Before The 2026 Jeopardy Postseason Begins We Actually Do Have Two New Participants for The 2027 Tournament of Champions

 

 

When Harrison Whitaker's remarkable Jeopardy run ended on December 1^st I told my readers that barring the arrival of a new Jeopardy champion my next article would be in regard to the Second Chance Tournament that will begin on Monday. I knew that there was a possibility of at least one new champion coming but I honestly expected nothing.

Instead in the last two weeks Jeopardy fans have seen not one but two players who will be in next year's Jeopardy postseason in some form. And it actually started the day after Harrison was defeated.

Libby Jones had won back to back games with over $70,000 in earnings. Then on Wednesday when her opponents was announced he had a last name any Jeopardy fan knew: Lalonde. As in Ray Lalonde who just three years ago became won thirteen games and just over $386,000.  Here was Ron Lalonde who very clearly resembled Ray. When Ken Jennings pointed that out in the interview Ron confirmed that he was Ray's identical twin.

Now to be clear the resemblance was uncanny and Ray had mentioned having a brother but in three years I had forgotten that detail. When Ken actually asked the question: "How do we know you're not Ray in disguise?" Ron's answer was: "Ray's in the audience." Cut to the audience with Ray Lalonde sitting right there.

Even the non-long time Jeopardy viewer thought: "Holy Shit! Has this become a soap opera?" To be fair in the over forty years history of Jeopardy we've seen countless permutations of relatives. This past year  Isaac Hirsch finalist in the 2025 Tournament of Champions and semi-finalist in the Jeopardy Masters reminded us that he is the son of Steve Hirsch who appeared on the show in its second season. I've heard of sisters, cousins and husbands and wives but an identical twin brother? That's a new one to me. Obviously I now had to root for Ron to win and he did on Wednesday defeating Libby, who will almost certainly be back for Champions Wildcard next year around this time.

Ron was good but not nearly  at the level of Ray. It is true he did manage to win the next two victories in runaways and he was able to respond correctly on twenty to twenty two responses per game but he also got the next two Final Jeopardys incorrect. In truth I thought he would be lucky to win five games at most.

And on Monday he got off to a fast start in the Jeopardy round but he ran into a player who was slightly better Will Riley. It didn't help his cause that halfway through Double Jeopardy he found the second Daily Double in THAT SEEMS FAIR. In second place he bet $4000:

"These 2 words, one with an extra two letters, can be a promise of opportunity vs. the same outcome." Ron was stumped and so was I. The words were equity and equality. Ray gave 21 correct responses that day and 5 incorrect ones and that one Daily Double made the difference as going into Final Jeopardy he was trailing Will.

The category was AROUND THE USA. "A geological survey published in 1883 said this landmark was 'regular in its operations' that 'occur…frequently."

Ron wrote down: "What is Old Faithful?" That was correct but its clear he knew the game was up because below it he wrote: "I had fun." He bet just $1199 and he was clearly hoping Will would make a mistake. Will did not and he became the new champion.

We'll get back to Will momentarily but first let's deal with Ron. Now Ron has only won $52,501 in three games. As any Jeopardy fan knows three wins has been more than enough to get a Jeopardy winner into the Tournament of Champions in their own right most of the time in the last two seasons. At the very least he will likely be extended an invitation to Champions Wild Card next year.

That said I'm relatively sure that barring a plethora of multi game winners (which we can't rule out of course) Ron won't have to bother with the rigamarole that other Champions Wild Card players who have only won three games have had to deal with since it was created at the started of Season 40. Because come on: the story is just too good for the producers to pass up on. This is the identical twin brother of one of the greatest Jeopardy super-champions of all time. The fans are going to want to see if he can do better than Ray in the Tournament of Champions. I want to see it. I know I'm all for rules and order and against the lowering of the standards of entrants into the Tournament of Champions and have been for the last four years. But I am not immune to the idea of wanting to see certain players back again when it makes for a good story. To be clear I would be feeling differently if Ron had only won one or two games or even lost. I would have expected him to get invited back in the Second Chance Tournament because that would have been just as good a story. I will stand behind Ron coming back in the Tournament of Champions in 2027 with no questions asked, certainly not by me.

To be fair the man who unseated him Will Riley is going to be in the Tournament of Champions in 2027 without having to go throw any contortions. He has already proven so by winning the next three games in all the ways Jeopardy champions can. And in his case it took more luck than Ray was allowed particularly on Wednesday.

