic.

While Katniss is a hunter with deadly skills in archery and snaring (a traditionally masculine role), Peeta is a baker and an artist (traditionally more feminine skills) and a gifted speaker. Yet they complement each other. Peeta’s talents don’t make him a weaker person than Katniss, or make him obsolete to the woman who can both feed and defend herself. On the contrary: Peeta’s artistic skills allowed him to camouflage and save himself in “The Hunger Games” until Katniss could find him. They also give him a vehicle for expressing his emotions that make him in ways stronger than Katniss. His eloquence proved invaluable in uniting the districts during their victory tour, and his paintings of the arena expressed quite vividly the experiences that Katniss found it difficult to share with Gale and her family.

So in short, Katniss and Peeta are equally matched, though their strengths lie in different areas. When one treats the other poorly, it is not glorified by Suzanne Collins. When Katniss drugs Peeta so she can go to the cornucopia without him, Peeta feels betrayed and has difficulty forgiving her. As he should. Katniss, like Edward, believed that she was violating her partner’s rights to keep him safe, but unlike Bella (who simply rolls over and accepts Edward’s decrees on her behalf), Peeta does not simply excuse Katniss’s violation.

Beyond the plot, the main character, and the romance, there is one other fundamental level on which “The Hunger Games” kicks “Twilight”’s ass. Suzanne Collins can write. I’m not sure what Stephenie Meyer thought she was doing for four massive books, but it certainly wasn’t a credit to the English language or artistic expression.

It has been argued that Stephenie Meyer’s writing isn’t bad it’s just “her style.” In the words of Dana from the anti-“Twilight” blog Reasoning With Vampires: “Fine. Her style is tacky.” Good writing is not simply about being grammatically correct. It’s about knowing the rules of grammar and understanding when it’s effective to break them. Both Collins and Meyer include sentence fragments in their writing, but the difference is that Collins’s use of fragments is meant to heighten the tension of exciting scenes and spur the action forward. Meyer’s sentence fragments simply indicate that she doesn’t know what she’s doing.

Meyer’s syntax choices are baffling, her spelling is laughable (I don’t know about you, but if I had a “moat” of dust stuck in my eye I’d be screaming in pain), and her over-use of the thesaurus makes for humorously purple prose (Edward’s “liquid topaz”  eyes were just a little too much for me, but I guess when every other sentence is used to describe the physical perfection of Sparkle Boy, one has to change it up somehow). The only thing natural about Meyer’s writing is that it reads like a tenth grader’s creative writing assignment.

But Meyer is not a tenth grader writing a story for school. She’s a professionally published author writing for the public market and somebody somewhere along the line should’ve forced her to revise. As a publishing professional, I’m a little embarrassed on behalf of Little,Brown’s editorial department. Just because the romance of Bella and Edward sprang fully-formed from Meyer’s dreaming mind does not mean that that is the best possible way it could have been written. Quite the opposite in fact, since many professional authors will tell you that shoddy first drafts are a necessary step in the writing process.

Collins writes for the same young adult audience that Meyer writes for. Both “The Hunger Games” and “Twilight” are narrated by teenage girls. And yet Katniss’s narration manages to remain fresh, interesting, and intelligent throughout three books. No one ever excuses the prose in “The Hunger Games” because “Well, the narrator is a teenage girl and that’s just how they think/speak/write,” and yet defenders of “Twilight” use that excuse all the time. It is possible to write in the voice of a teenager without writing like a teenager. Collins does this beautifully, even while including sentence fragments and unorthodox syntax.

“The Hunger Games” comes out in theaters on Friday, and no doubt the “Twilight” comparisons will go into full force then. “Will ‘The Hunger Games’ dethrone ‘Twilight’ as the reigning teen craze?” the entertainment writers will ask, just as they did of “Twilight” “dethroning” “Harry Potter” (another ill-fitting comparison).

The main character is a young woman and the story contains a love triangle, but the similarities end there. While there are probably some fans who enjoy both, the two stories aren’t even in the same ballpark. In fact, “The Hunger Games” is way out of “Twilight’s” league.

DENVER — After the Occupy Denver camp was shut down by police on Saturday, the protestors have returned to Civic Center Park to rebuild and continue the movement.

On Sunday the new camp held less than half the number of protestors that were present for Saturday’s violent struggle with the Denver Police Department. The camp’s medical station and kitchen had been completely dismantled and removed, and in place of tents some protestors were sleeping on quilts and flattened cardboard boxes on the sidewalk.

Signs of the police action were everywhere. Andrew (last name omitted), age 21, displayed the blood and bruises on his right arm left by pepper balls fired by a police officer. Andrew was sitting in a tree taking pictures when the officer fired on him.

“It was a battle from my vantage point,” Andrew said. “The police got surrounded and people were yelling ‘Shame, shame!’ They panicked and started firing. That’s when I was shot.”

The protestors who had returned to the camp by Sunday represented a broad spectrum of Coloradoans, many of whom witnessed the violence on Saturday.

Marie Cedabaca, 58, of the Apache Nation, said she wasn’t afraid of what might happen the next time Denver PD entered the camp. “They can make a martyr out of me.”

The Denver Post reported that the violence on Saturday started when a police officer was pushed off his motorcycle. Occupy Denver protestor John Thornton, age 30, told a different story. “One guy had his leg run over by the motorcycle. That’s why the bike got knocked over. He was reacting to getting run over. Then it all happened.”

Though not as bustling as it had been before Saturday, the camp was returning to order. One protestor swept dirt and trash from the sidewalk around Civic Center Park. Others helped unload donated jugs of water from the trunk of a car and bring them to the camp’s new kitchen.

Next Saturday the protest is expected to be bigger than ever, drawing in Occupy Denver supporters who are unable to assemble during the week because of their work schedules.

Several police vehicles are currently parked across Broadway from the Occupy Denver camp. The number of police present at Broadway and Colfax is also expected to rise on Saturday in anticipation of the protest growing.

DENVER — Yesterday afternoon riot police clashed with protestors at the Occupy Denver camp in Civic Center Park, resulting in minor injuries and the arrest of 20 protestors.

The violence began when riot police moved into the park to tear down the protestors’ tents. Police say officers were kicked by the protestors, and one officer was knocked off his motorcycle. Protestors attempted to occupy the steps of the State Capitol building, and were pushed away by police.

From there the situation escalated, and Denver PD used pepper spray, and pepper balls (projectiles much like paint balls fired from a gun, which Boston police banned after the death of Emerson College student Victoria Snelgrove at the hands of police improperly trained on the weapons in 2004. Seattle police also banned the weapon after her death) to subdue the crowd. Several protestors were hit with the projectiles and needed to rinse the pepper spray from their eyes.

Video from the Denver Post shows riot police and protestors locked in a shouting match before 3 p.m., at which point a stalemate arose with the protestors regrouped in Civic Center Park and the police backed away to shut down one block of Broadway between Colfax and 14th Ave. in front of the State Capitol building.

During the stalemate, U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D) spoke to the Occupy Denver protestors via bullhorn. Perlmutter urged the protestors to continue using nonviolent, peaceful tactics in their protest.

At 6 p.m., hundreds of riot police wielding batons, pepper spray, and pepper balls attempted to remove the tents from Civic Center Park again, announcing over a megaphone that the structures were illegal.

During this action, 15 arrests were made. According to the Denver Post, one police car was vandalized with the phrase “99%” and the DPD reacted to taunts from the protestors.

Saturday was the most violent day for the Occupy Denver chapter of the Occupy Wall Street movement since it began more than a month ago. Today the police blockade on Broadway is over and protestors are regrouping in Civic Center Park.

Part two of a series.

Felicia Day is a goddess -- a geek goddess (WireImage)

In case you haven’t heard, nerd culture isn’t just for boys.

The backlash against the New York Times’s sexist review of “Game of Thrones” has brought geek girls out of the woodwork to announce their presence. The world can no longer ignore the outspoken, opinionated faction of women who enjoy the spoils of nerd culture: Science fiction, fantasy, comic books, video games, horror movies, and a finely-executed action sequence.

Yes: We are living during the rise of the geek girl.

Gone are the days when one can make sweeping generalizations about all women and their proclivity for melodramatic medical dramas of melodrama and drama. No more can you classify a novel as “women’s fiction” without noting that it will only appeal to the women who aren’t already busy perusing the sci fi and fantasy section of the bookstore or picking up the latest issue of their favorite graphic novel.

Today the geek girl wants and expects more from her fiction. She wants epic fantasy and gritty science fiction. She wants “Game of Thrones” and “Battlestar Galactica.” She wants fiction that will present interesting and new metaphors for real life, which will exercise her imagination, and maybe come with some spaceships or dragons.

I learned to be a geek girl at the feet of the master: My own mom. She raised me on a steady diet of the Stars, both Wars and Trek, and science fiction novels. When my mom was in middle school a male classmate caught her reading an Andre Norton novel (a woman science fiction writer with a man’s name). He was aghast, and said, “But you’re a girl!” Her answer: “So?” Thank God the ‘60’s are over.

I’ll never forget when she told me that most people think science fiction and fantasy isn’t really “for girls.” It was like learning that the Earth is flat and boring after being told that it was being innovative with its roundness for so long. It had never occurred to me that genre fiction, which I immensely enjoyed more than the “Sweet Valley Teen” novels of my middle school peers, was something I could be ridiculed for reading.

Don't forget Olivia Munn (WireImage)

Should I have been ashamed for being a geek girl? According to the loudest detractors of geek girls and their interests: Yes.

You know the stereotype: The friendless weirdo with pimples and unwashed hair who wouldn’t know normal social interaction if it stole her copy of “The Silmarillion.” The infinitely ridiculed, un-cool, and un-loved girl.

For some reason being a nerdy girl was always far worse than being a nerdy boy. But isn’t that always the case? A boy can be anything he wants to be, but a girl… well, she’s got to fit into one of a handful of roles, and if she doesn’t then there’s something wrong with her.

Geek girls were told that epic space battles and medieval fantasy were for boys. What self-respecting woman would want to play a video game, let alone an FPS where the protagonist wore mechanized armor? Why weren’t we spending our time reading family dramas and romances and literary fiction? Why did we have to have such over-active imaginations?

Now, I’m just spit-balling here, but I was under the impression that an active imagination implied intelligence. After all, where would Einstein have gotten without his rampant imagination (and a deep understanding of applied mathematics)? So in fact, to be a geek girl is to be an intelligent girl (not that non-geek girls aren’t intelligent as well). But therein lies the problem: There is also a stigma against smart women, one that just won’t go away no matter how many brilliant women win the Nobel prize or become astronauts and college professors.

The recent surge in self-proclaimed geek girls (they’ve always been there, but quiet) has garnered attention. Suddenly being a geek girl is not such a bad thing, or at least there are so many of them “out of the closet” that their numbers demand respect. Networks and publishers are realizing that geek girls are a force to be reckoned with. They have appetites that must be sated, and they will not be ignored.

Already the geek girls in the entertainment industry have paved the way for their fans to say it loud and say it proud. Women like Felicia Day of the web series “The Guild” have become veritable geek goddesses, and writers like Jane Espenson show that a woman can write some of the best episodes of science fiction shows like “Battlestar Galactica”, “Firefly”, and “Torchwood.”

The rise of the geek girl will also be a golden age of popular culture and entertainment. The geek girls in the nerd fandoms will call, and the geek girls in the industry will answer. We already see powerful geek girls taking the driver’s seat in much of the most popular genre fiction (“The Walking Dead”, “Spartacus”), and still more are writing well-respected reviews of said fiction. The geek girl’s voice is one that can enrich nerd culture.

Such a rise in geek girldom requires a closer examination of the sub-culture.

Why do they have to be “geek girls”? Why can’t they just be geeks who happen to be girls? The feminist in me would prefer that terminology. Why does someone’s gender have to be defined by their interests, and vice versa? But in this case, there is a reason that geek girls call attention to their gender through their own words.

Saying you’re a geek girl doesn’t just mean you’re a geek who comes complete with a uterus and X chromosome. It means you are, simply by existing, flying in the face of societal norms. You’re a rebel, a supposed rarity, and according to some geek guys, a commodity.

Much as I hate to admit it, women being openly in love with science fiction and fantasy –and sci fi and fantasy openly embracing women– is a relatively new development. The New York Times review of “Game of Thrones” made it all too clear that geek girls are not yet fully accepted by mainstream media.

That is why we are geek girls and not simply geeks: Because at this point we need to call attention to our existence and our gender if we ever hope to gain full acceptance. We need to grasp a firmer hold on our place in pop culture and entertainment, make ourselves known, so that some day soon geek girls will not be perceived as a rarity, but as the norm.

If you’re looking for other geek girls on the web, visit Geek Girls Network, Geek With Curves, ThinkHero.com, io9.com, and Geek Girl Diva.

Apparently, I’m supposed to enjoy romantic comedies and Sex in the City. I must have missed the memo.

According to Ginia Bellafante’s recent New York Times review of HBO’s new series, Game of Thrones, (and follow-up) that’s all women are after in their entertainment. Therefore, the new Game of Thrones (based on the best-selling A Song of Ice and Fire novels by George R.R. Martin, of which I am a huge fan) is a story by men, for men, and won’t I please go back to reading about quiet-but-strong heroines trapped in struggling marriages and forget the whole fantasy genre ever happened?

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Background information is required.

I’m a girl. Always have been. I’m also a self-professed geek. I read science fiction and fantasy novels. I collect comic books. I spend my spare time thinking up zombie contingency plans. I’ve got most of The Lord of the Rings memorized (“Books or movies?” you ask. “Both”, I answer). When my friends and I do girls’ night, it’s to watch Firefly, not Dawson’s Creek. I’ve read the first four books of Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire twice. I’ve even been known to play video games, though my college roommates –geek girls, to a man (pun intended)– put my gaming skills to shame.

I have and always will be a geek girl, and proud of it. So when I read this in the NYT review of Game of Thrones, I was rather offended:

“The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.”

The fantasy genre is not for everyone, and that’s fine. But to directly insult the rather large and outspoken community of geek girls who love it is just, well… insulting.

I was under the impression that this was 2011, and educated people no longer embraced harmful gender stereotypes. Little boys can wear pink now and little girls can play with trucks and no one will think less of them for it. Or did I miss something and we’re still living in the 1950’s?

Yes, gender stereotyping is alive and well and it’s being perpetuated by the acceptance of the idea that fantasy is for boys and girls should go back to watching their soap operas and Gray’s Anatomy.

This sweeping generalization (as they usually are) is wrong.

The utter condescension that drips from the page with the words “While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s” implies that not only does Bellafante think that fantasy is a genre no self-respecting woman would enjoy, but that the few women who might enjoy fantasy are off their rockers.

In other words: If you’re a geek girl, there’s clearly something wrong with you.

Such is not the case, and I’ll turn to the Almighty Interweb to tell you why. Do a quick Google search of any fantasy, science fiction, or horror genre fiction and you will find reviews by women, and lots of them. Not only that, but you will find blogs and forums and fan communities and news sites by women with the express intent of celebrating that genre fiction. Geek girls have a mighty presence, and it’s evident in their online communities, at book signings, at movie premieres, and at conventions. The fact that Ms. Bellafante claims to never have met a geek girl just proves that she moves in very limited social circles.

And these geek girls? They’re not atypical of their gender. They’re not the shy outsiders and weirdos Bellafante makes them out to be. Intelligent, hilarious, talented, sexy, famous, and successful women count themselves among the ranks of geek girls. Jane Espenson, Felicia Day, Daryl Hannah, Olivia Munn, Gale Ann Hurd, Ursula Le Guin… Hell, science fiction doesn’t have a father: It has a mother, and her name is Mary Shelley.

