Kat, thanks for mentioning watching t.v. with your kids. I'm never sure what people mean when they say reading is more interactive than watching, or that you don't draw connections when you watch. Except that when the material is bad, it doesn't work very well, and, sure, there are more good books out there than good movies or t.v. We've been trying longer.

I remember Mulan having some interesting points, kid-sized meaningful structure, when we saw it. How the men behaved like boys when they were trying to act like men, but later when they matured, they didn't care how they appeared, dressed as women, simply did what they had to do. Most Disney things don't have any stuff like that.

My wife and I had a good time reading War And Peace at the same time, ecept she skipped all the philosophic essay sections, and kept getting ahead of me.

Yes, Don, I suppose it's the commercial definition of shows that makes them turn into ads of themselves, they wind up trying to be what has already worked, and the process defeats the creative impulse. Must take special people and circumstances to keep being good under that pressure. I never saw the show, but there seems to often be a pressure to merely illustrate in contemporary church culture, which prevents strong, credible art from getting made. I was talking to a youth minister recently who had qualms about using profanity in a script which seemed to require it. Sounds like the show you mention had both the commercial pressure and the church constrictions going against it.

   I never saw Monk. Sometimes I find t.v. on video, later, like the prime suspect series, or Sopranos. But once a show goes weak, I feel embarrassed to admit I ever liked it--it leaves that bad impression stonger than the early promise.