Facing off against Chelsea Carter and Eddie Kass it honestly seemed it should have been Eddie's day. However Eddie fell victim to the first Daily Double in the Jeopardy round which cost him a chance at the lead  and lost another $1800 on the second. In Double Jeopardy Will and Eddie kept going back and forth for the lead and each got a Daily Double incorrect. The two were actually tied but Eddie broke it with a $1600 clue in my new favorite category (though not the contestants): MAKE YOUR OWN WES ANDERSON MOVIE TITLE. I can't resist so let me give you the $1600 clue:

"The + 'Citizen Kane' director + high-in-the forest apple juice brand + book of maps. "What is The Orson Welles Tree Top Atlas?"   Tell the truth: you're already wondering who Tilda Swinton would play in that film.

That clue gave Eddie $13,800 to Will's $12,200 while Chelsea was at $4400. Will would later tell us that he discussed wagering strategies with his brother in Final Jeopardy and it clearly paid off.

The Final Jeopardy category was RUSSIAN LITERARY WORKS. "The son of a former serf buys this title area for 90,000 rubles above the mortgage." Chelsea was the only one who knew the correct work: "What is The Cherry Orchard?" She bet all but a dollar to put her at $8799. Will couldn't come up with a response and he wagered $3399. That put him at $8801 in second place.

Eddie wrote down: "What is the Gulag?" He wagered $11,000 which left with $2800 and gave Will a win that Ken told us in the next game he would use to pay off his student loans.

But Will's luck came to an end tonight against Trey Hart and Madeline Dawson. Will started strong but Trey managed to take a lead halfway through the Jeopardy round and never relinquished it. Will gave 20 correct responses but gave 8 incorrect ones; by contrast Trey gave 23 correct responses but got only three wrong and went into Double Jeopardy with $19,600 to Will's $10,395 (he lost a big $5 on a Daily Double) and Madelyn's $900.

The Final Jeopardy category was TV HISTORY. "A 1964 review of this TV special, still played today, mentions 'trials as an outcast' & 'the songs of Johnny Marks'. Neither Madelyn nor Will could come up with a correct response but Trey did: "What is Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer?" (As Ken mentioned many people will be watching this special this month.) Trey gained $4500 to make him the new champion with $24,100 as Will's run ended with four wins and an impressive $77,403. Ken hedged the idea that we would see Will in next year's postseason but according to Jeopardy Archive it is a done deal and any reasonable viewer would agree: it is more money then Bryce Wargin and Ashley Chan won in four games during last season and we will be seeing them in the Tournament of Champions in just a few weeks.

So for the 2027 Tournament of Champions three slots filled, only eighteen to go. Next week we'll focus on the 2026 Tournament of Champions and I will be back on Wednesday with the results of the first group of semifinals for the Second Chance Tournament. I keep my promises.

The History of Hollywood & Politics, Part 2: How Hollywood Both at The Time And Now Took The Wrong Lessons From McCarthyism and its Effect On The Industry

 

 

Upfront it is important to state that in the moral definition the HUAC and the actions of Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s were an abuse of power and despicable. However both at the time and especially decades later and to this day historians, various progressives and Hollywood in particular have chosen to do what so many members of all three groups do: take events out of context and view it in moral terms rather than the big picture.

To be clear there was never any real danger of the Communist Party taking over America at any point in our history: it's doubtful even the most diehard defenders of McCarthy will argue otherwise. But the reason that so many people chose to believe McCarthy even after his fall has to do with multiple reasons, almost all of which are excluded years after the fact.

The first is, of course, that McCarthy's rise to power happened at the exact same period Communism's dictatorial drive were at its height. Stalin had just taken over much of Eastern Europe and it was only because of the policies of both the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine that the boundaries held where they did. Not long after this Mao and the Communists would officially take power in China and spent much of the next twenty years trying to take over countries in Asia, most notably Korea and Vietnam. Indeed at the start of 1950 the Korean War was declared and while it would initially seem to be able to stop the division of Korea it very quickly bogged down in a quagmire that would end with Korea being divided into a Northern Communist country and a Southern more democratic one. Coming just five years after the end of World War II after Americans had united to stop a fascist totalitarian state bent on world domination, we now seemed to be facing a communist totalitarian state with that same goal in mind. These fears were no doubt deep in the heart of every single American to an extent.

As I said in my previous article in October of 1947 62 percent of Americans thought the Truman administration was soft on Communism while only 24 percent felt it was just right. This feeling extended during Truman's second term as the argument "Who Lost China?" became part of the political conversation.  And it's worth noting a speech McCarthy gave in 1952 when he was running for reelection:

"In 1945, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace after the Second World War, there lived within the Soviet orbit 180 million people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side were 1,620,000 people. Today just seven years later there are 800 million people under the domination of Soviet Russia: an increase of over 400 percent. On our side the figure has shrunk to under 500 million. In other words, in less than seven years, the odds have changed from nine to one in our favor to eight to five against us. The threat of global communist domination is a reality that can be ignored at the risk of our annihilation."