Referring to Game of Thrones as “boy fiction” also shows an inherent lack of respect for the genre. She didn’t say “man fiction” or “fiction for a male audience.” She used the word “boy” with derision, and referenced Dungeons and Dragons later in the review. So not only is fantasy not something a refined woman would be into, but it’s also not something a grown man should admit to watching either. It’s only acceptable entertainment when you’re pimply, anti-social, and living in your mom’s basement (which is in itself a stereotype).

No, Game of Thrones is exactly the kind of genre fiction geek girls are clamoring for. Geek girls are a force to be reckoned with, and it shows in the ratings. Do you think Lord of the Rings would have done half so well in theaters if only 50% of the population was interested in seeing it? Would The Walking Dead have been the instant success it was if women hadn’t been watching it in droves? The times they are a’changin’, and geek girls are demanding that their needs be met with more quality fantasy and science fiction on TV.

But perhaps Bellafante’s sexist (yep, I said it) opinion stems from lack of research. A cursory glance at the Wikipedia page for Martin’s books reveals that the “illicitness” (read: sex and nudity) the reviewer believes was thrown in to attract a female audience is actually true to the book. Her lack of research shows again in a decidedly able-ist moment later in the review when she refers to Game of Thrones being in the “universe of dwarfs, armor, wenches, braids, loincloth.” The dwarf she is referring to is of course Tyrion Lannister, played by Peter Dinklage, who is not some mystical creature like Tolkien’s Gimli, but an actual human born with dwarfism, just like the millions of little people who go about their daily lives in our own universe.

Which brings me to my next point: As far as the genre goes, Game of Thrones is fantasy-light. It’s fantasy for people who prefer political intrigue and The Sopranos. It’s fantasy for those who are tired of fantasy and looking for something fresh and new. There are no wizards, no magic spells, no elves (go find your own franchises, Legolas and Dobby), no unicorns, no time travel, no magic talismans (well, mostly). When it comes right down to it, Game of Thrones would appeal more to fans of Philippa Gregory than Terry Brooks. So if girls aren’t supposed to like fantasy, then wouldn’t that make Game of Thrones kind of ideal?

What we have here is a) A lack of respect for the fantasy genre, and b) A lack of respect for the women who prefer it.

The disrespect shows a failure to understand a basic trait of the geek girl, and that is this: We’re individuals with –gasp!– our own individual tastes and opinions. Geek girls are looking for something different in their fiction. They’re looking for the metaphor offered by fantasy, and for the real-life relationships and themes that can be just as poignant in Game of Thrones as they can be in a Jodi Picoult novel.

Not every woman loves Desperate Housewives. Some do, and that’s just fine. By the same token, some women like their fiction served with a sword and a quest and on horseback. There is no qualitative difference between the two except where we insert one.

Fantasy: It’s not just for the boys, and it never was.

According to everyone, vampires make excellent boyfriends.

Fans of “Twilight”  believe that Edward Cullen is Prince Charming, and “True Blood”  fans think Bill Compton is the perfect gentleman. This apparently gives all vampire boyfriends permission to get away with things that would land a normal human boyfriend in jail, and with good reason.

When you look at it objectively, vampires actually make terrible boyfriends. They’re pretty much the worst possible choice of boyfriend. Vampire boyfriends do things that, were they not supernatural, sexy creatures-of-the-night, would easily be defined as abuse, manipulation, assault, and even attempted murder.

Take away the “vampire” in “vampire boyfriend” and what you are left with is an abusive boyfriend and an unhealthy relationship crying out for an intervention and legal action.

Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the vampire boyfriends from four of the most popular modern vampire stories, and judge them by their actions, not by their hotness or the ludicrous devotion of their human girlfriends (read: battered women).

“The Vampire Diaries”

The romance of Stefan and Elena on “The Vampire Diaries” is possibly the tamest on this list. They snuggle and chat and care for the people around them. They interact normally when not faced with certain death. Neither one forces the other to go farther sexually or emotionally than they are both ready to go.

When Elena finds out that human blood will make the vegan-vamp Stefan stronger, Elena encourages him to drink a tiny drop of her own blood every day. In return, Stefan looks out for not only Elena, but her little brother Jeremy and her best friends Caroline and Bonnie as well. Aside from the whole creepy-old-man in the body of a teenager thing that all vampire boyfriends have, Stefan is actually a pretty good boyfriend to Elena. Except for two things:

1. His evil vampire brother is also in love with Elena and expresses his feelings by killing people.

2. His evil vampire ex-girlfriend is still in love with Stefan and expresses her feelings by killing people.

I’d say those are two very compelling reasons not to date said vampire. Despite Stefan’s best efforts, he proves time and again that he cannot protect Elena and the people she loves from the dangerous monsters in his life. Elena is kidnapped, beaten, intimidated, terrorized, and forced to watch as her friends and family are similarly abused… none of which would have happened if Stefan hadn’t waltzed into her life.

“Buffy the Vampire Slayer”

Despite being tough, smart, brave, and quick-witted, Buffy has horrible judgment when it comes to men. She dates not one, but two blood-sucking fiends.

Buffy’s first vampire boyfriend is Angel, who has a soul and does good deeds to make up for his murderous past. Their relationship is equal: She saves him from impending death, he saves her from impending death, and then they make out.

When things are going just swimmingly for Buffy and her bi-centennial BF, everything goes wrong. Buffy sleeps with Angel, which causes him to revert to the soulless monster his fangs proclaim him to be. He hurts her feelings, laughing at her pain when he tells her that their tryst meant nothing to him. Then he runs around killing and terrorizing the people she loves. He even sketches pictures of both Buffy and her mother while they are sleeping and leaves the sketches under Buffy’s pillow to scare her. Then he tries to destroy the world, forcing Buffy to take him down. But just before she kills him he regains his soul, conveniently losing his memory of his recent evil spree, which means that Buffy has no choice but to thrust a sword through the heart of the man she loves (sword + thrusting = pretty much what he deserves).

As if destroying her innocence once wasn’t enough, Angel returns the next season as the good guy Buffy fell in love with. To save him from poison, Buffy lets Angel drink her blood. He over-indulges, sucking her nearly dry and putting her in a coma (Read: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE). To add insult to injury, he skips town after prom without saying good-bye.

Because once wasn’t enough to teach Buffy her lesson about dating vampires, a few years later Buffy hops into the sack with Spike (Even though he spent the last 150 years murdering people willy-nilly when he and Buffy weren’t beating the ever-living crap out of each other). When Buffy realizes her relationship with Spike is incredibly self-destructive, she breaks it off. Spike responds by attempting to rape her.

And Buffy never dated a vampire again (we hope).

“True Blood”

There is a lot wrong with Bill and Sookie’s relationship on “True Blood.” Let’s start with the obvious: He drinks her blood during sex. This leaves her with obvious wounds after a roll in the hay, which she doesn’t seem to mind. To put things in perspective: If my boyfriend left me with a black eye and a bloody lip in the morning, I’d pack my bags and call the police.

But this is all well and good for Sookie until Bill, weakened by blood-loss, needs to drink Sookie’s blood to heal. He over-indulges, sucking her nearly dry and putting her in a coma (sound familiar?). Her friends Tara and Lafayette try to keep Bill away from Sookie while she’s recovering, and rightly so, since the psychological damage is only beginning.

In season three, Sookie’s best friend Tara is kidnapped and raped by a psychotic vampire… in the same mansion where Bill is hanging out. Bill knows Tara is there. She even begs him to help her. Yet Bill does nothing to save his girlfriend’s best friend from being tortured. When Tara escapes, she tells Sookie that Bill never lifted a finger to help her. Sookie responds by being all “Oh noes, super sorry! Let’s hug it out!” and then runs back into her dead lover’s arms. She never so much as slaps Bill on the wrist for letting her best friend get raped when he could have prevented it.

So what does Sookie get upset about? Oh yeah: The fact that Bill was stalking her before they even met and conned her into forming a relationship with him so he could deliver her to the Vampire Queen of Louisiana as a tasty snack (But it’s cool because he fell in love with her and changed his mind… what?). That’s right. That special night you lost your virginity to your vampire boyfriend? For him it was all an act.

“Twilight”

Where to begin?

Edward Cullen’s worst crime as a vampire boyfriend is that he has made millions, if not billions of women long for a boyfriend just like him. His relationship with Bella Swann is abusive on both an emotional and physical level. It is this abusive relationship that has been glorified to teenage girls —children— through “The Twilight Saga.” Let’s break it down:

1. He watches her sleep, both before and after they are dating. He sneaks into her bedroom at night and he watches her sleep. This is the universally accepted pastime of serial rapists and murderers (see Buffy, above).
2. He insults her and tells her to stay away from him during their very first interaction. This goes beyond playing hard-to-get. It’s just mean.
3. He disables the engine of her truck so she can’t go visit her friend Jacob, thus restricting her movement and interactions with people other than himself. Controlling much?
4. He withholds sex and makes Bella feel bad about herself for wanting to explore the physical side of their relationship.
5. He infantilizes her. Constantly. If she didn’t have daddy issues before getting into the relationship, she does now. Edward repeatedly tells her (sweetly) to shut up and (nicely) makes decisions for her. She’s a pat on the head and a cookie away from being his puppy dog.
6. Daddy issues, part 2: Edward seems almost amused and intrigued by the fact that Bella is an inexperienced teenage girl. If you didn’t have problems with the older man issue before, you should now.
7. He says things like “You are my life now” and “I can’t live without you.” That’s heavy stuff. You might think it’s sweet, but every time he says something like that it is encouraging Bella to feel responsible for Edward’s life and well-being. One classic sign of an abusive relationship: When your boyfriend threatens to kill himself if you ever leave him.
8. He forces her to go to the prom with him, even though she is uncomfortable about going. Disregarding your girlfriend’s comfort is always the gentlemanly thing to do.
9. After making Bella totally dependent on his sparkly vamp-charms, Edward tells her they’re over and skips town (see Buffy, above). He doesn’t call, and he doesn’t write. The hurt he inflicts on this hormonal, not-yet-fully-developed child is so intense that she repeatedly places herself in dangerous situations. She even jumps off a cliff… because of Edward.
10. He alienates her from her friends. After Edward shows up on the scene, everyone else pales in comparison, including her childhood friend Jacob Black, and especially her normal, well-adjusted friends at Forks High School. Bella resides in a social vacuum. But wait, she has the Cullens, who aren’t at all creepy and weird!
11. He makes ultimatums. He will only turn her into a vampire after she marries him. Granted, she’s a fool for wanting to be a vampire, but withholding rewards in exchange for your personal desires is no way to run a relationship.
12. The morning after Bella and Edward consummate their marriage, she wakes up covered in bruises. Edward is all, “Sorry babe. Did I hurt you with my awesome vampire strength while we were boning?” (see True Blood, above), to which Bella responds “Oh no dear, I don’t mind! It was perfect in every way!” He then goes off to brood and makes her feel guilty for not only enjoying the sex, but also forgiving him. Let me make this absolutely clear: Edward physically injures Bella during sex, and yet she is the one who is made to feel guilty. I believe this is chapter two in the textbook on domestic abuse.
13. He gets her pregnant. Yes, it takes two to tango, but do not tell me that in 100 years Edward has not learned how to use a condom.
14. Realizing her pregnancy is potentially life-threatening, Edward decides that the best thing for her would be to abort the baby. Without her input or consent.
15. Edward decides with Jacob that if Bella wants a baby, Jacob should be the father. Again, the two men make this decision about Bella’s body and sexual freedom without her input or consent.
16. He makes her a vampire. This ultimately cuts her off from her parents and friends, and prevents the possibility of her going to college anywhere but darkest Alaska. Cut out the “makes her a vampire part” and you have a boyfriend who has restricted her access to family and education forever.

So, is Edward Cullen Prince Charming, the perfect boyfriend, or Mr. Right? The evidence suggests otherwise.

Why do these vampire boyfriends get away with abuse and assault? Why is their behavior romanticized and excused by millions of fans? Removed from context, they are textbook abusers. In context, they are…  still abusers. So why are vampire boyfriends so desirable? The world may never know.

Oh, and bring it on, Twihards.

I know who dies at the end of “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” And so do you.

J.K. Rowling’s first book about the boy wizard who saved the world (a lot) came out when I was twelve years old. I was the perfect age for it, but I also had a contrary streak as wide as Greenland. So while my classmates were falling in love with Harry, Hermione, and that ginger kid they hung out with, I was firmly against becoming a Potterite.

Years later I can admit my mistake. I consider it a sign of deep personal growth that I can embrace the fact that I was wrong to dismiss Harry Potter just because everyone else liked it. That’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it.

Now that I’m older, wiser, more mature, and far less contrary, I can readily say that J.K. Rowling did a wonderful thing for the world when she introduced us all to Harry Potter.

This is why I recently decided to read all seven Harry Potter books and watch all of the movies.

With the seventh film just recently released in theaters, it seemed the perfect time to embrace the series I had so wrongly dismissed in my youth. Turns out Harry Potter is kind of awesome. Who knew? (Everybody except me, apparently).

My childhood best friend is a dyed-in-the-wool Potterite. When I told her about my new project, our conversation went something like this:

Me: So I’m finally reading Harry Potter.

Friend: (unintelligible noises of glee)

Me: I’m also watching all the movies.

Friend: What book are you on? Tell me quickly so I don’t spoil anything for you!

Me: Well, I’m on the second book and I just finished watching the fourth movie…

Friend: What! How can you watch the movies before reading the books? Aren’t you worried about spoilers?

Me: Relax. I already know what happens anyway.

Friend: But how can that be?

Me: It’s impossible to be alive today and not have Harry Potter spoiled for you. Everyone talks about it, because they assume that if you haven’t finished reading the latest book forty-eight hours after it has been published, you are either illiterate or living on Mars. I’ve known how the series ends for years.

Friend: Yeah right.

Me: No, really. (SPOILER) marries (SPOILER) and (SPOILER) marries (SPOILER), much to the chagrin of all the fan girls who thought that (SPOILER) really should’ve ended up with (SPOILER), despite the author’s obvious foreshadowing from book two.

Friend: Ok, that’s one thing you know. I bet you don’t know—

Me: (SPOILER) kills (SPOILER) at the end of The Half-Blood Prince.

Friend: Yeah, but you don’t know why—

Me: Because (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER). Also, (SPOILER) dies at the end of “Order of the Phoenix,” which was really a shame because (SPOILER). Oh, and Voldemort keeps coming back like the herpes of literary villains (which is not a spoiler at all).

Fiend: (stunned silence)

Our conversation continued like that for awhile, with my friend testing my knowledge of Harry Potter and me answering correctly despite never having read the books or seen the movies before. At the end, she had to concede that I was right:

We are living in a post-Potter world.

You know that (SPOILER) is a werewolf. You know that (SPOILER) eventually becomes Seeker of the (SPOILER) Quidditch team. You know that (SPOILER) is not really a (SPOILER), that (SPOILER) is really a bad guy (I mean, who didn’t see that one coming?), that (SPOILER) is really a good guy, and that (SPOILER) is not really as bad as (SPOILER) seems to think.

You know all this stuff, and if you honestly don’t believe you do, all you have to do is ask the person sitting next to you. They’ll tell you why (SPOILER) was expelled from Hogwarts, and their tone of voice will tell you that they think you’ve been living under a rock for the past ten years.

Living in a post-Potter world means that people just talk about Harry Potter like it is current world news or last night’s episode of “American Idol.” They assume that if you don’t know that (SPOILER) (SPOILERS) then you must have suffered some kind of traumatizing blow to the head that caused you to forget the final pages of “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.”

