Sophie Ellis-Bextor has been one of my favorite pop music performers ever since I connected the maniquin-with-attitude she played in “Get Over You” to the saboteur in “Murder on the Dancefloor”. To some degree, I think I like her British-ness (I do get an odd kick out of the references to calling 999 and looking up phrases like murder on the dancefloor) but there’s also a strength that doesn’t become an inflated ego to her image that I haven’t seen often.

Heading into our last day at the office, this track appropriately came up from the shuffle on my iPod.

I saw an interview where Bextor said that “Mixed Up World” was partially a response to the emotions evoked by the World Trade Center attack on 9/11. That certainly made this track more interesting to me, since it’s so upbeat, to learn that it came from a place of emotional turmoil. (And, no, I haven’t checked the writing credits and risked ruining that sentiment by learning that she didn’t actually write it.)

I’ve been meaning to link to the massive coverage The Chicago Tribune’s Maureen Ryan gave to Ugly Betty, because there was a lot of interesting commentary on the series. Ryan starts with her own examination of the series’ properties:

Could it be that networks are stepping outside their comfort zones of cops, lawyers and docs and may be on the verge of offering us fun, quirky, just plain different characters? Let’s hope so.

Even if that doesn’t happen, the success of “Ugly Betty” is heartening, not just because the show is a touching dramedy with a starmaking performance by America Ferrera at its center. It’s also a thrill because the show is chock-full of things that just aren’t done on TV - or usually aren’t done well.

Until Betty and her desperately un-chic “Guadalajara” poncho swooped into the snooty offices of Meade Publishing, we rarely, if ever, saw clashes of class and culture like the one we’re seeing now between the highest echelons of Manhattan society and this lower-middle class resident of Queens - a clash in which, by the way, neither side is necessarily held up as the gold standard.

We rarely saw a chick-friendly aspirational drama in which the prize is not a guy, but respect in the workplace. And how many family dramas do we see in which characters struggle to afford their medication and talk about immigration issues that affect them directly?

The article had several quotes from people involved in the show, but Ryan also posted fuller interviews. There are some great bits that didn’t make it into the main story, like Executive Producer Silvio Horta on the dynamic between Betty and Daniel:

I think the dynamic right now is that really feels like brother and sister, and that they’re two sides of the same coin. As different as their lives are, as different as they’ve grown up, there’s common ground, and they help and inspire each other.

It’s interesting to see Betty have her issues with her father, and he’s having issues with his father, very different ones. One of the lines of the pilot is, [something along the lines of], Everyone has problems, nothing is easy, it doesn’t matter where you are from. I think the line is: ‘I know I can’t compare your problems to mind, but they’re mine. Nothing’s ever easy.’

One think I’ve been curious about is how the relationship changed from the one in Betty La Fea where (according to what I’ve read) Betty has a crush on her boss from the beginning until they get together at the series’ end. The American version works better without that dynamic, but it seems a pretty big change (along with Betty’s work friends not being so prominent) to the concept, so I’d want to know how they got there. That gets discussed a bit in the interview with Eric Mabius:

A lot of the fan sites, after the first episodes they’re like, ‘Oh yeah, they’re going to hook up within four episodes.’ The original series, that was the death of the series, when they got married. That’s the greatest way to kill a show, like ‘Cheers’ or ‘Vegas’ or ‘Remington Steele’ or ‘Moonlighting.’

In her talk with Michael Urie, who plays assistant Marc, Urie gets spot-on about the shows success and attributes that to some good vision at ABC:

I think they know, from the show’s that have hit before, like ‘Lost,’ ‘Desperate Housewives,’ ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ that they do have to put something [different] out there. They don’t re-create things. They do try to be original and I think that helps them. That’s why they have so many great narrative dramas on now. Although ours is sort of a melo-dramedy

Urie also gave me a laugh with his comment on the show’s costumes:

Sometimes I sit in my trailer and go, ‘Now, how do I wear this?’ One time they gave me a tie as a belt. Then there was a collarless shirt with a cravat. I had to call the wardrobe guy, ‘What goes where?’ They do the craziest things, but it’s so fun.

“Some people ask, where did I find the walk and the talk [of Marc], but I think it’s from the wardrobe and the hair and the makeup. I think you put anyone in what I’m wearing, and they would talk and walk like Marc does. Like, the Halloween episode where I dressed like Betty – you dress up like Betty and you feel like Betty. It’s like these masks for the characters that they’ve created are so specific.