McCarthy, who was best known for pulling figures out of thin air to justify his actions, was completely correct with the math in this speech and every one in Washington knew it. And it is no doubt one of the reasons that the horror of McCarthyism was not just tolerated but openly approved up during his tenure in power not just by the majority of political figures in both parties but the American public at large.

Another critical factor not taken into consideration as to why so many Republicans might have tolerated the vileness not just of McCarthy but men such as Jenner and Karl Mundt was simple. After the 1948 election when Harry Truman had referred to Congress in terms that was short of demagoguery and just an importantly led to an electoral upset Republicans in both houses of Congress were inclined to despise Truman. Indeed many of the failures of his second term were built out of the spite that Congressional Republicans felt for him. The one who was inclined to be the angriest was Robert Taft, essentially the power behind Senate Republicans even though he didn't hold the official title of majority leader.  McCarthyism and HUAC were essentially seen as wedge issues: a way to win back power in the midterms and regain the White House in 1952. Taft, a strident anti-Communist and one of the last diehard isolationists in Congress, was considered a front runner for the Republican nomination that year. Twice he had been denied the nomination by the so-called Eastern establishment; by Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Dewey four years earlier. Taft was the leader of what was consider the midwestern wing and after three straight election losses led by that wing, it seemed certain that the old guard conservatives would take it in 1952. (In large part because of that threat Eisenhower would choose to challenge Taft for the Republican nomination that year, though no one could have known that when HUAC swung into action.)

And its worth remembering that Joseph McCarthy was the first politician of either party to effectively use film and television to maximum political effect. Millions of Americans were glued to their sets watching HUAC hearings and McCarthy during the 1950s and while one can argue how many were disgusted the fact remains just as many were in favor of it. Indeed McCarthy and the actions of the HUAC were considered one of the key reasons the Republicans returned to power in 1952. (I'll get back to that in a bit.) And one of the things that no doubt drew so many viewers was the fact that HUAC was constantly calling actors and writers from Hollywood to the stands for public hearings.  In a sense the pillorying of Hollywood from 1947 on could be seen as little more than a publicity stunt designed to attract attention for millions of Americans to get people to vote Republican.

It's worth looking at Hollywood's role. To be clear there was nothing illegal about being a member of the Communist Party and the numerous fellow travelers who were blacklisted had the moral high ground. But two things can be true and it has to be said that they were also incredibly naïve,  members of the bourgeoisie who basically never had the nerve to commit to taking over America the way their Russian counterparts were more than willing to do in Moscow thirty years earlier.

I don't so much judge the creative people in Hollywood for doing anything illegal rather than being naïve to the point of stupidity, talking about Communism as a serious way forward for America when Stalin was becoming a dictator just as bad as Hitler if not worse. In truth those in Hollywood who became members had all of the horrible qualities of the left that were historically true a century earlier and are just as true today: wealthy elitists who think that their superiority makes them fit to judge what the best system of governments, communists for whom capitalism had worked out just fine, and lacking any real plan to make their politics into a reality. All of these were on full display during Henry Wallace's campaign for the White House in 1948 and it is worth reminding them how many of those actors and followers were fellow travelers.

And it is worth noting that the actions of the Hollywood Ten were the definition of those who thought that they were above the system and not only didn't cooperate but challenged the legitimacy of it, comparing the tactics – to Nazi Germany. "I am not on trial," John Howard Lawson said. "This committee is on trial." All of them were held in contempt of Congress and to a man all ten were found guilty sentenced to spend a year in prison. They chose to appeal believing the Supreme Court would void their conviction. They were mistaken and in 1950 they all began to serve their sentences. Notoriously Dalton Trumbo and other believed they were political prisoners who had never committed a crime.

As to the blacklist itself Lillian Hellman would famous argue that the studio executives were spineless when it came to confronting the government. This makes sense in the moral universe that Hellman and her colleagues lived in and not the business one that Hollywood was. The studio executives knew how popular McCarthy was and they didn't want their business to be associated with the radical politics of Communism which the movie going public was very much against. So the blacklist was as much an economic decision as a political one.

It's worth noting that after the Cold War those who survived chose to frame this as a purely moral decision and showed particular contempt for those who chose to name names. This was perhaps made the most clear in 1999 when the Academy Awards chose to present Elia Kazan with a Lifetime Achievement award.