They assume that you too have read and worshiped the words of J.K. Rowling, that you know the plots of her books intimately, and that you therefore wouldn’t be opposed to some open discussion on why (SPOILER) appears to hate (SPOILER) so much.

The only people safe from Harry Potter spoilers are small children, and that’s only because the world assumes their parents haven’t finished reading The Sorcerer’s Stone to them yet.

Harry Potter has become such a staple of our collective culture that it’s impossible to ignore. You can’t be oblivious to Harry Potter. Even if you are innocent enough not to know that (SPOILER) is the (SPOILER) in “The Chamber of Secrets,” you at the very least know the following information:

a) Harry is a wizard.

b) Harry goes to wizard school.

c) The game of Quidditch makes no practical sense.

That’s assuming you’re deaf and have been meditating in Nepal since 1999.

As the population of the universe troops off to watch Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on the big screen, is anyone really surprised? Is anyone sitting at the edge of their seat wondering, “What happens next?” I sincerely doubt it. If anything, they’re all waiting to see how the movie differs from the book in some minute way.

We live in a post-Potter world, but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I’m not trying to say that Harry Potter is any less of a good story because we all know that (SPOILERY SPOILERY SPOILER). On the contrary: It is one of the story’s strengths that despite being spoiled for millions of first-time readers, Harry Potter continues to have great literary strength and entertainment value.

I knew about (SPOILER)’s secret before the pivotal scene in “The Prisoner of Azkaban.” That didn’t make it any less exciting for me when Harry, Hermione, and the ginger kid found out. And how cool was it when (SPOILER) made his grand exit from “The Order of the Phoenix” by getting carried off by (SPOILER)?

In an age when we consume entertainment in 140 characters or less and YouTube-video-sized chunks, Harry Potter remains the absurdly-long book series that people of all ages will stay up at night reading. Even in a post-Potter world, J.K. Rowling’s books are exciting, entertaining, and (dare I say it) of literary value. They are what a good book should be: Timeless. For this late-blooming Potterite in a post-Potter world, they cannot truly be spoiled.

So this weekend I’m going to go see “The Deathly Hallows” (before I’ve read the book) at the movie theater with my die-hard Potterite friends. And I’m going to enjoy it (Even though I already know that (SPOILER) can’t be (SPOILERED) by (SPOILER) because of (SPOILER)).

Oh yeah, and Hermione kills Hagrid to avenge the death of Snape.

DENVER — Last night hundreds of Twilight fans gathered at Sloan’s Lake Park in Denver for Twilight Night, a special celebration in honor of the upcoming movie, “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,” and the evening’s lunar eclipse.

The event featured a screening of The Twilight Saga: New Moon, along with special appearances by two supporting cast members, Booboo Stewart and Tinsel Korey. The two play Seth Clearwater and Emily, members of the Quileute tribe and the Wolf Pack, the werewolves of Twilight.

(Don’t miss Blast’s “Twilight Night” coverage in Phoenix and San Diego)

Fans of all ages showed up at the park as early as 4:00 to show their excitement for Eclipse. Groups of teenagers and families with young children huddled under umbrellas in the pouring rain. They clutched dog-eared copies of Stephenie Meyer’s novels, along with water bottles, cell phones, magazines, posters, jewelry, T-shirts, and notebooks all emblazoned with the Twilight logo.

One large group of fans from Lakewood, Jefferson, and Creyton high schools started chanting "We want the Wolf Pack!" The girls were decked out in Team Jacob shirts and soaked to the skin. Tanya Castillo, age 13, said of the group’s love for Bella’s werewolf friend: "He’s so sweet and he takes his time for Bella. Plus his abs. Plus, he’s loyal… but also his abs."

Not all the fans were rooting for Twilight’s hunky werewolf. Team Edward had a strong presence as well. Denver woman Kandy Coleman, staying dry under a Twilight umbrella, had a compelling reason to support Edward. "He’s a good example for every man from age eight to eighteen of what makes a good mate," said Coleman.

Three lucky eighth graders from Littleton, Colorado won VIP passes from a Vitamin Water promotion to an advance screening of Eclipse on Tuesday. Sophie Iannac, Laura Wagner, and Emily Redmon won the passes because of the amount of "Twilight bling" they wore to Twilight Night: T-shirts, buttons, jewelry, and even shoes.

Margareto Costello, 23, who was visiting friends in Denver, identified herself as "not a fan." When asked why she thought the books had become so popular, Costello said, "Because literacy rates are going down and it’s quite easy to read." The New Jersey native was one of the few in the crowd who weren’t there for the love of Twilight.

Around 7:30, the rain stopped, the sun came out over the lake, and hundreds of fans screamed happily as Korey and Stewart finally arrived. The pair made their way along the barrier, signing autographs and taking pictures with fans. Stewart ran along the crowd, slapping high-fives, before greeting a group of fans who won the privilege of going "backstage" to meet the two Twilight cast members.

Korey and Stewart got on stage to say a few words over screaming support from the crowd. The two members of the Wolf Pack expressed their excitement for the premiere of Eclipse and their appreciation for the fans.

The giant screen lit up, and the opening narration of New Moon began to play, breathless fans mouthing along with the words.

“The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” opens nation-wide on Wednesday, June 30.

A research study has come out, trying to define the relationship between body art and deviance among college students in America.

Remember the days of the Hell’s Angels? Of Sid and Nancy and Billy Idol? Remember when a piercing meant you were bad, but a tattoo meant you were badder? When gangs of the most "different" sort of people brandished their body art and flew their freak flags high, laughing in the face of all that is good and wholesome about the college-educated middle class…

Neither do I.

But let’s imagine for a moment that the days of anti-mainstream subcultures are still fresh in America’s collective memory. Counter-culture extremists were easy to recognize by their flaming skull tattoos and facial piercings, and the "good kids" were clearly discerned by the sweaters tied demurely about their shoulders.

That is no longer the case.

This new study, conducted by Texas Tech researchers, takes a close look at how much the number of tattoos and body piercings a student has directly correlates to their deviant activities.

In a report titled "Body art, deviance, and American college students" (these science types are direct), the team compiled data collected from 1,753 students. What they found might surprise you. Or it might be exactly the results you were expecting.

The results

Specifically, the research "differentiates and measures the relationships between escalating levels of body art and social deviance.” Since social deviance is a largely subjective idea, the researchers were forced to define and categorize it as a variable.

In this case, deviancy was categorized as overtly illegal behavior, as well as legal behavior contrary to social norms. The team further narrowed the legal side of deviance down to cheating on school work, drinking to excess and having multiple sex partners. The illegal deviance included marijuana use, other illegal drug use and arrests other than traffic violations.

The researchers defined body art in three ways: First, an escalating number of tattoos; second, an escalating number of piercings (single earlobe piercings were not included); and third, relegated to their own category, were "intimate" piercings — piercings of the nipples and genitals.

The idea was that a higher number of body art (number of tattoos and piercings) would equal a higher level of deviant behavior — extreme body art (intimate piercings and multiple tattoos) would equal more deviant behavior.

But even with these defined variables, "deviant behavior" is still up in the air when it comes to college students.

“I think every college kid is involved in at least a little bit of deviant or illegal activity,” said Robert Vanderberg from Stingray Body Art, a tattoo artist with over 16 years of experience. “They’re college kids."

What the researchers found was that for some deviant behaviors, there was no obvious corresponding rise in body art. For others, there was a clear increase in deviant behavior connected to certain kinds of body art.

For example, binge drinking was roughly the same across the charts, regardless of the subject’s amount and type of body art. The report theorizes that this is because binge drinking is a "typical" college behavior, part and parcel of parties and the freedom of being away from parental supervision.

Cheating on college work and having multiple sex partners was relatively unrelated to the amount of piercings the subjects had. Levels of cheating on college work remained mostly the same no matter how many tattoos the subjects had or didn’t have.

But the results really got interesting when the variables increased by the amount of body art and the level of deviancy.

The difference in deviance between the un-pierced and the pierced subjects, when it came to drug use and arrest histories, was drastic. In the categories of "monthly marijuana use," "other illegal drug use" and "arrests other than traffic" the percentages mount steadily as the number of piercings increases. The more deviant subjects had more piercings. Similarly, when it came to tattoos, there was a noted difference in deviant behavior between those with tattoos and those without. Over 70 percent of subjects with four or more tattoos admitted to being arrested for something other than a traffic violation. To put things in perspective, only 8.5 percent of the subjects without tattoos admitted to being arrested. Again, it would seem that the more deviant students were acquiring more tattoos.

Subjects with intimate piercings followed the trend of the other two groups. When it came to legal deviant behavior, there was little to separate them from their peers. But in regards to the illegal deviant activities, the subjects with intimate piercings were well represented. Over 24 percent of the subjects with intimate piercings admitted to using illegal drugs other than marijuana. Not quite 6 percent of the subjects without intimate piercings had used illegal drugs. Similarly, over 39 percent of those with intimate piercings admitted to being arrested, but barely 12 percent of those without intimate piercings had been arrested.

The research successfully drew a statistical connection between body art and deviant behavior, according to the variables they set up: The more extreme the body art, the more deviant the behavior.

A total of 37 percent of all the test subjects were pierced and 1 percent% were tattooed. Few of the test subjects (4 percent) had extreme body art: an intimate piercing, four or more tattoos, and seven or more piercings. Even with a relatively small amount of the sample adorned, the trends are hard to ignore.

Take it with a grain of salt

The research team was careful to admit its own limitations. Their subjects didn’t exactly represent a wide cross-section of college-going Americans. The study included students from four colleges: two public, and two private religious institutions. It isn’t explicitly stated, but since the researchers hail from Texas Tech, it’s assumed that the schools in question are in Texas. All of the test subjects were enrolled in entry-level sociology classes.

The test also doesn’t take into account the design of the students’ tattoos, only the number of them. Though this variable might have been impossible to test for, there is a noted difference between a happy dolphin tattoo on the small of your back and a portrait of Charles Manson on your forehead.

Stingray is located near BU on Harvard Avenue. According to Vanderberg, about a third of their clientele are college students. But the tattoos they get aren’t exactly symbols of deviancy. "Kids at Harvard get ‘Veritas’ tattooed on their wrist because they think they’re special. MIT kids get math equations. They get a lot of lettering, quotes, and song lyrics. They want a fairy sitting on a moon with a poem, and half the universe in the background, the size of a quarter on their hip."

The research team was more specific about the piercings they included as body art. A single piercing in each earlobe was not counted as significant body art, since most female college students, regardless of deviancy, sport earrings. A piercing in the cartilage of the ear was deemed body art, as were other facial piercings.

Of course, the very fact that they’re studying college students limits the subjects to mostly middle- to upper-class Americans, with the funds and/or gumption to make it into college. According to their report, 78 percent of the test subjects were between the ages of 18 and 20. Sixty percent of the test subjects were female. And a whopping 79 pecent of the test subjects were Euro-American — white.

But no study is perfect.

What does it all mean?

The statistics above narrow the sample of subjects down to a very particular demographic. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since it allows the conclusions of the study to be compared to studies of completely different demographics. In particular, it shows how these mostly 18-20, mostly female, mostly Euro-American, and all college-educated people compare to a traditionally different demographic: members of American sub-cultures.

Mainstream Americans have been getting tattoos for a long time. As Vanderberg put it, tattoos are in their Golden Age. "I think it’s great that something other than the counter-culture is getting tattooed. Really the upper-class or the higher middle class, those are the people who are getting the high dollar full body stuff, even though you never see it. New England is very liberal. It’s the Democrats’ Mecca. You can get a job with a facial tattoo. But the rest of the world is very uptight, and that makes you unemployable if you have any tattoo."

To quote from the study’s abstract: “With the increasing mainstream presence of visible tattoos and piercings among entertainers, athletes, and even in corporate boardrooms, we wonder the extent to which long-time enthusiasts and collectors regard the phenomenon as encroachment.”

How will sailors, motorcycle clubs, convicts, musicians, tattoo artists and other traditionally-adorned subcultures react to seeing their symbol of free-spirited individualism on the upper arm of a 19-year-old white college girl?

In other words, the connection between body art and America’s college students doesn’t make everyone happy, as you might imagine. But in this case it’s not simply their parents — the usual target of youth in rebellion — who are annoyed at the connection between body art and deviant behavior. This nuisance even goes beyond their concerned pastors or community leaders.

The research team posits that the people most offended by the body art of deviant college students are deviants themselves. Body art used to be a tried-and-true symbol of deviant behavior and counter-culture attitudes. It was so obvious a sign of the anti-mainstream, that a study like this would’ve been laughable.

"Bikers, whores, freaks, and sailors, that was it." Vanderberg said. "You had to have a pair to even walk in the front door. And no one was nice to you, no one helped to educate you."

Time was when a certain tattoo meant allegiance to a biker gang, military service, prison time or adherence to an extreme philosophy. Body art has been used by members of the straight edge movement to declare their abstinence from drugs and alcohol. It has been used as pictorial histories of convicts’ criminal exploits. Tattoos have been used as symbols of feats of bravery among sailors and the military. Perhaps the most widely-known use of tattoos is as symbols of identity among the motorcycle clubs of California.

But now, with middle-class college students adorning themselves as part and parcel of their "deviant behavior" (read: cheating on tests, binge drinking, and smoking the reefer), what does this do to the traditional status symbol of the counter-culture? Vanderberg said, "There are tattooed people, and there are people with tattoos. Tattooed people are different." If a binge-drinking sorority girl can get a skull and roses tattooed on her thigh, what does that same tattoo mean on a 50-year old female biker who’s seen more than her fair share of deviancy?

Does this detract from the meaning body art? Or does this mean that more college students are considering themselves counter-culture?

The research team believes that the connection between the college students’ body art and their deviant behavior will force a response from the old-school deviants: “We propose that tattoo collectors, artists, and piercers must not only increase the number of tattoos and piercings they have in order to maintain a distinctive sub- cultural identity, they are also more likely to solidify their out-group status with higher levels of other anti-social behavior.”

Therefore, because mainstream young people are using body art to symbolize their youthful transgressions, members of the tattooed subculture must respond in kind. Not only must they take their body art to new extremes, but they must also increase their deviant behavior to be more deviant than the actions of supposedly bad-ass college students.

But does the counter-culture agree?

Neither main nor stream. Discuss

Stingray Body Art on Harvard Avenue won Boston Magazine’s Best of Boston Award for the best tattoo parlor in 2006 and 2007. The establishment is home to nine tattoo artist and two body piercers. Judging by Stingray’s work, their title of Best of Boston is well-deserved. But they didn’t get there by catering strictly to counter-culture tattoo enthusiasts.

The parlor advertises a 10 percent student discount. With their location in the heart of America’s college town, it’s no wonder a large portion of their clientele is college students.

But students aren’t the only mainstream business to walk through the parlor’s doors. Every day, Stingray sees clients from all walks of life. "You name it, we do it,” Vanderberg said. “From retired folks to lawyers, teachers, doctors, investment bankers… we do it all. We’re located near the teamster area, so we have a lot of those."

It’s a large, clean, professional-looking shop on a main thoroughfare, a far cry from the stereotype of the shadowy, back-alley, have-to-know-somebody-who-knows-somebody-to-find-it tattoo parlor run by outlaw biker tattoo artists. Surely that parlor still exists somewhere, but parlors like Stingray have become the face of the body art industry.

The idea is to make everyone feel welcome, regardless of mainstream or counter-culture affiliation. "My job is to take care of you, make it look cool and send you away with a good experience and a smile on your face. My job’s not to judge what people get," Vanderberg said.