Urie also summed up the conflict between Marc and Betty:

But when someone comes to work and looks as terrible as she does, then does a good job, it makes us look bad. His job is the coolest thing that’s ever happened to him, and he never wants to leave it. If anything, he wants Wilhemina’s job. And Betty is a threat to the way of life he’s used to….

Marc secretly can’t hate Betty, but Marc definitely likes Justin. This kid knew Amanda was wearing 2004 Manolo Blahniks before Marc did. And that’s pretty impressive.

Vanessa Williams, who plays fashion editor Wilhemina Slater, also aslo had some sharp comments about her character:

The way they’re drawing her, I did one speech in an episode talking about acting out and being alone for so long makes you strong – she’s been a fighter all her life. She’s been in seven boarding schools, and her father was never available to her. Expectations were high. And she’s still somewhat of a disappointment to him, despite what she’s achieved.

“They’re showing more of the back story on her, it makes for a more developed and well-rounded take on where the anger and the jealousy and the rivalry comes from. I think they’re really doing a good job at not making the characters one-dimensional. That would be boring for everyone, for us, but audiences are so savvy, you really can’t

Ryan asks Ana Ortiz, who plays Betty’s sister Hilda, about the type of community the Suarez’ live:

I have cousins who were born and raised and married within the same four blocks. One thing that I love about that, is that when my little cousin walks down the street, everybody will pop their head out the door and say, ‘Where are you going? Does your papa know?’ I love that insulated community. On the other hand there’s something to be said for having the chutzpah to explore new things. And Betty has the best of both worlds.

A cute additional bit from Ortiz on Grey’s Anatomy:

I love ‘Grey’s’ so much. Now we get to go to parties every once in a while, and the ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ cast is there and I’m like, ‘Oh my God! There’s McDreamy! There’s so and so.’ Everybody’s like, ‘Calm down. You’re on a hit show. You do know that, right?’

Ryan also offers a bulletpoint summary of other Betty adaptations that have been hits internationally. (I’d add, though, that the Indian version fell apart both with viewers  and creatively when it tried to keep the story going past the point where Betty La Fea ended, according to a couple Betty fans at the Television without Pity boards.) There’s probably room for some interesting commentary on what these different editions say about the culture of their country, much like the fascinating comparisons of the American, British and German editions of The Office.

Skimming through the OnDemand listings, I spotted a preview for a BBC America series titled Afterlife. Feeling curious, especially since there was no description of the series, I felt adventurous and checked it out. I’m happy things turned out that way. Afterlife looks promising, but if I knewAfterlife focused on the relationship between a psycology professor and a medium I probably would have avoided it the way I’ve avoided shows like Medium and Psychic at Large.

After a creepy opening scene, Afterlife moves to a scene where Robert Bridge demonstrates how a scammer could try to portray themselves as a psychic. His class is scheduled to attend a psychic reading later in the week in a scene that begins with a faker who asks for monetary compensation the way Afterlife heroine Alison Mundy, doesn’t. The depiction of mediums who are in reality scammers, helps settle any worries I would have had about this show unintentionally endorsing those who pretend to speak with the dead in order to separate the emotionally desperate from their money.

From there, Afterlife resembles a horror edition of Six Feet Under. In the opening episode, the story emphasizes the struggle to move on after death, both for the survivors and the departed, combined with some spooky moments, with a cast that delivers the emotional notes required to effectively telling such a tale. Afterlife’s two leads — Leslie Sharp as Alison and Andrew Lincoln as Robert — play up their conflicted natures. The medium who wishes she could give up her special abilities isn’t at all a new character, but Sharp gives her character a humanity that makes the character-type feel genuine. Lincoln, makes his character’s right brain/left brain conflict clear. He’s a smart man, clearly someone who is constantly thinking, he sees why he should doubt Alison’s claims but he also recently lost his son, who Alison ends up seeing when Robert is around.

There’s a lot of potential to Afterlife I hope the remaining series fulfills the promise found in the first episode.

Well, crap, I just got the news yesterday that my company is essentially shutting down, cutting back to a tiny crew who’ll be working on shortened schedules. My last day of employment comes on tomorrow, which is definitely preferable to having to be supervised as you pack your stuff as it happened in the previous rounds of layoffs.

I’m feeling the expected mixed emotions to the prospect of being back in the job market. In many ways I needed a kick to move me forward, as much as I detest the realities of job searching but I feel pretty lost about how to position myself. I’ve been casually pursuing another job for several months and one frustration has been that I tend to be a jack of all trades and a master of none, few places are looking for someone like that. I enjoy that kind of work — I get to do a little bit of graphics work, design a little bit, crunch a few numbers and keep track of the company’s history — but it means that looking at job listings leave me feeling like a trapezoid-shaped peg looking at a board full of round, square and triangular holes.