Kazan was one of the best directors in movie history who received Oscar nominations for directing such films as Gentleman's Agreement, Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, East of Eden and America, America. He also directed numerous other respected films as  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Viva Zapata!, A Face in the Crowd and  Splendor in the Grass. However at the height of McCarthy's reign in 1952 he chose to testify as a witness before HUAC and name among others Phoebe Brand and Clifford Odets. He was the subject of huge criticism from his liberal friends and colleagues. He justified his actions saying that he took: "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful or wrong."

His colleagues, even those he didn't name, never saw it that way. In what it part of the martyr complex that has always been part of the left: it was more important to stay morally pure and face both the end of your professional career and possibly prison as opposed to 'compromising' but being allowed to keep making a living doing what you loved. And it is telling that Hellman chose to be the most condemning because for her she had a fallback position: leave Hollywood and go back to Broadway. The lion's share of those weren't nearly as lucky or as talented a writer as here.

It's worth noting that when the announcement was made the most bizarre commentary came from Rod Steiger who went out of his way to condemn Kazan. Steiger had come to prominence when he starred in On The Waterfront which was written by Budd Schulberg (and in some circles is seen as the two men's justification for testifying to Congress) and he received his first Oscar nomination for it. When confronted with this fact Steiger doubled down saying that if he had known about Kazan's actions he would never have starred in the film. Karl Malden, President of the Academy and Steiger's co-star in that film, pointed out "Rod is either ignorant or a liar." Given the behavior of so many of the left historically both are equally possible.

So much of what happened during the blacklist era could be seen as the first real example of how so many celebrities felt that their position allowed them to think that the rules of the government should not apply to them the same way it did everyone else. I have little doubt they felt they had the moral high ground and perhaps they did but it doesn't change the fact of their elitism and willful ignorance. And what must have galled them all the more was that much of this hostility was coming from a prominent California politician who rose to prominence on anti-Communism even more than McCarthy did.

Helen Gaghan  was an opera singer and actress who had starred on Broadway. In 1931 she married Melvyn Douglas, who would one day win two Oscars for Supporting Actor. A prominent friend of Eleanore Roosevelt she became a member of the Anti-Nazi league and had roles in the WPA and Youth administration. She became active in California politics in 1940 and in 1944 she ran for Congress, speaking at the Democratic National convention in 1944.

Douglas would serve three terms in the house championing issues such as civil rights, migrant worker welfare, affordable housing, progressive taxation and nuclear disarmament. One could make the argument that she was an early model for so much of the progressive elected officials we see today. She was a close friend of Henry Wallace but never defected to the campaign thinking he was making a horrible mistake. When Wallace announced this to many of her friends she would recall they were aghast and many of them left quickly "as if they were fleeing a bad odor." Douglas stayed behind trying to warn Wallace of what he would face. She would actually confide this to fellow Congressman (and her lover) Lyndon Johnson who told her that Truman and his colleagues would tear him apart.

In 1950 Douglas chose to challenge incumbent Sheridan Downey for his seat in the Senate. Encouraged not to wait until 1952 rather then split the party in a fight Gahagan Douglas told Malone that Downey was insufficiently leftist and had to be unseated. Downey withdrew from the race and supported a third candidate, Manchester Boddy.

It was Boddy who coined the phrase that Gahagan Douglas was 'the Pink Lady…right down to her underwear." Richard Nixon, who was the Republican opponent, merely repeated the line. And its worth noting that many prominent Democrats – include John F. Kennedy – would donate money to Nixon's campaign because they shared similar views on Communism. 

The campaign was one of the most vicious in California political history and dealt with numerous assassinations of her character, which involved calling her a Communist and using anti-Semites to attack her reputation. It was one of the dirtiest campaigns imaginable. It was also incredibly effective as Nixon won in a landslide getting 59 percent of the vote. Douglas admitted later she would likely have lost the election anyway as voters felt Douglas was too liberal and felt more of  a personal connection to a thirty-something man with a young family.

This essentially destroyed Douglas's career in politics mainly because she was too controversial. But it made Douglas the best thing possible in the mind of the left and Hollywood: a martyr. And its almost certain that this action pretty much cut off any chance Hollywood would ever feel affinity with Nixon.

In 1952 Dwight Eisenhower became the Republican nominee for President and mainly due to the influence of members of his advisors, chose Richard Nixon as his running mate. He went out of his way to distance himself from the most zealous anti-communists Jenner and McCarthy but his personal views on them came into conflict for campaigning within them. He shared the platform with both men when they were running for reelection but did as little possible to mention them by name. Famously he felt dirty at the mere touch of Jenner. The compromises he made cost him dearly in the minds of liberal admirers. That however didn't count for much as he won the biggest electoral landslide a Republican had to that point, carrying 39 of 49 states and 442 electoral votes.