Not everyone likes this style. The research team writes, "’Old-school’ tattoo artists, as well as long-time collectors and enthusiasts, have expressed dismay and disgust at the emergence of such ‘posers’ regarding them as late to the game and playing it casually." Perhaps the problem of body art and deviance among college students is a matter of respect. Are college students intruding on traditions that aren’t theirs to borrow?

Vanderberg doesn’t think the change is all bad. "I think that it used to be people who were on the edge that got tattooed, no one else did. But now it’s not like that. It’s fashion. It’s like Uggs or Doc Martins or anything else. Trends will change, and they’ll get different stuff, and keep our industry alive." The times they are a’changing.

Whether or not body art is a symbol of deviancy in college students, it still might be perceived that way. "I’ve had situations where if you had tattoos on your hands and a cop pulled you over, you were a scumbag and you’re getting a ticket. That’s like saying anyone who’s black likes watermelon, or anyone who’s Middle Eastern is a terrorist," Vanderberg said. "I don’t think it’s right to judge anyone for the color of their skin. It’s that little 1/16 of an inch that makes us all so different, tattoo or not."

Biker gangs, bad boys and rock stars used to be synonymous with tattoos. These days however, skin art is definitely becoming more mainstream with each passing month. With body art becoming the norm, and tattooed college students experimenting with social deviancy, where is there room for counter-culture symbolism? When a tattoo and multiple piercings is no longer a symbol of radical individualism, what will radical individuals do to set themselves apart?

"Body art, deviance, and American college students" sheds light on a curious trend among America’s college students, but asks more questions than it answers about the new meaning of body art and deviancy.

Tonight the final episode of Joss Whedon’s “Dollhouse” will air on Fox, canceled after barely two seasons.

Saw that coming.

“Dollhouse”, produced by Joss Whedon and Boston-born actress Eliza Dushku, premiered in February of last year to mixed reviews. There were the Whedon loyalists who recognized the spark of genius that made projects like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Serenity” brilliant. And there were those who saw it as flat, complicated, and directionless from the beginning.

Then there were the fans who just genuinely enjoyed the concept: Technology that can imprint a human brain with any personality. Our main characters were everything from the perfect date to the perfect assassin, and a few surprises in between.

But as of tonight, all that “Dollhouse” was is coming to an end. Cancelled before its time. But this isn’t the first time this has happened to a Joss Whedon show.

Perhaps Whedon’s most famous cancelled show was 2003′s “Firefly”, a Space Western with an ensemble cast, amazing dialog, and a budget too big for its experimental genre-mixing. It went off the air after only 13 episodes, but the seeds of a cult classic were planted.

Two years after the little-known show was cancelled by Fox, it had a huge fan following and a big damn movie. Serenity, the movie based on “Firefly”, was a hit. It gave fans the satisfaction of seeing their beloved story resolved on the silver screen.

But why was “Firefly” cancelled? If ratings were the problem, the network had only to wait a while. If DVD sales of the TV series and ticket sales for Serenity are any indication, “Firefly” would’ve had ratings of Buffy-like proportions within at least two seasons.

Was the budget too big to maintain? Budgets can always be cut, even with a special-effects heavy show. Perhaps the network was worried that audiences weren’t ready for a genre-bending sci-fi concept no one had ever seen before.

To that I say: Look at the success of Battlestar Galactica.

Even Whedon’s show Angel, a spin-off of his incredibly popular Buffy series, didn’t last as long as its creator intended. Cancelled in the fifth season and forced to wrap things up hastily, Angel was meant for at least another season. Its death wasn’t quite as tragic as “Firefly”, since the series did get a full five seasons. But again, the assumption was made that once Buffy ended, no one would want to watch its spinoff series. The network doubted Joss Whedon’s fans a second time.

And now, with the cancellation of “Dollhouse”, the Fox network is again snubbing the work of a great creator of television and doubting the faith of his fans. But this time, I find it hard to blame them.

“Dollhouse” was not Joss Whedon’s greatest show. I don’t even think it was his second best show. It fell far short of the brilliance of Buffy, as well as the short-but-sweet web series Doctor Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog. It may be that “Dollhouse” was doomed from the beginning. Were it not for loyal Whedonites the world over (and the curious viewers willing to give it a chance), it might not have lasted past the pilot.

But Whedon has had terrible pilots before. Season one of Buffy (which, as I might have said before, was his finest work) was a comedy of low-budget errors. Once it got off the ground, the show was great, but it was only by luck that the network decided to let it live past that first laughable season.

“Dollhouse”, by contrast, was blessed with an enormous budget and all-star crew from the very beginning. The set was beautiful, the actors were beautiful, the writers were legends in the industry… and yet it didn’t have that certain special something that takes a story and makes it great. How could a show starting with all the advantages turn out only mediocre at best, and get cancelled by the second season?

“Dollhouse” wasn’t terrible, it just… wasn’t great. Maybe the problem was that we expected greatness of the next big Joss Whedon show starring a bad-ass female protagonist.

It had its moments. The comic stylings of nerd-genius Topher Brink were always good for a laugh. The acting of Enver Gjokaj and Dichen Lachman as they switched seamlessly between personalities was breathtaking. The “Dollhouse” itself was a gorgeous set. The surprise plot-twists every five episodes or so kept me on my toes. And then there was the raw presence of Eliza Dushku, a woman who can turn heads no matter what she’s doing.

But none of this was enough to overshadow the fact that “Dollhouse” — much like its lead character — didn’t know its own identity. The show felt hesitant, like its creator knew that one false move could get it cancelled. They wanted so badly to get it right. And they failed to recognize their strengths and run with them.

From the beginning “Dollhouse” was a decent show that failed to grasp its full potential. They had their chance, and now they’re getting cancelled. As this is not Whedon’s first cancellation, the rumor goes that once “Dollhouse” goes off the air, he won’t be doing any more TV shows. Instead, Whedon will be focusing on web-based projects like Doctor Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog.

Perhaps the show will redeem itself in the final episode. But it looks like this one’s going out with a whimper, not a bang.

DENVER — Charlie Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day in Aspen, Colo. on domestic violence allegations. The 44-year-old actor spent most of the holiday in a jail cell in the elite ski resort town.

Officers responded to a 911 call from a home in Aspen Friday morning. An ambulance also responded to the call, though Sheen’s accuser was not taken to the hospital for treatment of any injuries.

At the Pitkin County Jail, Sheen was booked for second-degree assault, menacing and criminal mischief, according to Aspen police spokeswoman Stephanie Dasaro. The identity of Sheen’s accuser and alleged victim was not named by the Aspen police department.

Sheen was released on $8,500 bail on Friday afternoon. Aspen lawyer Richard Cummins is representing the actor. According to the AP, both Cummins and Sheen’s publicist Stan Rosenfield have cautioned the public not to jump to conclusions.

A court date is set for February 8, according to Cummins.

Sheen is the son of actor Martin Sheen and brother of director Emilio Estevez. He stars in the CBS sitcom "Two and a Half Men." This is not his first brush with the law. In 1996 he was charged with attacking his then girlfriend and arrested. He violated his parole with a cocaine overdose that sent him to the hospital and later to rehab.

The big finale has arrived, making all of our gleeful dreams come true. Last night “Glee” wrapped it up with all you could want in a dramatic finish: Punches were thrown, people cheated, secrets were revealed, someone was left at the altar and forbidden kisses were exchanged.

So maybe that wasn’t everything you wanted in a finale, but I like to keep my expectations high.

Mr. Schu was dismissed from coaching the Glee Club last week, and the New Directions have been left feeling…directionless. Sectionals are fast-approaching, and to make matters worse, the hilariously evil Sue Sylvester has leaked their set list to the competition. Fortunately, guidance counselor (and doe-eyed Schuster admirer) Emma Pillsbury agrees to chaperone the Glee Club to sectionals. This doesn’t sit well with her fianc© Ken, who finally decides he’s tired of playing second fiddle to Mr. Schu.

But before the Gleeks can perform, there must be…a diva-off! Mercedes confronts Rachel about her spotlight-hogging ways and busts out an impressive rendition of “And I Am Telling You I Am Not Going.” This proves she can contend with the best “balladeer” in the group. Untrue to form, Rachel bows out of the spotlight.

Meanwhile, the Gleeks are all trying to hide the truth about Quinn’s baby from Rachel for fear that her “trout mouth” ways will prevail. Puck told Mercedes he was the father, and naturally, she leaked it to everyone…except Rachel and Finn. After a panicked party-line call among the Gleeks, they decide the only thing to do is to keep their mouths shut and act natural…so of course Rachel knows something’s up.

Being the smart cookie she is, Rachel figures things out and tells Finn. The result is a fist fight between Finn and Puck, and it’s all Mr. Schu can do to separate them. After Quinn’s tearful admittance of the truth, Finn walks out with an angsty, "I’m done with you. I’m done with all of you!" (cue the chair kick). And suddenly the Gleeks are facing sectionals without a set list, a director or a leading man.

The kids all load up on the bus (including Artie, in the special wheelchair lift), but when they get to sectionals, they’re in for a rude surprise. All three of the songs from their set (“Proud Mary,” “And I Am Telling You I Am Not Going,” and “Don’t Stop Believing”) are performed by rival glee clubs. And without Finn, they’re missing their improvisational leader. Emma confronts and rebukes the other glee coaches in a rare flash of audacity. (She is the “Glee” moral compass).

Emma frantically calls Will for help. He goes to find Finn and after he tells him about how tired he is of giving motivational speeches, he gives him the best motivational speech of all. Finn rushes to sectionals with sheet music in hand. He rallies the troops and they come up with a whole new set list, starting with Rachel singing a Streisand ballad (with Mercedes’s blessing), ending with “Somebody to Love,” and in between, they improvise Finn’s mystery song.

The New Directions perform, and they are, of course, wonderful. The mystery song turns out to be the Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” which is something Will said to Finn in the locker room.

Then we get a look at our judges: a former Miss Ohio contender, an egocentric news anchor and a cynical comptroller who’s only there because her boss tempted her with Nascar tickets. Their banter in choosing the competition’s winner is hilarious, shallow and completely out of place. However, the comedy was a welcome reprieve from an otherwise pretty dramatic episode. At the last minute, the Jane Adams Academy glee coach goes to tell them she cheated, but unfortunately for our heroes, the judges have already made their decision.

And speaking of leading men walking out the door: Will stops at home long enough to get on a tux for Emma and Ken’s wedding. And that’s when he truly leaves Terry, because he can no longer look at her and feel that sense of love and family he used to feel.

But it turns out the tux wasn’t necessary. Will shows up to the wedding only to find Emma sitting alone at a foldout table with a tacky blue tablecloth surrounded by equally tacky decorations and, oh, a melting ice sculpture. Ken dumped her, because he knew she had feelings for Will and was only settling for him. Tearful, she admits that she’s resigning from McKinley High. Grasping for straws, Will tells her he just left his wife. "Exactly. You just left your wife," she says. I guess the forbidden guidance counselor/Spanish teacher romance just wasn’t meant to be.

Or was it? The kids call Will into the choir room to present him with their first place trophy (an unnecessarily large, gaudy affair). They won (shocker!), despite having to improvise at the last minute and contend with cheaters. The kids sing Mr. Schu a Kelly Clarkson song to pick him up. But while listening to the kids singing about how they can’t do without him and how they all belong together, Will realizes these are the feelings he has for Emma. In a slow-motion sequence that will bring tears to your eyes (these aren’t just tears for Schu – the season coming to a heartbreakingly inevitable end) he races down the hall, reaching her just as she’s walking out the building with her things in a box. They say some things to each other, but who cares what, because then they kiss.

The curtain falls. And so we have the end of “Glee,” for now.

But don’t get too excited. As soon as last night’s episode was over, rumors of cancellation were flying across the Internet. This is Fox, after all—the network that’s infamous for canceling cult classics before they even have a chance. But I won’t try to convince you of my “Glee” loving. I’ll leave it all up to you.

Do you think “Glee” should be cancelled? The fate of our beloved musical misfits hangs by a thread. Pending Fox making a horribly stupid mistake, we’ll see what happens next in April.

With only one episode left in this season of “Dexter,” things are starting to get out of our hero’s control. All of the sudden he’s gone from confident hunter to staring into the eyes of his enemy with panic and disbelief.

Sunday night’s "Hello, Dexter Morgan" began with the interrogation of Christine Hill. After it was revealed that she was related to the Trinity Killer, all that was left for Deb and the gang to do was to get her to confess to Lundy’s murder and reveal the identity of her father. Stubborn, she broke Quinn’s heart, but didn’t cave under interrogation.

Arthur, on the other hand, was getting a little suspicious of Dexter… finally. (Dexter’s only been stalking him for half a season.) He asked the question, "What kind of man witnesses a kidnapping and doesn’t call the police?" A fellow serial killer, that’s who. Then Arthur tried to piece together just who "Kyle Butler" (Dexter’s alias) is.

After killing one Kyle Butler, discovering Dexter’s fake address at a jet ski shop, and agreeing to pay Dexter the $50,000 to keep quiet about the boy’s abduction, Arthur got dangerously close.

Rita finally told Dexter about kissing Eliot. Dexter, true to form, was too busy to talk about it (not enough hours in a serial killer/blood analyst/husband/father’s day), much to Rita’s disappointment. She tried bringing it up with him twice, but Dexter shrugged it off easily. Rita’s confused, but this is Dex we’re talking about — when does he ever react normally to stressful emotional situations? Then one night after coming home, Dexter walked over to Eliot’s house and socks him in the face, telling him never to touch his wife again. Rita saw the whole thing from the window, and once again everything is right in the Morgan household.

Then Batista and La Guerta got hitched. They did it to avoid losing their jobs after their affair was discovered. However, their cocky announcement to the captain garnered little sympathy for their situation — neither from the captain, nor from this reporter. Where is this plot line going?

To buy time to kill Arthur, Dexter framed trucker Stan Beaudry for the Trinity murders. Then he conveniently disposed of Beaudry (a murderer in his own right) before planting evidence. The homicide team thinks they’ve solved the case, and all that’s left is for Christine to confess.

Once Arthur forcefully told Christine he wished she was never born, she realized the error of her ways. She called Deb over and confessed to shooting her and killing Lundy. But when Deb announced they had the name of her father as Stan Beaudry, Christine just laughed in surprise, rather than revealing the truth. After Deb refused to forgive Christine, Christine grabbed a gun and shot herself in the head. Quinn rushed into the room, only to see Christine’s dead body. Add that to Deb’s quota of people she’s seen killed before her eyes and just imagine how much therapy she’s going to be needing.

In the final twist of the episode, Arthur started tracking Dexter, instead of the other way around. After tricking him into coming to an arcade, Arthur followed him back to the police station. Through poking around, Arthur ended up in the homicide department with a visitor’s pass. The two ended up face to face as Arthur read Dexter’s badge: "Hello, Dexter Morgan." We’re left there, with Dex in a panic and Arthur having the upper hand.

In "Lost Boys," the ghost of Harry told Dexter his priorities have changed. Now those priorities include Rita and the kids. Now that Arthur knows who he is, Dexter’s family is in danger. This is the family that he’s worked so hard to build, to protect from his Dark Passenger, and who he’s developed very real feelings for.

On the whole, this season has been a vast improvement over season three. The plot had a more definite arc, things aren’t getting convoluted and rushed at the end, and they’ve managed to carry the important themes throughout. The writers of “Dexter” deserve a pat on the back.

All of the loose ends are neatly prepared for the final episode. All that’s left is for Dexter to kill Arthur. And he has to now that Arthur knows his identity, where he works, and what he’s up to. Dexter has no time to lose. But how can our favorite murderer kill someone who’s expecting it?

Dexter has to kill Trinity. He’s got too much at stake. But how, when he’s tried so many times already?

Check out this teaser clip from next week’s finale episode of “Dexter.”