Anyway, since I’ll be working on my own schedule, I hope to be posting more often in the hopes that setting up posting goals will keep me from starting up a game and procrastinating away any productivity. With luck this will, at least, give me the time to whittle down my “comics to review” stack.

Fingers crossed.

Okay, I’m feeling too lazy to cite the actual interviews I’m thinking about but I recall Paul Levitz recieving some controversey for saying that he hoped to use CMX to transition manga readers to DC. Considering some of the stuff Karen Berger has said about Minx following realistic stories, with no genre tales like fantasy, and how most of the Minx books looks like stuff that wouldn’t be out of place at Vertigo a thought struck me…

Is one unspoken goal for Minx to create a bridge between manga readers and Vertigo comics?

So. DC has announced a graphic novel imprint aimed at teenage girls and… sheesh, they’re calling it “Minx”? Does this sound like a sensible move for a company who’s creative output has been criticized for repeatedly reducing its female characters into victims or sexualized objects to regain an audience it has alienated over the years? Is this all about proving that there was more to that legal nastiness other than screeching “Mine! Keep away!”

As much as I want to get snarky and, for example, welcome DC to the wonderful world of 2003*, seeing the creators listed by Christopher Butcher gets me pretty excited over this line. Derek Kirk Kim, Andi Watson and Mike Carey are all creators I make an effort to follow and while I do have a long list of female creators I wish were a part of the initial launch (like Christine Norrie, Christina Weir, Jen Van Meter, Serena Valentino or Rachel Hartman) this initial line-up is pretty exciting to me.

Plus, Shelly Bond is working on on this line. Bond’s is the only editor who’s name I learned because it appeared in so many comics I just plain loved. When I paid more attention to comics, I sampled every title she worked on because that turned out to be an incredibly reliable way to find comics I greatly enjoyed.

However, an odd thought occurred to me while reading Mickle’s reaction… does an effort to draw young female readers have to get the niche marketing treatment? I’m not sure how to explain it, but I’m getting a bit of a “Here are comics you can shelve next to Sandman, Y: The Last Man and Strangers in Paradise” vibe from some of the hype-speak. Maybe I’d be happier if the attitude were more “The market is in a place where Deadenders could have succeeded if it launched today.” than the “We’re proud (to claim) to be breaking new ground (by pretending we’re not the last publisher to notice the female customers buying comics thanks to manga publishers).”

I guess I’m thinking about Viz, Oni, Tokyopop and Scholastic’s efforts, which emphasized the content of their product without seeming to take the demographic that was expected to read it. Maybe that’s because you don’t really need to take a “Hey girls, comics!” approach to selling a Baby Sitters Club graphic novel or maybe I’ve become jaded from seeing too many conversations about how to get women reading comics (or reading Western comics) that just went badly. Maybe I’m just feeling a tad excluded when I look at the PR-speak, even though most of these titles appeal to me, a feeling I never had when DC’s competitors marketed Erica Sakuazawa, Ai Yazawa or Chyna Clugston’s work. So far, the talk does seem to focus more on the demographic being targeted than on than the comics being produced.

* After writing that little bit of snark, I read Rich Johnston’s latest column where he says of Minx:

And congrats to LITG-favourite, Andi Watson, whose pitched-in-2003 comic “Clubbing,” a London-based mystery set in and around nightclubs, drawn by Josh (”Dead@17″) Howard is to be published next year. Four years folks, that’s the current length of the pipeline.

I’m not surprised to see the comic strip Boondocks (finally) leaving comics pages, but I certainly was surprised by what I found in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday.

So, uh, what happened? Did the syndicator cancel the strip so suddenly that the features editor couldn’t find a replacement in time? If so, how did the strip end so quickly after spending so much time in reruns? Or was someone at the Chronicle grumpy with Aaron McGruder?

For some reason, I’m having a hard time getting back to blogging despite a surprisingly easygoing Thanksgiving day full of cooking (I am so very happy that my oven has a warming drawer), even with my refusal to do any vegetable chopping on Wednesday night.

But here’s one bit that couldn’t get past my lethargy, Ugly Betty’s getting an online spin-off, Vidas de Fuego. Betty fans will finally be able to watch the telenovela seen on the Suarez household TV set every week. There will be six 2-4 minute webisodes and another six-webisode telenovela will also appear on ABC.com later in the year.

