I was almost published in this week’s “Entertainment Weekly.”
Whenever something pisses me off, I’m usually not one to take action. But when I saw this article in an issue of my favorite lite reading, I got really mad. The next day, I was still angry about it. So I decided to do something.
I wrote a letter to the editor.
To Whom It May Concern:
I was aghast to read about Ken Tucker’s willingness to spoil the surprises in his reviews (issue #995/996). As a critic, he not only gets to see shows early, but he gets to watch them in a spoiler free vacuum. Yet he feels compelled to rob us of this experience when it suits him. The writers and producers of programs create plot twists and other surprises to keep us, the audience, engaged and excited. Mr. Tucker’s surly attitude towards keeping these secrets shows both a lack of respect for the programs he reviews and the audience for which he writes. I am a fan of movies and TV and I like it when they are able to thrill me with a surprise. I can’t imagine how angry I would be if in reading a review of Lost I was told who was in the coffin or if a critic were to tell me the identity of the final cylon on Battlestar Galactica. Mr. Tucker chooses what information to include in his reviews, so I too am making a choice—not to read any more of his reviews.
I hit “return” and sent the email, turned to Jules and said, “I’m never going to hear from them.”
Two days later, I got this email:
Thanks for writing to Entertainment Weekly! We're considering your letter regarding Spoiler Nation for publication in our magazine, and we need to confirm the following:
1. That your name is spelled: [DGB]
2. That you live in: [Somewhere in the continental US]
Remember, your letter may be edited for clarity or length prior to publication. Please respond AS SOON AS POSSIBLE so that your letter can be considered.
Thank you for your time!
[Whatsher Name from EW]
This week's issue arrived and alas, my letter was not in it. Ah well. So close!