Watch the final episode of “Dexter,” season four, Sunday night on Showtime.

Video: Courtesy MovieWeb

The glee has hit the fan.

Here’s how the trouble started: Her Evilness Sue Sylvester convinces principal Figgins to cut the Glee Club’s picture from the school yearbook to save money. Far from being disappointed, the Glee Club sees this as a blessing in disguise, since it saves their picture from getting defaced by "the cool kids." But Rachel and Mr. Schu are outraged by the injustice. The compromise: Only the Glee Club co-captains will appear in a quarter-page picture. Rachel is unanimously voted captain, and much to his chagrin, Finn agrees to be co-captain.

But when Finn gets hazed in the locker room, he chickens out and leaves Rachel to take the picture by herself. Disappointed, Rachel plasters a smile on her face and goes through with it. But there’s a silver lining to this cloud: The photographer casts Rachel and the Glee Club in a commercial he’s filming for a local mattress store.

The Glee Club, excited for their first taste of stardom, blow the mattress seller out of the water with their performance of "Jump" while dancing and jumping around on mattresses. The result is a commercial even our favorite social outcasts can be proud of.

Finally, the baby drama gets out of control. While looking for his pocket square, Mr. Schu finds a belly pad in his wife’s drawer. In a sobering display of anger (and one of the most dramatic scenes of the season), Will confronts Terry about the belly, and the fake pregnancy is revealed. Hurt and angry, Will leaves Terry screaming in the doorway. She’s convinced that if he feels good about himself because of “Glee,” their marriage will fail. He’s hurt that she was cruel enough to lie to him about something as important as a baby, and that she thinks he has to feel bad about himself in order to love her.

Mr. Schu heads to the school for the night, where he finds a stack of mattresses in the choir room, a gift to the kids for their talents in the mattress commercial. Mr. Schu unwraps a mattress and spends the night sleeping in his office.

Meanwhile, Sue is watching the mattress commercial, and as she C’s it, the commercial is an opportunity for her to bring down the Glee Club. Turns out that the kids are disqualified from competition if they engage in any professional opportunity, or receive payment for performing. After a shouting match with Figgins and Sue over the matter, Mr. Schu suggests they simply return the mattresses so the kids won’t be disqualified. But the mattress he unwrapped to sleep on can’t be returned. Mr. Schu is disqualified from Sectionals. His sacrifice means the kids might still be able to compete.

Quinn decides to do something about the Glee Club’s situation. She marches into Sue’s office (in her old Cheerios uniform) with a list of demands: 1) Quinn wants to be back on the cheerleading squad for the yearbook picture, 2) She wants the Glee Club to be allowed to compete despite the mattresses, since she knows Sue’s cheerleaders accept illegal shwag all the time, and 3) She wants Sue to give up one of the Cheerios’ six pages of the yearbook to the Glee Club so that the whole group can have their picture taken. Faced with the famed resolve of Quinn Febray, Sue accepts all of her demands.

The ending of this episode was far from happy. While Mr. Schu explains to the kids that he can’t join them at Sectionals, the kids insist they can’t do it without him. The final shot is the Glee Club’s yearbook picture, being happily defaced by a group of football players.

Though it ended unhappily, I was quite happy with this episode. The acting was phenomenal (even better than usual), especially in the scene Terry’s fake pregnancy is revealed. The heartbreak and confused anger showed by Mr. Schu (Matthew Morrison) were a surprising change for the character. With that scene, Morrison proved himself to be a versatile and engaging actor.

And speaking of acting, Lea Michele (Rachel) shines as bright as ever as she switches from determined optimism and confidence to insecure loneliness in the space of a heartbeat. Her character is complicated and just as sympathetic as she is annoying. Michele pulls it off week after week with amazing grace.

With Sectionals looming, I’m glad most of the baby drama is out in the open. But with Mr. Schu sleeping in his office and Terry’s foam belly gone, there’s a lot more at stake. What will Quinn do with her baby now that the Schuesters won’t adopt her? Has Will’s fight with Terry left the field open for Emma and Will’s budding relationship? Oh yeah, and will Emma really go through with marrying Ken, even though he’s scheduled the wedding for the same day as Sectionals? How will the kids compete without their coach?

The McKinley High Glee Club is looking far less gleeful than their name suggests. Watch “Glee” next Wednesday on Fox.

Things we learned on Dexter this week:

1. Arthur, The Trinity Killer is really the Quadruple Killer, but that’s harder to say and doesn’t have much of a ring to it. When Dexter watches Arthur kidnap a ten-year-old boy, he realizes that Arthur’s kill cycle isn’t complete until he kills the symbol of his childhood innocence. This means that another boy was killed before the bathtub murder which started season four. The kidnapped boy is the beginning of another kill cycle for Arthur, and if Dexter doesn’t find him, the boy will die. So let’s review: Girl in bathtub is Arthur’s sister, mother falling to her death is his mother, man bludgeoned with a hammer is his father, and the ten-year-old boy is Arthur’s childhood self. It’s all very Freudian.

2. Christine the reporter shot Deb and killed Lundy. She’s the right height, she got to the crime scene wicked fast, and she knew that Deb looked into Lundy’s eyes as he died. Top it off with some crafty interrogation by Deb and Lundy’s murderer has all but confessed. Also, the biggest shock of the night is that she’s definitely Arthur’s daughter. But he didn’t ask her to kill the FBI agent. Instead, she did it on his behalf. But curb your father-daughter sentimentality. She’s clearly becoming a liability to her serial-killer dad.

3. Dexter’s epidermis is showing. Why is our murdering hero getting so sloppy with his cover? Arthur caught Dexter following him. Dexter has been rushing out of the office, blowing off Deb, Quinn, Masuka, Batista—highly trained and suspicious detectives. His excuses to Rita are getting flimsier by the minute. And now, one of Cody’s friends said he saw Dexter sneaking away from their campsite the night he went to kill Farrow (Innocent man. Oops).

4. Much to Dexter’s disappointment, Arthur’s seemingly idyllic family is seriously messed up. Arthur beats his son, terrorizes his wife and locks his daughter up at night (literally). “I’m not like that!” Dexter protests when Harry predicts this as his future. But there are doubts, for as Dexter tells Arthur’s son, “Your dad and I have a lot in common.”

There are only three episodes left in this season and things are starting to get a bit Harry (Pun inexcusably intended). Arthur’s son Jonah is helping Dexter by snooping through Arthur’s things. We know how well it’s worked before when Dexter had an accomplice. Miguel and the rushed, anticlimactic end to season three are enough to make me wish Dexter would always work alone, but this time is different. As Harry’s ghost says to Dexter, "You always did have a soft spot for children."

Still, questions abound. Why does Arthur only agree to see his daughter Christine a few times a year? Is Masuka really going to tell Dexter he saw Rita and Eliot kiss on Thanksgiving? Will Christine lead Deb to Arthur, who could lead Deb to Dexter’s true self?

I would trade the finest key lime pie in the world to know when Dexter is finally going to kill Arthur Miller…the Trinity (actually Quadruple) Killer. Watch Dexter next Sunday on Showtime. It just might happen.

Laura Saltman can dish it out. Whether she’s interviewing the stars for Access Hollywood, posting celebrity news on her blog A Dish of Salt, or discovering the next big thing in entertainment, Laura Saltman isn’t afraid to ask the juicy questions. And she does it all with a smile on her face and a light in her eyes. She’s bright, she’s funny, she’s passionate, and she really cares about the people she interviews.

Blast recently chatted with Access Hollywood’s celebrity reporter about rising stars, Glee, American Idol and her beloved dogs (a black lab and a beagle/spaniel mix). What do you ask someone who asks really cool people questions for a living? Well, you start with the really cool people.

BLAST: What is your favorite interview you’ve ever done?

LAURA SALTMAN: My favorite was with Hugh Jackman on the day it was announced he was People’s Sexiest Man Alive. I love Hugh Jackman. He gave a fantastic interview, and I think he’s drop dead gorgeous. But there was this controversy, with people at work saying "Hugh Jackman’s not the sexiest man alive!" So I came up with the 10 reasons why I love Hugh Jackman and why he should be the sexiest man alive. I had it framed, printed on nice paper, and I brought it to him at the interview. He absolutely went nuts for it, he thought it was the greatest thing ever. He was reading the whole thing and he couldn’t believe that I went through all this trouble! He told me he was going to put it in his man room, which is his version of the man cave in the basement. And I really believe that that is hanging on his wall in Australia right now.

BLAST: What were some of the things you put on the list?

LS: He man-scapes. The fact that he is still married and loves his wife. His masculinity, even though he’s played a gay man on Broadway. And I think one of the reasons was his chest. And because he’s a great interview and he always knows the right answer to give. He’s the best, such a sweetheart.

BLAST: What was your worst interview?

LS: My worst interview was Daniel Craig, which is ironic, since they’re currently starring on Broadway together. It was for the movie "Defiance." But he’s Bond, right? You’re going in, thinking he’s going to be suave, charismatic, sophisticated, so cool. I’d never interviewed him before and never met him, and I was expecting him to be Bond, and he was not Bond. He was just charmless. He was very matter-of-fact, and I could not get him to warm up to me. Of course I thought it was me! But then I asked other people about it, and they all said the same thing, that he’s just not the person you expect him to be. He’s a very serious actor, and he doesn’t play into all the Hollywood stuff. He just wants to be an actor, and that’s all. But he’s Bond! It surprised me.

BLAST: What’s it like interviewing someone who’s on a reality show, as opposed to someone who’s born and bred famous?

LS: To me it’s better because people who are on reality shows don’t have the agents, the managers, the publicists breathing down their neck, telling them every single word to say. It changes to much, they’re just being real. I would so much rather interview somebody who’s just being who they are than someone who’s already calculated what they’re going to say to me. I don’t like stuff like that. I would rather interview someone from American Idol, or one of the Bachelors, or even the celebrities from Dancing with the Stars, who have been knocked down a few pegs and are now doing the show trying to come back. I’d rather interview them because they’re less guarded than celebrities.

BLAST: Do publicists get in your way a lot? Are there a lot of canned responses?

LS: It’s become a bigger problem in our industry as the tabloids have taken over. You have to walk a fine line. I have to think, "If I were a celeb, would I want someone asking me that? What would I say back?" Some take it better than others. I’d rather have someone say to me "No comment" than just walk away. With Twitter, people are now getting ahead of the story. Like Jessica Simpson. There was a story about when she broke up with Tony Romo, and she went on Twitter and said "I’m doing ok, don’t worry about me, I’ll be fine." So instead of the paparazzi hounding her to get the first response from her, she just went on Twitter and said how she was feeling. It took the paparazzi out of the picture.

BLAST: What’s it like to interview a rising star? I noticed you interviewed Lea Michele from Glee recently. What’s it like to interview someone like that, where you know that this is their first big break?

LS: It’s cool because you can see it in their eyes. You can see how excited they are for the interview. I was one of the first people on the set of Glee, and I could just see it—they had this glint in their eyes, they were so excited for Access Hollywood to be there. The great thing about Lea is that now that the show is so successful—I’ve seen her seven or eight times since the first interview—she still has that gleam in her eye. Lea, to me, is still excited, and I think she’s going to be a huge star.

BLAST: Any other young celebrities we should keep our eyes on?

LS: Today I interviewed Victoria Justice. She has a Nickelodeon show coming out called Victorious. It’s kind of like Fame, High School Musical, Glee… and she is drop-dead gorgeous. She was on Zoey 101, but she wasn’t the lead. Nickelodeon is really pushing her to be their next big star. She looks just like Nina Dobrev from The Vampire Diaries, so we actually talked about how people mistake them for each other. If the show does well, I think she’ll actually end up being a pretty big star.

BLAST: What’s your absolute favorite thing to report on?

LS: American Idol. I love it. I’ve been covering it since the very first season. I was interviewing some of the contestants from last season and Alexis Grace said to me that all the people from the last eight seasons of American Idol all know each other, and they all hang out. And I said it was so nice that they all stayed together, and she said, "Yeah we’re like a family, but we feel that you’re part of our Idol family too, because you’ve always been around and everybody knows you." She just made my day! I feel like I’m part of the American Idol family, and I would be devastated to not be a part of it anymore.

BLAST: Speaking of things we love, you interviewing Katee Sackhoff from Battlestar Galactica. What’s she like?

LS: She’s awesome! She’s one of my most favorite interviews. She is like a ball of energy, and she’s funny! You don’t expect that, because she’s Starbuck, right? You expect drama. I told her when she walked in, "I feel like you could totally kick my ass." I told her she could do a sitcom she’s so funny. Every time I asked a question she came up with this hilarious joke about it. I absolutely loved her. I surprised her by bringing in some of our fanboys who work at Access Hollywood, and she could not have been nicer to them. You can tell that she really loves the attention, and all these guys adore her. She’s great. Absolutely loved her.

BLAST: What first made you want to be an entertainment reporter?

LS: I was obsessed with celebrities. I just wanted to know everything about them. I was such a huge fan of movies and TV, and I was fascinated by the process of making TV shows. I’ve always said that I don’t want to be a star, I just want to interview them. It started when I was a little girl, because my parents put a TV in my room since the age of 7. My parents would make me go to bed at 9 o’clock, and there were certain shows that I wanted to watch, so I’d take the TV and I’d put it under my bed and watch it upside down, so they wouldn’t see the light. I’d hang over the edge of my bed and watch "Dallas" upside down! I’ve always wanted to do this.

BLAST: And now you have a great reputation as a no-holds-barred interviewer, and everyone takes you very seriously.

LS: It does get me in trouble though. (laughs)

BLAST: Do you have any words of advice for young people who want to do your job?

LS: Everyone told me I was never going to be what I wanted to be, it was too difficult, but I was still determined. If someone tells me no, I do the opposite, I prove them wrong. Now it seems like it’s a lot easier to get into because there’s so much media involved with celebrities and entertainment. Obviously you’ve got to go to school, but as soon as you’re out of school, you’ve got to get on these internet sites and become a writer. You don’t even have to live in LA now, as you know, to do this. You just have to meet the right people, get out there, start writing stuff, and learn as much as you can, meet as many people as you can. A lot of people that I’ve met have helped me meet someone else. So never say no to any job in entertainment, because you never know who can be your first stepping stone.

This Access Hollywood reporter knows how to do a good interview, no matter what side of the table she’s on. You can follow Laura Saltman on Twitter, or check out her blog.

Wednesday night’s episode of Glee, "Hairography" was all about using over-the-top tactics to distract from mediocre singing and dancing talent. But the episode had me wondering if the show’s writers are also pretty distracted.

In "Hairography", we finally got a look at McKinley High School’s competition for Sectionals. When Mr. Schu suspects devious cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester of spying on the Glee Club on behalf of their rivals, he goes to visit the Jane Adams Academy (a school for adjudicated girls). The Jane Adams Glee Club director is offended that Mr. Schu would even suggest her girls are cheating. To apologize, he invites the Jane Adams Glee Club to practice in the McKinley auditorium. What follows can only be described as booty-licious hair-flaunting.

Worried about the competition’s impressive hairography, Mr. Schu gives the Glee Club outrageous wigs, despite Rachel’s insistence that the Jane Adams girls were only using the tactic to distract from their less-than-average vocals. Even Sue Sylvester tries to convince Mr. Schu that the Glee Club is too talented to need hairography. But as is his pattern, it takes Mr. Schu the whole episode to learn his lesson.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Schu buys Mr. Schu the Blue Bomber (his first car), so that working on it will distract him from the fact that she’s not actually pregnant. And speaking of babies, Quinn has a change of heart and decides to keep her baby, instead of giving it up to Mrs. Schu. In an attempt to change her mind, Mrs. Schu and her deeply stupid sister Kendra have Quinn babysit Kendra’s kids.