Nixon was even more vitriolic and in a far darker place, particularly when he accused Truman and Democrat Adlai Stevenson as being 'traitors to which a majority of the nation's Democrats believe'. Then on September 18^th the news of Nixon's slush fund became public.

It's worth noting that there was nothing either unethical or illegal about the fund. It was used largely to pay office expenses not covered by Nixon's Senate allowance. Stevenson had a similar fund. Nixon was infuriated that Eisenhower refused to defend him and putting the burden proof on the man he shared the ticket with. Eisenhower's advisers came up with a plan in which the RNC would pay for a half-hour nationally televised address in which he would provide an explanation of the fund and offer to resign. When Eisenhower called Nixon, he told him that he had not made a decision. Nixon refused to offer to resign: if his political life had to end he wanted it to be done by him. It's not clear who had the moral high ground in this argument or if Nixon's chronic paranoia made him suspect Eisenhower was being disloyal.

The Checkers speech was to that point in the brief history of television the most watched political broadcast in American history. Nixon chose to plead his case in emotional, an often maudlin terms – his wife's respectable cloth coat, just to use one example – and he took the decision out of Ike's hand and put it in the hands of the people. He told viewers to send their opinions to the RNC, not Eisenhower, and he said that he would abide by their decision. Furthermore he demanded that Stevenson and his running mate also make a full financial accounting which meant putting public pressure on Eisenhower to show his favorable tax treatment for books like Crusade in Europe. 

The Checkers speech would quickly become repudiated and mocked by liberal America as well as Democrats ever since, ignoring the fact that it overwhelmingly worked. The response was enormously favorable and Eisenhower made the easy decision to keep Nixon on the ticket.

It's worth noting that the first two politicians to use television to obtain massive effect and support were two of the most conservative, near demagoguing, elected officials. For the left and Democrats their enormous success and popularity at the time should have been a clear warning sign as to how well the right could use emotional response more than intellectual debate to win the hearts and minds – and more importantly the votes – of Americans.  That both men would later suffer public defeats in large because of the media – though critically, not in the minds of many of those conservatives who had supported them both at the time and in the future – make it at least forgivable that the Democrats failed to comprehend this lesson.

Hollywood should have taken a larger one from it but there's no sign they did and its worth noting even if they had there is no reason to suspect anyone in either party was going to take them seriously. In the 1950s no one in the political world seriously thought anyone in Hollywood could be an asset to a campaign, there was no sign they could even help in California. Indeed the 1952 election was going to prove just how out of touch the left was with its own state as it would go for the Republican candidate for the first time since 1928.  It would go Republican for what would be nine times out of the next ten Presidential elections, only going for LBJ in his 1964 landslide victory. Even Helen Gahagan Douglas's presence on the campaign trail in 1960 would not stop the state from going to Nixon even as Kennedy won the closest Presidential election in history.

Even during the most liberal time in American history Hollywood had no political power. And starting in the 1960s they were about to become even more behind the rest of the country then before. In the next article I will deal with Hollywood's official embrace of leftist activism began in an earnest during the 1960s even as the conservative movement officially started led by two of the most successful California politicians in history – who won office going against everything they stood for.

 

A Little Later Than Usual: All Her Fault

 

 

Ever since Kerry Washington gave a performance that put Little Fires Everywhere on my top ten list of 2020 it answered for me a question that I'd never put into practice: could I as a reviewer remove the bias I held against a series I considered overrated (such as I did for Scandal) if the cast did better work in other projects?

This pattern has more or less continued throughout the decade frequently whether it is with Aja Naomi King's work in Lessons in Chemistry, Jonathan Bailey's work in Fellow Travelers (Bridgerton) and James Marsden in basically everything he's done since Westworld.  So when Sarah Snook, who in 2024 won the Best Actress Emmy for her work in Succession, a series that I still consider an overrated mess despite the brilliance of its final season, announced her first follow-up project on TV would be in Peacock's limited series adaptation of All Her Fault I know that I might very well have to test that theory with her. The fact that this past week the Golden Globes and the Critics' Choice Awards gave both the series and Snook nominations gave me a more reasonable excuse, considering it will likely be a contender for Emmys in 2026. 

Like with so many literary adaptations I went in knowing nothing about the book or for that matter the series. I knew some details from the largely favorable reviews but I avoided as many spoilers possible. Now I have seen the first two episodes and am prepared to argue both Snook and the series are more than worthy of the recognition my peers have given it.