Creator Rikki Simons wrote a reaction to Kevin Church’s advice to creators on receiving criticism (via Johanna)

Critics, take your lumps, just like we do. You cannot post a review to a blog with a comments section turned on or your e-mail made public without expecting to hear from the author if they disagree with you. Your review is not any more immune from recrimination than an author’s books are. For the angry author, this probably falls under the heading “if I want to make an ass out of myself that’s my business” but if we’re at least respecting point two for the critic then the least the critic can do is the same when the author takes them on (politely). We also cannot control what our fans will say when they read your review. In some cases when the author links to your review they are inciting a riot, but if the author just blew a year of their life on a work, fatigued, bent in real starvation, and the reviewer spent an hour reviewing after getting free swag, then you as a critic should forgive this reaction. It’s called human nature and professionalism is irrelevant (and usually just wishful thinking on the part of the would-be critic).

Being a critic makes you a target and you are only more welcome than the IRS because of the hope of a good review — but even a good review isn’t as fun as a tax return. I respect the right of critics to write reviews, but I cannot respect the plea against recrimination when the author thinks they’ve been short-changed. A lot of comic critics on the internet are like web comics guys who make video game comics in order to receive a press status and get free Wii. They are doing it to fill their shelves with free swag in many cases.

I find it interesting that Simons seems to think that the only motivation anyone ever has to write a negative review is to allow the reviewer to demonstrate their superiority to the artist with their cutting put downs, as if the working principle is “Those who can’t belittle those who do.” instead of a desire to discuss their enjoyment of pop culture in more detail than “That series is the greatest!”

The point of lists like the one Kevin created, as well as my advice to fans isn’t a desire not to “take our lumps”. If that were the issue, we could simply turn off comments and avoid hearing from anyone offended by our opinion. Discussion is appreciated, but when criticsm can’t be taken constructively (from the creator or from fans) it becomes one of those situations when we feel embarrassed on your behalf.

I’ve only experienced grumpy fans with my semi-snarky review of Prison Break which I found full of unintentional hilarity (unfortunately, the show continued to be ridiculous but stopped being funny for me). Some of the grumpy comments were an additional source of unintended hilarity (too bad they didn’t all get imported in the switchover from Typepad).

Simons also tries to start off by playing a bit of gotcha:

Kevin Church’s “handy Primer” is silly and illogical, especially when you compare point one — Your LiveJournal “friends list” does not necessarily reflect the taste of the general reading public — with the utterly conflicting point two Marketing yourself and your work includes your personal blog and website. Well, which it?

(The emphasis matches Simon’s formating, indicating quotes from Church’s writing.)

However, let’s look at how Church explained those two points:

Your LiveJournal “friends list” does not necessarily reflect the taste of the general reading public. Many creators like yourself find that water seeks its own level and they generally congregate around people with similar ideas and tastes. Sadly, this oftentimes warps the perceptions of the writer or artist and they find themselves wondering why somebody disliked or criticized their work when all their friends said it was brilliant. Realizing that people outside of your immediate circle can have valid opinions is an important first step that is absolutely necessary for any creator hoping to become a comics professional.

Marketing yourself and your work includes your personal blog and website. Avoid making negative comments about reviewers; they will find out about them and use them as fuel for a potential conflagration your fledgling career may not be able to escape from. You will also want to note that attacking your critics only gives them the opportunity to dismiss further work from you and makes for a contentious relationship with your publisher. Everything you do and say reflects not only on you, but the company that publishes your work. Nobody wants to work with a Negative Nancy, and you probably don’t want to be considered one.

Simons missed the point, of the first note — the two thoughts don’t conflict at all. The former point says not to let your friends, family and fans have too large an influence on how you see your work while the later says to be aware that what you (and others) say on your website will be seen by more than your friends, family and fans. Praise (as good as it feels) needs to be taken in stride, the same way criticism should be taken, otherwise you risk becoming one of those train wreck creators who get a lot of web site traffic from people who don’t enjoy your work, but are just looking to witness your next public meltdown so that they can share a feeling of shadenfreude with their friends.

Despite a drop in ratings compared to the second season, The Sci-Fi Channel seemms to have confidence in Battlestar Galactica since the critically-acclaimed series will move to a more competitive Sunday-night time slot when the show returns in January. This season, the war drama faced stronger competition in its usual time slot by airing against debuting fall series. Now, it’ll take on one of the seasons’ most popular new dramas (Brothers & Sisters on ABC) and a crime procedural that has done well after losing its CSI lead-in (Without a Trace).

For a further sign of confidence in the series, Sci-Fi is using Galactica to help launch one of its new series, The Dresden Files. While I’m sure (even more) increased competition will hurt Galatica’s ratings, The Sci-Fi Channel seems to think the series can fuel its growth.