Quinn’s also having second thoughts about the father. To give Puck (her real baby daddy) a test drive, she invites him to babysit with her. To distract Finn, she asks Kurt (in the first conversation they’ve ever had) to give Rachel a makeover. Quinn and Puck’s unexpected success in getting Kendra’s kids to sleep with the power of song makes Quinn want to trade boyfriends. However, her adoration of Puck is short-lived when she realizes he’s too flirtatious to stick to just one girl.

Rachel’s attempted seduction of Finn is equally disappointing. When she puts on makeup and dresses up like Sandy from "Grease", Finn is initially pleased, but then describes her as a "sad clown" and leaves her ashamed in her bedroom. Realizing that Kurt set her up (Kurt knows Finn prefers girls who look "natural, without a lot of makeup and stuff"), Rachel confronts him, and he admits to having feelings for Finn as well. The two friends come to a sad, uneasy peace when they see Quinn and Finn hugging in the hallway.

Outraged that his kids were not invited to perform at McKinley High, the Glee coach from the School for the Deaf convinces Mr. Schu to make it up to them. Mr. Schu’s kids try to wow the visiting Glee Club with their new hairography, only to be completely upstaged by the deaf Glee Club’s moving rendition of John Lennon’s "Imagine." One by one, the McKinley High Glee kids get up and sing along to the other team’s simple, but eloquent sign language.

What’s wrong with "Hairography" is that it follows the same pattern of the rest of the season. Huge plot lines (like Quinn’s baby and Mrs. Schu’s fake pregnancy) are introduced early on, then dragged out until they’re no longer interesting, while interesting conflicts (Rachel and Puck’s relationship, Quinn deciding to keep the baby, Rachel’s crush on Mr. Schu) are resolved within one episode. And at the same time, other plotlines are brought up and quickly forgotten, or shoved aside for far too long (Ken and Emma getting married, Tina’s stutter being faked).

The Glee writers are focusing on the wrong things. Baby mama drama can only consume so much of a show that’s about teen angst, the quest for stardom, and hormones out of control. The crushes matter, hurt feelings and poor decisions matter. Glee needs to embrace the overload of conflicts, not sweep them neatly under the rug.

Last night’s episode of Dexter, was the turning point we’ve been waiting for all season. In the delicately balanced world of our favorite do-gooder serial killer, things are finally coming to a head.

The Thanksgiving episode—appropriately titled "Hungry Man"—started out business as usual for Dexter. We see him carefully choosing a knife from his kill tools, only to realize that he’s going to use it to carve the turkey.

But instead of mundane family fun, Dexter takes the holiday to get closer to his rival, the Trinity Killer (John Lithgow). After realizing that Arthur, aka Trinity, is abusing his family (beating his son Jonah, locking his daughter Rebecca in her room), Dexter determines to spend part of Thanksgiving protecting them from Arthur.

Rita (Julie Benz) is not pleased with Dexter’s vague excuse about a blood spatter job out of town. Fortunately, neighbor Eliot (the very same Eliot who got a little too flirtatious with Rita last week) will be there to help cook dinner. Add Deb and Masuka to the mix and you have a full house for turkey day.

Meanwhile, Quinn reluctantly spends the holiday with his new girlfriend, reporter Christine Hall, but not before Christine has a chance to tell Deb how sorry she is that she had to watch Lundy die. La Guerta and Batista catch a killer in a 10-year-old case, and visit the victim’s husband to give him the news.

Audiences have been asking the same question for weeks: When is Dexter going to kill Trinity? How long can he put off the inevitable, all in the name of "learning from" the most successful serial killer of all time? Last week Dexter had the chance to let Arthur commit suicide, and he didn’t. A mistake? Perhaps. But not as serious as the mistake he made at dinner with the Millers. When Arthur erupts in physical violence against his family, Dexter chokes him with his belt and hauls him into the kitchen. While holding a kitchen knife, Dexter tells him, "I should’ve killed you when I had the chance." Arthur is saved when his wife and daughter throw themselves in the way.

As the ghost of Harry reminds him, now Trinity has seen the monster in Dexter, and he’ll be expecting an attack. How could Dexter be so sloppy? His unsuccessful attempt to protect Arthur’s family might have cost him his own. While Dexter is at the Millers’, Rita and Eliot are alone in Eliot’s house, to use the extra oven. Eliot takes the chance to steal a kiss from Rita. Flustered, she claims that she’s not lonely like him because she has Dexter. Masuka watches the whole incident from the window.

Deb, ever the smart detective, realizes two things: 1) The Trinity Killer is in the school system, since he only kills during school vacations, and 2) Christine couldn’t have known that Deb watched Lundy take his last breath because Deb didn’t tell that to anyone. This fact, paired with last week’s revelation that Deb was shot by a short person, is a major clue in bringing Deb closer to Lundy’s killer.

In what is possibly the most sentimental and pointless plotline of the season, Batista and La Guerta continue their secret affair. Only now they’ve exchanged the L-word. That word could cost them both their careers, and they know it.

Dexter makes it home just in time to sit down to dinner with his own family, all of them desperately trying to appear relaxed and happy. Deb is busy wondering about who shot her. Rita is trying to ignore Eliot and shower Dexter with affection. Masuka is trying to forget Eliot and Rita’s stolen kiss. And Dexter, as usual, is preoccupied with thoughts of the Trinity Killer. It’s Thanksgiving as usual.

The tables are turning on Dexter. Now Arthur will be expecting Dexter to strike, and Dexter’s carefully constructed family life is starting to crumble. But the most surprising twist comes in the last minute of the episode (as usual), when Arthur shows up at Christine Hall’s door. It seems at first like he’s going to eliminate the reporter who’s been writing about the hunt for the Trinity Killer. But then she greets him with, "Hi Dad."

Christine is Arthur’s daughter? What happened to her mother? Could she be the one who shot Deb and Lundy? Watch Dexter next Sunday on Showtime, and all might be revealed.

Last night’s episode of Glee taught Gleeks the power of the ballad. After the emotionally heavy "Wheels" of last week, "Ballad" opened with laughs when Mr. Schuester introduced the Glee Club to a new project.

The kids are paired off randomly and assigned to sing a ballad to one another. Due to Matt’s freak medical emergency, Rachel is paired with Mr. Schu, much to his chagrin. He agrees to sing "Endless Love" with Rachel to teach the group what a ballad is. The terrified look on Mr. Schu’s face, Rachel’s lovelorn expression, and the off-the-wall voiceovers from the kids make for a hilarious combination.

Along with the ballads, two new crushes are revealed (A crush? On Glee? Never!). First we see Rachel’s school-girl crush on Mr. Schu, which he desperately tries to nip in the bud by singing her a mash-up of "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett and the Union Gap and "Don’t Stand So Close to Me" by the Police. The message sails right over Rachel’s head.

Then there’s Kurt’s unrequited love of Finn. It all started when Finn yelled at Puck for pushing Kurt into a locker ("Dude, impulse control!"), and grew while they spent time together in Glee Club and football practice. As Kurt says, "I’m madly in love with Finn." Lucky for him, Kurt and the often clueless football captain are partnered for their ballad.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Glee Club are worrying about Quinn and Finn and their unwanted bun in the oven. When Mercedes tells Puck that the Glee Club is planning to sing a ballad to show their support for the couple, Puck snaps, "Finn’s not the father! I am." Quickly recovering, Mercedes puts him in his place, telling him that he might be the baby daddy, but it takes a lot more to be a father. She reminds him that Quinn chose Finn, and Puck owes it to her to back off.

Mr. Schu remembers another schoolgirl crush, that of Suzie Pepper, who was so distraught over his rejection she ate the hottest hot pepper in the world and was in a medically induced coma for three days. Fearing the worst from Rachel, Mr. Schu tries to get through to her. But it doesn’t help when Mrs. Schuster invites Rachel over to cook dinner and clean their house. Rachel doesn’t get the message until she’s confronted by Suzie Pepper herself, fresh from two years of therapy and an esophagus transplant.

Ashamed, Rachel apologizes to Mr. Schu with tears in her eyes. He assures her that some day some boy will love her for all that she is, even the parts she doesn’t like. After their heart-to-heart, all is well between diva and teacher.

Back to crush No. 2, where Kurt is helping Finn stop worrying about the baby by getting him to sing "I’ll Stand By You" by the Pretenders. But the cat’s out of the bag when Finn’s mom catches him singing the ballad to a sonogram.

Quinn’s parents (we shall dub them Shallow and Clueless) invite Finn over for dinner. When Finn asks Kurt to help him pick out an outfit for the occasion, they go through a trunk containing his father’s Marine Corps uniform. In a very touching scene, the two boys bond over their departed parents, Finn’s dad and Kurt’s mom.

In the most painfully awkward scene ever, Quinn, Finn, and Quinn’s parents sit down to dinner. Finn chooses this moment (after a pep talk on the phone with Kurt) to sing "You’re Having My Baby" by Paul Anka to Quinn. The disastrous result is that her parents literally denounce the couple and kick Quinn out of their house. Things are looking worse than ever when Finn’s mom tells Quinn she can stay at their house for as long as she needs.

In the final scene, Kurt tells Finn his ballad is "I honestly love you," before the two are interrupted by Mercedes. Finn is ushered to the choir room, where the entire Glee Club is waiting for him. The group sings "Lean on Me" to Finn and Quinn to show the couple that they’re not alone in dealing with the pregnancy. Credits roll on a group of smiling, dancing, teenagers who will live to sing another day.

Notably absent in "Ballad" was conniving cheer-leading coach Sue Sylvester. In last week’s episode, "Wheels," we learned that Sue actually has a soul, which only comes out in the presence of her mentally handicapped sister.

With Sectionals only a few weeks away, there’s a lot of sordid drama to get through on Glee. Will Finn find out Puck is Quinn’s baby daddy? Will Mr. Schu find out Mrs. Schu is pregnant with a foam pad? Will Tina make things right with Artie? Will Finn finally choose between Rachel and Quinn? You know what they say: It’s not over till the high school outcasts sing.

“Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” Not true, at least in the case of these brilliant TV shows. We all know the pain of falling head-over-heels for a new show, only to realize that you are the only one in the world who understands its true brilliance…before it’s too late. Here is a list of eight of the best shows to be cancelled before their time.

1. Arrested Development
No TV family has ever been so dysfunctional to such comedic effect in the history of television. The Bluths were a successful model home dynasty, until shady government dealings left them bankrupt and their patriarch in jail. Now it’s all up to Michael, the one sane member of the family, to hold them all together. Will Arnette, Jason Bateman and especially Michael Cera pretty much owe their comedic careers to this show. Despite its cancellation, however, there are constant rumors of a film being made. Maybe this year?

2. Firefly
It was a space western. The perfect marriage of two radically different genres. Add to that a cast of plucky underdogs, groundbreaking cinematography and the humor and drama Joss Whedon (creator of “Buffy,” “Angel,” and “Dollhouse”) is known for, and you’d think you’d have an instant hit. You’d be wrong. But at least “Firefly” fans got to say “I told you so” when their beloved show was turned into a big damn movie, “Serenity.”

3. Greg the Bunny
Puppets, or “Fabricated Americans” live among us. Some of them are working alongside humans in a children’s show called “Sweet Knuckle Junction.” But instead of charmed lives, they all have problems with substance abuse, ex-wives and failure. Seth Green starred (alongside adorable Greg the bunny) in this ridiculous satire.

4. Wonderfalls
Graduating and moving back home can be frustrating. But for Jaye, who works a dead-end job at a Niagara Falls gift shop, it starts to get a little weird when the taxidermied animals in the shop start ordering her to help people in need.

5. Freaks and Geeks
The show followed the Weir siblings, Lindsey and Sam, through their eternal quest to fit in with their chosen social castes. Lindsey went from the star mathlete to an army-jacket-wearing “freak” and Sam, pining for his cheerleader dream girl, has always been a “geek.”

6. Pushing Daisies
Possibly the most adorable love story ever, Pushing Daisies focuses on the Piemaker, who has the unique talent of bringing dead things back to life. But there’s a catch: If he touches something twice, it goes back to being dead. This comes in handy while solving crimes with no-nonsense P.I. Emerson Cod, but things get a bit complicated when he brings his childhood sweetheart back to life, and can never touch her again. Also, Kristin Chenoweth sings.

7. Carnivale
The battle between good and evil takes place in the Dustbowl in the 1930′s. Humanity’s only hope lies in a traveling carnival and Ben, their new recruit and reluctant hero. Layered with symbolism, a complex mythology, and phenomenal acting, it was hard to believe “Carnivale” wasn’t renewed for a third season.

8. Kings
The classic tale of the Bible’s King David came to life for one brief season last spring. With little-to-no heavy-handed religious themes, viewers were taken into a modern-day interpretation of the story. With some of the most incredible writing television has seen in a long time and superb acting (especially by Ian McShane, or “King Silas”), the hour-long show immersed viewers in a tale of bravery, betrayal, love and power. Alas, we were left full of questions at the season finale.

It almost happened to “30 Rock,” it almost happened to “Dollhouse,” and it could still happen to “Glee.” Please, watch original shows. Don’t let the networks kill off innocent plotlines on a whim.

In a world where endless cop shows, doctor shows, and lawyer shows do battle for primetime network TV slots, some shows dare to be different. These shows are quirky, creative, clever, and under-watched. Here I give you a by no means comprehensive list of the best shows you’re not watching.

1. Sons of Anarchy

Hamlet on motorcycles meets “You had me at hello.” A tough-as-nails motorcycle gang keeps the peace and organizes the crime in the town of Charming. Each week the Sons of Anarchy defend their turf against rival gangs, butt heads with city hall, and take the law into their own hands”¦ and it’s all based on the Shakespearean classic. Catch it on FX, Tuesdays at 10 p.m.

2. Glee

“Glee” is by far one of the most delightfully hilarious shows on television. It’s a musical satire about the high school caste system. An optimistic teacher revives the school’s glee club, but has a little trouble on the way with the “Cheerios” captain, his “pregnant” wife and talented kids who don’t have enough confidence. With hilariously stereotypical characters and over-the-top musical numbers in every episode, it’s basically an accurate and serious representation of high school. Wednesdays at 9 on Fox.

3. Fringe

Don’t believe the commercials. If you do, you think that “Fringe” is simply “CSI: Boston.” But spend one episode following FBI agent Olivia Dunham and you’ll find that that couldn’t be further from the truth. Somebody is experimenting on the world, using bizarre science”"astral projection, genetic engineering, pyrokinesis, the works. A team of FBI agents headed up by Dunham called the “Fringe” division (including a real life mad scientist and his son) is trying to figure out why. Each week the unexplainable, unbelievable and disturbing lead our group of intrepid, world-saving believers further down the rabbit hole. It comes on Thursdays at 9 on Fox.

4. Parks and Recreation

Don’t listen to the nay-sayers who claim that Amy Poehler’s “Parks and Rec” is just her playing Michael Scott. Poehler, famous for “Baby Mama” and her various roles on “SNL,” takes her comedy to the next level in this show. Using the same documentary style as “The Office,” viewers get to take a look inside the world of the Parks and Recreation Department of Pawnee, Illinois. Poehler plays well-meaning but hopelessly clueless mid-level politician Leslie Knope. She is joined on the cast by fellow comedians Aziz Ansari (“Funny People”), Rashida Jones (“The Office”) and Aubrey Plaza (“Funny People). It comes on Thursdays at 8:30 on NBC

5. Flash Forward

Everyone in the world blacks out for 2 minutes and 18 seconds while they have a vision of their individual futures. Why? No one knows. And that’s not even the weirdest part. Thursdays at 8 on ABC.