The series begins was Marissa Irvine going to an address to pick up her five year old Milo at a playdate. She very quickly realizes the address is incorrect but she reacts very much trying to figure out what is wrong. She calls the nanny who she only knows as Carrie Finch and finds out the number doesn't exist. She's puzzled but not yet alarmed. Then she calls her own nanny and asks about the five-year old who's been playing with and she sees that Jacob is there. Then slowly panic begins to seep in as she realizes her son was picked up at school but has disappeared completely.

In that opening scene Snook, no more than five minutes long, Snook shows more real emotion then I ever saw in almost all four seasons of Succession.  So the argument that this is what Shiv would be like if she gave birth to the child she was pregnant with in the final season of that show doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It is clear that Marissa is very much the kind of professional we've seen in so many other shows over the years but unlike the majority of the limited series built on this fabric of working moms (from Big Little Lies on) this is a show about working moms who are trying to balance work and motherhood. And as we see from the start Marissa has barely been holding it together ever since.

Marissa we will eventually learn is an introvert who's life has been swallowed up be the family of her husband, Peter. Peter is played by the master of 2020s limited series Jake Lacy, the man who's good-hearted exterior you just know contains darker impulses.  He plays the supportive husband while the police are there and while the investigation begins but at a critical moment he breaks down and tears Marissa apart for not doing what he considers the bare minimum. We know this is a horrible thing to say (for reasons that I'll make clear in a minute) and he immediately backtracks but the damage is there.

To be fair to Jake we see very quickly everything he's carrying when it comes to his  brother and sister, Brian and Lia. Lia is played by Abby Elliott, who we all know is the bastion of maturity on The Bear. All Her Fault is also set in Chicago but before you accuse the writers of typecasting it's very clear that Lia is Carmy in this family and at least so far doesn't have the excuse of a horrible family to cover for it. She has no filter, making everything about her including the abduction of her nephew and while she seems supportive of her brother who is forced to live in a wheelchair, we learn in the end of the second episode Brian was in a car accident – and Lia caused it.  Peter has been essentially supporting his siblings his whole adult life, mainly because of Lia. "If I take my eyes of her for a second," he tells a detective. And while there may be to the story in the first two episodes we really think this is possible.

The real problem comes when we learn who the nanny worked for Jenny Kaminski. Jenny is played by Dakota Fanning who in the last year and a half is starting to become nearly as ubiquitous on TV as Nicole Kidman. Dating back to The First Lady this is the fourth major TV project she's been in in as many years and it is by far the one where she gets to show the most depth. Jenny is a working mother herself, much like Marisa and its clear the two of them are outsiders in the private school they send their children too. Indeed their official bond in the last few weeks is when they are cornered at a school fundraiser and are told that because that they only have one child it is expected that they have to do more work then the other parents who have more. Jenny breaks down in the bathroom and its there she encounters Marissa, who is just as upset as Jenny is but angrier.

Jenny did all the vetting for Carrie the first time and when the police  come to see her she is shocked to learn that all of the people she talked to were in fact actors. Her husband equally holds her responsible – until we learn that he left the responsibility on her shoulders. And he seems more concerned about liability then anything else and seems just find putting the burden of mothering now that their nanny is a suspect in an abduction. The fact that Jenny and Marissa bond during this trauma is far from shocking, in addition to the crime that was committed they have been carrying the burden of parenting entirely by themselves.

What's just as clear is that the media is more than prepared to put the full force of their blame on both women without knowing anything. In the second episode Jenny listens to a call-in show where she is savaged by a commentator for not having a clue as to what her nanny did and at a press conference done to raise awareness the media immediately chooses to seize on the fact that her company was losing money and that her family staged this for wealth.  They have made it very clear that both of these women are not victims but monsters.

And at the end of the first episode there is a possibility they may be right. We see the two detectives investigating the case after little more than a month has passed looking at all the regulars we've seen. The last line is: "All those nice people. Killing Each Other." How many of these people are dead and who's the 'she' they're trying to break is not yet clear.

But we get a hint at the end of the second episode when we see 'Carrie' (Sophia Lillis) taking off her wig and with Milo hiding in a new condo. She's removing her wig and putting on that is black hair. A woman comes in to give her the key and it's not clear she puts it together. She's already spreading the gospel that all this was staged. "So this is all about money" "Carrie' says.

