The NYT Can FOATALWOASP

I wanted to write about Lost last night, but I didn't get around to seeing the first new episode of its 16-week uninterrupted run until 2 AM. And when I went on-line to read and blog about it, I got mad. But I didn't want to write a post titled "The New York Times Can Do Some Stuff And Expire." So I took a day to put things into perspective.

The New York Times can Take A Long Walk Off A Short Pier.

The Hater, my ideological counterpart at The Onion AV Club and pop-intellectual hottie, first brought this item to my attention. You can read the full New York Times review she eviscerates on-line. The majority of NYT content is available on the web for free, which is all any self-respecting genre fan should pay to read it from here on out, unless they actually happen to be anti-abortion activists.

(If you skipped both of those links because this started out about Lost and you either haven't seen it or dislike the show for some reason which is not insane, I urge you to reconsider. The NYT author was too bored with the show to even get the details right, so she spent most of her time ranting about Heroes, Battlestar Galactica, supernatural-lite shows like Medium and The Ghost Whisperer, and comics, fantasy, and sci-fi in general. And for you hardcore fans, I'm sure she would have mentioned Firefly, Farscape, or Buffy if she even knew what they were. You know, if they were an "in" elitist thing to rip on.)

I've waged an active campaign against anti-nerd bias in print media for the last few years. As World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, videogames, and nerdiest of all, teh Interweb, are embraced worldwide, it rankles me when mainstream outlets pay writers who fall back on outdated stereotypes:

"Lost” is at heart a science-fiction thriller, while “Heroes” is more of a comic book, but both genres have a similar appeal: they provide an alternative society for those who don’t fit comfortably into their own. (That is to say, smart, socially awkward adults and all 12-year-old boys.) [NYT excerpt by Alessandra Stanley]

Wait. Television shows with superheroes, epic mysteries, real-world political analogues that feature evil robots, and supernatural procedurals are so popular that you can write about them for a national newspaper, but they are only of interest to pre-teen boys and nerdy adults? Who's really wishing for an alternative society here? For that matter, if a TV show appeals to smart adults, then it has to be smart, too, right?

The NYT can FOATALWOASP. If I want to read uninformed opinions about high-quality genre fiction that requires you to turn your brain on, I can get on the Internet. No one should be paid to be this stupid.

(Edit: I have a lot to say on the subject of ignorant genre criticism, perhaps too much for this post. This article has undergone several edits, and more are anticipated. I refuse, however, to go back and italicize "New York Times.")