Is nobody watching your favorite show? Tell us! In these days of repetitive programming, no good show should go unwatched.

Sunday night’s premiere of Dexter proved that this season will be one of the show’s funniest to date.

We’re all used to the clichƒ© of the superhero who tries to balance a normal life and saving the world (Clark Kent, Peter Parker, Buffy Summers, etc), only to have wackiness ensue. But when you catch a serial killer yawning on the job because his newborn has an ear infection and keeps him up all night, it’s beyond absurd.

Season four of the Showtime hit kicked off in true Dexter form. Dexter is “killing for two, now” as he tries to be a good father and satisfy his “Dark Passenger.”

In the opening sequence, Dexter is driving along, monologuing as usual. Meanwhile, we see a strange older chap filling a bathtub. You might thing that this is Dexter’s next hapless victim, but you’d be wrong. Just as we see that Dexter has been driving baby Harrison (yes, named after Dexter’s adoptive father) to put him to sleep, we realize that the grey-haired man (the Trinity Killer, played by John Lithgow) is really preparing to murder his own victim.

A classic switcheroo.

Unfortunately for the Trinity Killer, and for possibly for Dexter, Special Agent Lundy is back in town to catch the serial killer with a 30-year-long record. Lundy’s presence is also pretty unfortunate for Deb, who has moved on from her season two flame to current boyfriend Anton, a musician. Actually, the only fortunate thing about Lundy being back this season is that we, the viewers, get to enjoy the love triangle that will inevitably ensue.

Speaking of crazy romantic hijinks, Batista is having an affair with La Guerta. This fact is so disturbing that this reporter will go no further on the subject, except to say: Angel, I thought you knew better.

Along with the reappearance of Lundy and the thrilling addition of a new serial killer on Dexter’s turf, viewers have plenty of blood, dismemberment, and saran wrap to look forward to. Now if only our beloved murderous protagonist could stay out of regular trouble.

Dexter ends the episode by hurriedly killing off a bad guy, tossing him in the trunk of his car, and heading to the pharmacy for the baby’s medicine. But on the way home, he starts to nod off (as new dads do), despite the frantic warnings from Harry’s ghost. Viewers are left in suspense as Dexter swerves off the road and flips the car. Is Dexter alive? Yes, it’s his show.

The better question is: How is he going to cover up the dead body in his trunk when the ambulance arrives?
Watch “Dexter” to find out next Sunday at 9PM on Showtime.

All is not well in the Dollhouse. That’s bad news for Echo and company, but good news for fans of the Joss Whedon show. The season two premiere aired Friday night on FOX, and some new faces come, along with a whole new set of problems.

Battlestar Galactica alum Jamie Bamber guest-starred as Echo’s husband/the bad guy in the appropriately titled “Vows.”

Whedon fans will also recognize Alexis Denisof (of “Buffy” and “Angel” fame), who appeared as Senator Perrin, a politician intent on bringing down the Rossum Corporation. Denisof is slated to return in later episodes this season, along with Alan Tudyk as the evil genius Alpha. Though Whedon has said he doesn’t want to cast too many actors from his previous projects (Eliza Dushku and Amy Acker make four) he shows no signs of slowing down.

Along with the new faces, we were introduced to some new storylines. And speaking of faces, Victor’s seems to be healing just find after his run-in with a scalpel last season.

Which brings us to another interesting set of scars: Doctor Saunders opens this season by wrestling with the fact that she’s a broken Doll. As she so eloquently put it, “My whole existence was constructed by a sociopath in a sweater vest. What do you suppose I should do?” The good doctor is taking out her identity crisis frustration on Topher, who has taken a turn for the serious and repentant. And did I fall sleep, or did Boyd just ask Saunders out?

Instead of their vicious game of cat and also cat, DeWitt and Ballard have reluctantly decided to join forces. In the premiere, Ballard engages Echo to help him fight crime. But in the process, he proves himself to be far more capable than Echo’s current handler. By the end of the episode, Ballard is being “sworn in” as Echo’s new handler. This new development should lead to an even juicier rivalry between Boyd (Echo’s father figure) and Ballard (her secret admirer).

When the show first aired, many viewers were saying, “I get it. She’s a different person every episode. But where is it going?” Now we know. In the final scene, Echo confides that she understands her situation. She knows she has been many people, “but none of them is me.” She’s remembering, she’s learning, she’s evolving. Echo’s increased self-awareness, even in her Doll state, has opened up the second season for serious conflict inside the Dollhouse.

Catch Dollhouse Fridays at 9 p.m. on FOX.

I think we can all agree that this season of HBO’s True Blood is leaps and bounds ahead of the last one. If season one was a top shelf bottle of True Blood A Positive, then season two has been the blood connoisseur’s version of a perfectly aged Merlot.

Sunday night’s season finale (ominously titled after Bob Dylan’s “Beyond Here Lies Nothin’”) left viewers with a cliffhanger”¦ as usual. Sure the good guys won and defeated Maryann the clawed, immortal maenad. Yes, the town is back to normal, free from supernatural mind control, and blissfully ignorant of the madness that recently ensued. But what about Bill?! The season finale set up plenty of problems that need solving and questions that need answers for season three.

In the final scene, Bill (Stephen Moyer) and Sookie (Anna Paquin) go on a romantic date to a French restaurant. Right after dinner, Bill proposes. But overcome with emotion, she rushes to the bathroom to compose herself. Just when she’s sure of her answer, she returns to the empty dining room. Bill is nowhere to be seen, and there are signs of a struggle. So the main question is: Who took Bill Compton and why? And how is Sookie going to get him back?

Meanwhile, back at Merlotte’s Bar, Eggs (Mehcad Brooks) struggles with the revelation that he is responsible (because of Maryann’s mind control) for all the murders that took place in Bon Temps. He confronts Detective Bellefleur (Chris Bauer) with the murder weapon to confess, and begs Andy to lock him up. Unfortunately for Eggs, he never makes it to the jail. Jason Stackhouse (Ryan Kwanten) sees what looks like Eggs threatening Andy with the knife, and shoots him in the head. Just when we thought Tara (Rutina Wesley) had a chance at happiness in love, we’re left with the sight of her sobbing over her boyfriend’s body.

Aside from all the juicy action and surprises in the season finale, dedicated True Blood might have noticed a little something extra. Near the end of the episode, Charlaine Harris, author of the original Sookie Stackhouse novels, can be seen sitting at the bar, talking to Sam (Sam Trammell).

Will the town find out about Jason shooting Eggs? Will they remember what happened to Maryann? Have we seen the last of the evil maenad? Who are Sam’s parents, and are they really the “bad people” his stepmother claims they are? And why is vampire Queen Sophie Ann forcing Eric to sell vampire blood?

About season three only one thing is certain: There will be blood. And Southern accents.

Shoot son, I can’t wait till next summer’s season three premiere of True Blood! Catch up on all the recent episodes at HBO.com/TrueBlood.

Season four of Dexter kicks off this Sunday on Showtime. And this season, our serial killer with a heart of gold seems to have it all: his beautiful new wife Rita, her two kids Aster and Cody, his job at the police department, and a brand new bouncing baby boy. That’s right. Dexter faces his most challenging nemesis so far: the burdens of fatherhood.

But enough about the baby.

At the end of season three, Dexter learned a hard lesson about friendship when he was forced to off his new best friend, Miguel, for his out-of-control murder habit. As it turns out, the law of Harry does not allow for Dexter to have a best friend. But with Rita and the kids (including the sociopathic bun in the oven), it’s not so lonely in Dexterville. In fact, things might be getting just a little bit too crowded.

Besides Dexter junior, what’s in store for the upcoming season? Viewers can probably count on there being lots of blood. Did anyone really think Dexter would retire from wiping the underworld clean of murderers who got away the first time? Not bloody likely. And who will be this season’s villain? We’ve gone through brother, girlfriend, best friend”¦ who’s left?

A rival serial killer, that’s who. Just when it seems Dexter has settled comfortably into the American Dream, a new murderer known as the Trinity Killer arrives on the scene, killing in threes, and he’s been thwarting law enforcement for decades. And along with Dexter’s new playmate comes the one man (still living) who almost put Dexter behind bars: Agent Lundy, back to track the Trinity Killer, and he brings with him an interesting proposition for Dexter.

Billboards advertising the new season feature a blood-spattered Dexter, a smiling new baby in his arms. It seems the show’s creators are making the birth of baby Dexter a pretty ominous arrival. And judging by the trailer for season four, it looks like killer Daddy Dexter has his hands full. This season, Dexter is asking, can America’s favorite serial killer really have it all? It seems like all he needs is a little time to kill.

Don’t miss the season premiere of “Dexter”, September 27 at 9 p.m. on Showtime. Seriously, don’t miss it. You’ll be sorry.

Everyone’s favorite drug-peddling soccer mom is at it again. Showtime’s season finale of the fifth season of “Weeds” on Monday night left viewers (and Nancy) in jaw-dropping silence. No, the episode wasn’t full of surprises”¦ just one giant, killer surprise, delivered with all the force of a croquet mallet.

After burning down Agrestic at the end of season three, Nancy Botwin (Mary-Louise Parker) has been busy redefining her life, and the show. Instead of a suburban single mom growing and selling weed, Mrs. Botwin moved the family to the coast, and got down to business South of the border. But smuggling drugs out of Mexico wasn’t enough for Nancy.

Which brings us to season five and the trouble with Nancy’s gangster baby daddy. Baby daddy? That’s right. Along with season five’s whole new pack of troubles comes a whole new cast of characters, including little Stevie Ray, Nancy’s third son, the bun in the oven that got her out of a traitor’s execution at the end of season four. Besides the baby, there’s Esteban Reyes (Demiƒ¡n Bichir) the aforementioned gangster baby daddy and mayor of Tijuana; Cesar (Enrique Castillo), Esteban’s ruthless right hand instrument of violence; Raylene Reynolds, the Avon lady from hell; Alanis Morissette as Dr. Audra Kitson, Andy’s new flame; and this season’s villainous vixen, Pilar Zuazo (Kate del Castillo).

With all these new faces and new scenery, some question the change of pace. What about Agrestic? What about simple, dysfunctional suburban life? The show has definitely switched direction from satire of the American Dream to”¦ what, exactly? Now Nancy is embroiled in Mexican politics and her family is in danger (no surprise there). The strangest thing about “Weeds” this season is that Nancy doesn’t sell even one dime bag of pot. Where’s the weed on “Weeds”?

This season is like a game of capture the flag, with the goods passing between supporting characters. Perhaps most surprising in this game is that Celia (Elizabeth Perkins) ends up with the flag. In a bold move to “out-Nancy Nancy” she even goes so far as to dye her hair and assemble Nancy’s old pot-selling team. Silas and Shane meanwhile embark on their own mildly legitimate business ventures, with Silas opening a medical marijuana store and Shane selling pot to his classmates and teacher.

And what’s Nancy doing while her children and neighbors are busy keeping up the old family business? The burdens of domesticity: giving birth, getting married, and embracing the cut-throat life of a politician’s wife. Pilar Zuazo, ruler of the Mexican underground and privileged “Mexi-cunt” as Nancy calls her, wastes no time in un-endearing herself to our leading lady. She even goes so far as to call of the wedding and get Esteban arrested. But when the Mexican princess threatens the Botwin kids, we see a bit of the old Nancy, the woman who’s willing to do anything to protect her family, even if it means putting her enemies in the ground.

Or in a swimming pool, for that matter. After Pilar hires a hit man to shoot Nancy, shoots Shane instead, calls off the wedding, and nearly ruins Esteban’s political career, Nancy is out for revenge. But her son beats her to it. In the pivotal last scene, Shane takes a croquet mallet to Pilar’s head, sending her to sleep with the fishes in her own swimming pool.

So what’s in store for next season? So far creator Jenji Kohan isn’t spilling the beans. The only thing confirmed is that there will be a 13-episode season six to air next summer. But it’s easy enough to guess that next season will center around three things: Celia’s new drug ring, Esteban’s election campaign, and most importantly, how Nancy is going to cover up Pilar’s murder and deal with Shane. All in a day’s work for Nancy Botwin, pot queen of the soccer moms.

Not that her kids play soccer anymore.

Weeds returns for season 6 next May on Showtime.

Don’t let him fool you. He might say he wants to do bad things with you in his powerful single “Bad Things” (from HBO’s “True Blood”), but the truth is Jace Everett is a real gentleman. It’s hard to imagine him doing bad things with anyone, unless those bad things involve his unique brand of Nashville country rock. In fact, he’s more likely to lend a friend a helping hand, or charm this reporter starry-eyed.

Everett’s brand new album, Red Revelations came out on June 23 from Weston Boys Entertainment, and I’ve been listening to it ever since. An impressive vocal range and driving bass lines make the album immediately ear-catching, from the sultry opening track “Posession” to the hip-swaying “Lean Into the Wind” to the final track “Bad Things.” It’s an album full of stories, both playful and dark. Some songs will get you tapping your feet to the rhythm and getting down with your bad self, while others will make you want to pour yourself a tall glass of whiskey and take a trip down memory lane.

While listening to lyrics like, “I talk like a junkie but I pray like a saint down here on my knees” I got to wondering just what the man behind the music was like. Fortunately for my curiosity, I got a chance to talk to the carrot-topped Nashville musician about his new album and live performances, and he had plenty to say.

BLAST: I’ve been listening to your new album “Red Revelations” recently, and it’s totally addictive.

JACE EVERETT: Thanks very much. That means the world to me. I appreciate it.

BLAST: Can you tell me about what was going through your head when you recorded the album? What inspired you to write the songs that you did?

JE: Oh God, we don’t have that much time! I started writing this record last spring and basically the feeling was that my career was over. It started from desperation. There was a lot of dark stuff going through my head when I initially got started. And then the “True Blood” thing happened, where they used one of my old songs as the theme song for the show, and that inspired me to look at some other avenues for writing. I got in contact with a hero of mine, Chuck Prophet out in San Francisco, and I just badgered him until he would write with me. So I went out there and wrote some songs with him. Before you know it I had 15 or 20 songs and thought, well I must have a record here! I don’t know what all was going through my head: There was frustration at so many things but also that little glimmer of light somewhere on the horizon.

BLAST: Does the title, “Red Revelations”, have any special meaning?

JE: It does. It’s kind of a misread of a lyric on the record. There’s a song called “One of Them” that has these crazy distorted vocals and the last verse says, “I read Revelations chapter one until the end”, and that’s R-E-A-D. Then I came up with this concept”"I grew up really religious as a kid”"about who that character in that song is. We don’t know what he is: We don’t know if he’s a vampire or if he’s become a Born Again Christian, or if he’s an alcoholic, or what’s happened to him. But he’s slowly losing his tether to reality. And I just thought it was kind of a cool title for the album. The world seems so apocalyptic right now and‚  red is of course a color of danger and fire and all that jazz, so I thought, well, red revelations is kind of what this record is about.

BLAST: Let’s talk a bit about your background. Who are your biggest musical influences? How did you initially discover them?

JE: Honestly, the person who got me turned on to music as a kid was Willie Nelson, who has never been reflected in my music. I don’t do Willy Nelson, because you can’t. It’s kind of like doing Bob Dylan. But “Red Headed Stranger” was my favorite album of all time , a record he made back in the 70′s. That’s what turned me on. But I went through all the phases anyone went through: I loved KISS, I still love U2, I’m a big Tom Waits fan, I love‚  Bob Marley, I’m into Miles Davis, I like Jay-Z a lot. I’m kind of all over the map. I’m the kind of guy that listens to about eight or nine albums a year because I like albums. I buy an album and I listen to it for two or three months straight. My influences are varied, but I don’t know how much any of them show up in my actual music.