Snook is magnificent in every scene she's in but frankly so's the entire cast. Last week Lillis received a Critics Choice nomination for her work as did Michael Pena, who plays one of the detectives investigating the case.  But all of the actors especially Lacy and Elliot. The only actor of note who has not yet been given sufficient work to do is Jay Ellis who plays Colin Dobbs, a work friend who we don't know nearly enough about. The structure of flashbacks is not overused the way it often is in series like this and the writing and directing is very sharp.

In a relatively short time Peacock has proven to be nearly as good at limited series as its streaming brethren, particularly when it comes to adaptations. I saw it done in 2024 with Apples Never Fall and again this past year with Long Bright River.  The only reason the Emmys seems to be holding back against recognizing these series with nominations is their squishiness towards the service in general despite the quality of their productions. We saw that with their failure to recognize Eddie Redmayne or Day of The Jackal and Natasha Lyonne and Poker Face this past year despite the fact that the Golden Globes and other awards shows were fine recognizing them with nominations. (In Lyonne's case it happened after this year's Emmy nominations came out but the principle is the same.) It would be too easy to say that if they fail to recognize either Snook or the series next July it will be all their fault: a lot can happen in the next six months as I myself am aware. But right now Snook and the series so far look like something close to a masterpiece.

My score: 4.5 stars.

How Did The Winningest Pitchers of All Time Do On Baseball's Biggest Stage, Part 2: The Pre-Expansion Era (1920-1961)

 

Lefty Grove

1929-1931 Philadelphia Athletics 4-2 2 Saves

During the A's championship run Lefty Grove went an incredible 79-15. So it might not be that shocking that during this same period he was just as dominating and its actually more impressive when you consider how the first series went.

Because the 1929 Cubs were stacked with right-handed batters Connie Mack made the decision not to start Grove in the series and use him only in relief. Most famously he started Howard Ehmke in Game 1 who had pitched only 56 innings all year. Ehmke struck out thirteen Cubs on the way to a 3-1 victory as the A's won four games to 1. Grove pitched only 6 and a third innings in relief in Game 2 and Game 4 and saved both games, striking out ten in the course of them.

The next year against the Cardinals when Grove had gone 28-5 he started Lefty twice and pitched him once in relief. In Game 1 he pitched a complete game to beat the Cardinals 5-2.  In Game 4, despite throwing a five hitter, he lost 3-1 to Jesse Haines. The following day, however, Connie brought him in the eighth to relieve George Earnshaw and he completed a 2-0 shutout as the A's would go on to win in six.

In a rematch the following year Grove started Game 1 and again beat St. Louis 6-2. In Game 3, however, Burleigh Grimes pitched a masterful 2 hitter and Grove lost 5-2. In Game 6 facing elimination Grove won his second game in a rematch against Paul Derringer who he'd defeated in Game 1, winning 8-1. But the next day Grimes would win his second game of the series as the Cardinals won their rematch.

Grove was the first pitcher listed who was nearly as great in the World Series as he was all-time. Not only did he save two games and win one game in relief he also pitched three complete game victories.

 

Warren Spahn

Braves 1948, 1957-1958 4-3

During their drive for the 1948 pennant the chant around Boston was "Spahn, Sain and pray for rain." To be clear Sain was the more dominant pitcher in 1948 he went 24-13 to Spahn's 15-12. (Even for a pitcher like Spahn, that was a mediocre year.) He didn't do much better in the World Series against Cleveland and in fact only started one game, though he relieved in two others.

He lost his only start to Bob Lemon in Game 2 and was actually taken out in the fifth as Cleveland won 4-1. He came in as a reliever in Game 5 in the one blowout pitching 5 and 2/3 innings after Cleveland went ahead 5-3. The Braves scored 6 in the seventh to win 13-5. In Game 6 with the Braves trailing 4-1, Spahn came in to relief but the Braves couldn't quite come back and Boston would lose both the game and the series.

A decade later when the Braves were the toast of Milwaukee and baseball Spahn won the Cy Young award with 21 wins. They called him into start Game 1 against the Yankees' best Whitey Ford. Third baseman Andy Carey knocked him out in the sixth as the Yankees took Game 1, 3-1.

Spahn was back on the mound in Game 4 and he pitched what turned out to be a ten inning game. He was gifted a 4-1 lead right up to the ninth when with 2 outs he gave up a three-run homerun to Elston Howard to tie the game. The Yankees actually scored another run in the tenth but in a remarkable turn of events the Braves rallied to win 7-5 off an Eddie Matthew home run. The real hero of the World Series was Lew Burdette who won three games and pitched 24 consecutive scoreless innings to nearly match the great Christy Mathewson's unthinkable record.