BLAST: How did you learn to play guitar and write music?

JE: I haven’t yet! I’m still working on it. I’m not a guitar player’s guitar player, that’s for sure. I’ve been a professional bass player for many, many years and worked with a lot of different people. Nobody in my family is really musical. My grandfather plays guitar, but he’s the only one in the family who really played, so I just kind of took to it. I don’t really know why. I sang before I spoke as a little bitty kid, and it’s always been the one thing that I come back to no matter what.

BLAST: Switching tracks a bit: Your mentioned your single “Bad Things” is the music for the opening credits of the HBO series “True Blood.” Do you watch the show?

JE: I don’t have HBO. I’m a poor man and a cheap bastard. But I just ordered HBO yesterday, so I will be watching it at home from now on. Embarrassingly enough I’ve been driving to my parents’ house an hour away on Sundays to watch “True Blood.”

BLAST: Do you think the song is a good match for a show about vampires in the Deep South?

JE: I think it’s brilliant! (laughs) I put that song out in 2005 on a country record, and the country audience was less than impressed. They wanted nothing to do with it. When Alan Ball discovered it and decided to use it, it was really humbling. Alan Ball is a creative genius and for him to choose my song for something he wanted to put together was a huge blessing. I think it’s really cool. I think the visuals those guys did with that song are at least 50% of what makes it cool. Those visuals are really unsettling, and I think it’s really great. It’s certainly not a huge credit to me”"it’s a credit to a whole lot of people who put their heads together.

BLAST: How does it feel to know that millions of fans are singing along to your song every Sunday night when they tune in to watch the show?

JE: It’s great! Being a guy who’s trying to make a living, I’m hopeful that people who love the track will transfer that onto my new music and I hope that it’ll draw them in. But even if it doesn’t”¦ shit, I write songs and I yell into a microphone! There’re far more talented people than me that never had this opportunity so I’m very grateful for it and it’s a huge honor.

BLAST: Back to the album. The opening track, “Posession”, is incredibly sultry, and it has a great bass line. It really makes me want to dance. In fact, a lot of the songs on the album are dance-worthy. This is my question: when you write your songs, do you intentionally make people want to get their groove on?

JE: Not intentionally. More than sexuality, sensuality is what I’m kind of into as a person. So that permeates what I do musically. And I am a bass player, so even though I didn’t play bass on the record (it was a buddy of mine, James Cook), I wrote a lot of the bass lines, and I’m really into the bass and how that interplays with the melody. I’m a typical musician: I don’t like to dance in public. The truth of the matter is, when I was a kid I knew all the Michael Jackson moves. Now I’m just old and insecure so I won’t dance a lot, but I love dancing. I think it’s one of the most intimate and cool things people can do together.

This is the second part of a two-part interview with actress Mimi Michaels. Check out the first part where we talk about her upcoming film “Gamer” and working with Gerard Butler here.

Some people are just sweet. That’s actress Mimi Michaels: she’s sweet, she’s smart, she’s quirky, she’s cute… and she has a penchant for running around terrified in horror flicks. Recently Blast got to shoot the breeze with Mimi about her upcoming project, the TV miniseries “Meteor: Path to Destruction.” But first we had to talk scary.

BLAST: You’ve been in a lot of sci-fi and horror movies”"”Backwoods,” “Shark Swarm,” “30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust”""what do you like about working on thrillers like that?

MIMI MICHAELS: I wasn’t drawn to horror to begin with. I like working on drama and I love the dark stuff, but somehow I was booking all these dark horror genres, and I guess I just work well in horror. I like the intensity, and the psychological aspect. With “Boogeyman 3″ it was much more than just your typical horror movie. It had to do with the complexity of the human psyche. I looked deeper and didn’t just see it as a horror, one-dimensional thing. Plus, I like to run around and scream.

BLAST: Do you like getting scared? Would you go out and see a horror flick on your day off?

MM: It probably wouldn’t be my first choice. It’s tough for me to get scared, so when it does happen I’m actually quite exhilarated by it. When it can really move me like that… it’s fun.

BLAST: Have you ever been scared by a movie that you were in?

MM: We shot “Boogeyman” in Bulgaria during the wintertime. It was very dark and eerie, and there were moments where I felt a little trepidation. It wasn’t necessarily when we were on set, but I felt a little fearful… for my life!

BLAST: But you’re not just the horror movie girl. You played Aimee Semple McPherson in a biopic. Was playing an evangelical preacher anything like your experiences in horror movies?

MM: That was my first feature when I moved out to LA and it was a really incredible experience. It was a real meaty character. I played a pretty wide range in her ages, from about 15 to in her 40s. That was also difficult, and I was young too so I was still learning the ropes. She had such an interesting, compelling life, and I felt lucky that I got to just become her. It was very dramatic, kind of a roller coaster ride.

BLAST: Tell me a little about the role you play in the upcoming “Meteor: Path to Destruction.”

MM: I play Jenny Crowe, the daughter of this cop, and he has a feud going on with another good cop gone bad. Basically they have this confrontation, things get ugly, and Michael Rooker’s character Calvin Stark kidnaps me. Actually, I’ve been kidnapped several times in movie contracts. While this is happening as the subplot, meteors are beginning to shower down on earth, and it’s an apocalyptic, world-coming-to-an-end drama while there are these sort of subplot dramas going on in the midst of it. It was fun.

BLAST: We’ve all seen natural disaster movies before. What surprises can viewers expect from “Meteor” that they haven’t seen before in meteor-destroys-the-earth plots?

MM: What I like about “Meteor” is there are so many different stories going on. It feels like you’re watching several different films, but the common denominator is that the meteors are coming and the world may end as we know it. It’s about how everyone deals with this and different relationships. It’s really interesting to watch each character and their unique situation: how they cope with whatever drama is happening in their life, and how they sort of rise above it.

BLAST: So we have meteors falling from space, raining disaster on all mankind. It sounds like good quality drama and good quality sci-fi. Are you a fan of other sci-fi movies?

MM: I love sci-fi movies! In fact, I love alien movies and just “What else is out there?” But meteors are cool. My brother actually purchased a couple of asteroids. We were always into the sciences, so I definitely like sci-fi stuff.

BLAST: Here’s something I promised to ask. What’s the ideal date for Mimi Michaels?

MM: My ideal date, wow! Let me think about this one. I’d probably go the simple route: dinner, movie… maybe a walk on the beach. I know that sounds cheesy. A good first date would be a nice dinner and a movie, getting to know each other… and then maybe seeing some horror movie or sci-fi! I’m a simple gal.

Catch “Meteor: Path to Destruction” on NBC in July.

Season two of the HBO original series “True Blood” started last week, and you should really be watching it. Not just for the romance between vampire Bill Compton (Stephen Moyer) and psychic waitress Sookie Stackhouse (Anna Paquin), and not just because it’s about vampires. Make no mistake: “True Blood” is not your little sister’s “Twilight.” It’s got action, intrigue, plenty of steamy scenes, Southern charm, creatures of the night, Anna Paquin, a guy that turns into a dog, and enough blood splatter to make a Jackson Pollock painting jealous.

You should be watching it, and here’s why:

1. The supernatural. Vampires have come out of the coffin. They walk among us (at night). They drink synthetic blood at our bars. They’re dating the girl next door. And they’re not alone: voodoo witchdoctors, psychic waitresses, and people who turn into animals are all regular cast members.

2. Bon Temps, Louisiana. When’s the last time you heard of a vampire story set in the deep South? New York City or Sunnydale, California, maybe. Transylvania, definitely. But Bon Temps, Louisiana? Shoot son, that’s what I call original! In a small town where everyone knows everyone, when strange things start happening around Merlotte’s Bar, rumors spread quicker than wildfire. Plus, the setting makes for plenty of Southern humor and Cajun accents.

3. The opening credits. Jace Everett’s country single “Bad Things” will have you singing along and getting down with your bad self every week.

4. Love Triangle meets unrequited love meets star-crossed lovers. A decent tragic romance is a hard thing to find. So when you get a triumvirate of tragic love archetypes all on the same show, you can’t take your eyes away. In summary: Bill and Sam both like Sookie, who is interested in both Bill and Sam, but then she chooses Bill, leaving Sam loveless and alone, and unfortunately Bill is a vampire and Sookie is a human so theirs is the ULTIMATE FORBIDDEN LOVE, mostly because he wants to EAT HER and she is BLONDE AND PLUCKY. Yeah. “It’s Complicated” on Facebook.

5. Beefcake. There are a lot of attractive men on this show, and a lot of shirtless scenes (it’s hot in Louisiana, ok?).

6. Cheesecake. Poor Anna Paquin. What a homely girl. And that Rutina Wesley”¦ too bad about her face. All kidding aside, both leading ladies are strikingly beautiful. Paquin’s pouty lips and Wesley’s gorgeous gams could keep anyone (girls included) tuning in week after week.

7. Tara Thornton. From the moment she said, “This ain’t rude, this is uppity” I knew it was love. Possibly the most honest (some would say foul-mouthed), confident (some would say cantankerous) young woman to ever grace the airwaves, Tara (Rutina Wesley) is Sookie’s best friend and confidant.

8. Jason Stackhouse’s clueless face. To look that devoid of intelligence, that often, to that degree of comedic effect, is pure acting genius.

9. Lafayette. Much of the show’s strength lies in its supporting cast, and Lafayette “" a cross-dressing, drug-dealing, no-nonsense short order cook at Merlotte’s Bar “" is no exception. If you see nothing else of “True Blood,” watch Lafayette’s AIDS burger monologue from the first season. You’ll think twice about stiffing your waitress.

10. Vampire Bill’s string quartet. Always just off-screen, but working hard during both steamy scenes and the scary bits, Bill’s string quartet is one of the best parts of the show. I’ve never seen these musicians, but I know they exist because of the haunting cello line that pops up whenever our leading vamp-man is on screen.

If this doesn’t convince you, try it for yourself. The next episode of “True Blood” airs this Sunday night on HBO, right after the sun goes down, 9 p.m.

This is the first in a two-part interview with Mimi Michaels. Check back in next week for the second part of the interview, where we talk about Mimi’s new show “Meteor: Path to Destruction” which comes to NBC in July.

In the future, video games have evolved: Only the best can be gamers, and they control the movements of Death Row prisoners in a real life battle. If the gamer wins, the prisoner gets his freedom. If he loses… game over.

And in the middle of this gaming dystopia is actress Mimi Michaels, playing the champion gamer’s biggest fan. Blast got to chat with the actress about her new movie, which comes to the silver screen in September.

BLAST: “Gamer” is a futuristic thriller about real people used as video game characters. What can you tell us about the movie?

M: It’s a future world where humans are in control of other humans who are on Death Row. They play them, and it’s really cool. I just recently saw a trailer for it and it looks amazing, and Gerard Butler is phenomenal in it. I think people are really going to love this movie. My character is a big fan of one of the best players, who is this kid who plays Butler’s character. I’m a very quirky, silly girl. She’s supposed to be stoned. I’m known as “Cute Stoned Girl.” She’s just out in the ether and says some silly things to this kid.

B: You mentioned Gerard Butler. Did you have any scenes with him?

M: Not in this one, but I worked with him on another film, “The Ugly Truth,” and I got to work with him on that one, so it was nice that I finally got to have a scene with him.

B: Was he a nice guy?

M: Oh, he’s a class act. He was so sweet. In the scene we did, there were a lot of extras, and it is always nice to see when one of these big, A-list actors is so kind to everyone. He talks to everyone, so thoughtful and warm, and it’s just nice to see him so down-to-earth like that.

B: Do you think real video gamers will enjoy the movie?

M: Oh I do. It’s just a really cool concept that we’re playing people “" they have microchips in them, I think that’s how it’s done. I think that for people who are into video games, this will be a great movie to see.

B: Are you a gamer?

MI think I am now! Actually, yesterday I played Wii.

B: What did you play?

M: I was at this charity event and there were a bunch of kids playing Wii, so I said, I’m just going to play with them! So we played bowling and tennis, and I was just terrible. The kids were just beating me left and right, but at least I tried!

B: Trying counts! So, besides video games, what do you do with your free time?

M: I like to bike around LA a lot, as much as I can. Actually as soon as we’re done here I’m going to go for a hike with a girlfriend of mine. I like reading, but on my off time I go back to school and take classes at USC. I love learning new things and taking classes.

B: Are you on Twitter?

M: I’m not. I’m not on Twitter, not on Facebook. I still haven’t succumbed to any of those. I know if I signed up for it I would just be on my computer all the time.

B: It’s addictive. We’re almost out of time. I can’t wait to see “Gamer.” But one last question: What’s next for you?

M: I’ve worked on a couple of web series, one which is called “House of Heather.” I’m really looking forward to this one. It’s a parody of “The Hills.” It pokes fun at that show, and it’s really funny and cute and I think they’re going to be possibly looking for a place for it on television. So look out for that because it’s really cute.

Check out “Gamer” in theaters on September 4.

Instead of going through withdrawal, fans of “Battlestar Galactica” can breathe a sigh of relief. The Sci Fi Channel has given the green light to both “Caprica,” a prequel to the four-season space war phenomenon, and “Battlestar Galactica: The Plan,” a two-hour TV movie set to air in the fall.

The spin-off series “Caprica” premieres with a two-hour pilot, available on DVD and digital download since April. The pilot will be re-released along with the 18-episode first season of “Caprica,” scheduled for broadcast in early 2010.

“Caprica” takes place in the same universe, 58 years before the events of “Battlestar Galactica.” Though it is a prequel, it is self-contained. Viewers can enjoy and understand the show with no prior knowledge of “Battlestar Galactica.” And unlike “BSG,” “Caprica” is less about the space battles and more about family drama and political intrigue. The series takes place on the planet Caprica, a world just a few technological leaps and bounds ahead of our own. To give the show a retro feel, much of the costume and set design is based on 1950′s styles.

Welcome to a civilization drunk on its own success, dizzy with the possibilities of unlimited technology, and darkened by ethnic and class prejudice. “Caprica” tells the story of two families who lose their daughters in a terrorist attack, and go to extreme measures to get them back. It stars Eric Stoltz as Daniel Graystone, a technological entrepreneur who develops artificial intelligence in order to clone his dead daughter, and Esai Morales as Joseph Adama (father of “BSG”s William Adama), a lawyer who wrestles with the moral implications of bringing his own daughter back to life as a robot.

Are the two resurrected daughters the first Cylons? Is this where the war in Battlestar Galactica all began? Producer Ron Moore isn’t telling yet. But he has stated that he wants to reach a larger demographic than “BSG”s science fiction cult following. The show is essentially a family drama, taking place entirely Earth-bound (or Caprica-bound, if you will). Moore hopes that the lack of spaceships and military action will appeal to female viewers.

Can’t wait a whole year for “Caprica”? The Sci Fi Channel has you covered. “The Plan,” a two-hour movie directed by Edward James Olmos (star of “Battlestar Galactica”) is set to air in the fall. Written by “BSG” veteran Jane Espenson, “The Plan” retells the story of “BSG” from the point of view of the Cylons. “The Cylons were created by man. They rebelled. They evolved. There are many copies. And they have a plan.” Get it? “The Plan” stars many of “BSG”s series regulars, including Tricia Helfer, Grace Park, Michael Hogan, Aaron Douglas, and Olmos himself. Like “Battlestar Galactica: Razor,” “The Plan” takes place during the events of the television series, and fills in the gaps left open by the human-centric original plot.

Miss watching “BSG” every Friday night? Frak your nostalgia. Catch “Battlestar Galactica: The Plan” on the Sci Fi Channel in November, and “Caprica” in 2010.