The following year the Braves repeated as National League Champions with Spahn contributing 22 wins this year and once again faced the Yankees. In Game 1, he once again faced off against Whitey Ford and this time outpitched him in a ten inning match 4-3. Spahn would drive in the tying run in the eighth against ace reliever Ryne Duren.

In Game 4 Spahn pitched a masterful 2 hit shutout as the Braves went up 3 wins to one. At that point the Braves got cocky, understandably so. Spahn had said after winning the previous year the Yankees couldn't finish fifth in the National League. These remarks were echoed after Game Four and he said the last two games of the World Series would be unnecessary. But when the Yankees won Game 5 they were and Spahn came back to pitch Game 6 on two days' rest.

For the first nine innings Spahn and three other Yankee pitchers battled to a 2-2 tie. Then in the tenth Gil MacDougald hit a home run and three consecutive Yankees would drive in another run before Spahn was taken out with the Yankees ahead 4-2. However the Braves rallied, scoring one run and putting the tying run on third before Casey Stengel called in Bob Turley, who'd pitched a complete game one day earlier to get the last out. Turley retired Frank Torre and the following day the Yankees beat Lew Burdette to win 6-2 and become only the second team in baseball history to that point to come back from a 3-1 deficit to win a World Series.

The Braves would manage to tie the L.A. Dodgers for the National League Pennant the following year but lost the three game playoff in two consecutive games. This led the Dodgers to face the White Sox which brings us to…

 

Early Wynn

Cleveland Indians 1954, Chicago White Sox, 1959 1-2

Wynn is only one of a handful of players at any position to play in four different calendar decades, 1939-1963. Making his first appearance for Clark Griffith's Senators at 19, he was a superb pitcher for a truly terrible team losing 17 games and 19 games during the 1940s. In 1949 he ended up getting traded to Cleveland at age 29.

Wynn was they called a workhorse, starting 40 games four times during the four times in his career. On Cleveland he was one of four future Hall of Famers along with Bob Lemon. Bob Feller and Hal Newhouser along with such superb starters as Mike Garcia and Herb Score. Three times in his tenure he was one of three 20 games winners on Cleveland's staff. Which was great except they were playing against Casey Stengel's Yankees.

In 1954 they managed to go an incredible 111-43 to win the American League Pennant, beating the Yankees by eight games. Wynn led the American League with 23 win, innings pitched and games started. The Indians were overwhelming favored to beat the New York Giants in the World Series. If you anything about the career of Willie Mays you know how that worked out.

Attempting to recover from the upset loss in Game 1 Wynn started Game 2. He pitched a 1-0 shutout until the fifth and then Dusty Rhodes – who the previous day had won Game 1 with a pinch hit homer – pinch hit a single to tie it up. In the seventh with the Giants clinging to a 2-1 lead Rhodes hit another homer and the Giants won 3-1. The Indians never recovered, being swept in four games and never getting back to the World Series.

Wynn would be traded in 1958 to the White Sox to work with his former Cleveland manager Al Lopez.  At that point Wynn had two straight sub .500 years and was 38, so most insiders thought his best days were behind him . He shocked the baseball world by having a 22-10 season to win the Cy Young Award at 39. Even more remarkable the Go-Go Sox won the franchise first pennant in 40 years.

Wynn would start and win Game 1 over the Dodgers in impressive fashion, pitching seven shutout innings in what would be an 11-0 blowout. Unfortunately that was Wynn's highpoint in the World Series. He started both Game 4 and Game 6 and was knocked out of both of them. In the latter it came in a six run inning which would allow the Dodgers to win their first World Championship in LA.

The White Sox didn't return to the World Series until they won it all in 2005.

 

Next time we enter the era of the divisional series and see how four of the all-time greats did in it.

My Generally Pleased Reactions to the 2025 Golden Globe Nominations for TV

 

Those of you who read my columns know that throughout the years I've celebrated the Golden Globes through good times and, as we are all aware now, horrible organizational times. I've seen it have no hosts, great hosts and Ricky Gervais. And no matter how dreadful the actual ceremony could be – and in 2024 it was absolutely wretched – I've stood by it for one major reason: their awards for television.

I've never had any illusions that they were perfect and when I learned the horrors involving the late and now unlamented Hollywood Foreign Press Association I was stunned because over the 21^st century the Golden Globes had been far ahead of the curve compared to the Emmys when it came to nominating and awarding some of the greatest dramas and comedies of the era of Peak TV. They gave Best Drama to shows the Emmys never did such as Six Feet Under, Boardwalk Empire and The Shield and comedies such as Curb Your Enthusiasm, Mozart in the Jungle and The Kominsky Method. They paid tribute to performers the Emmys never recognized once for landmark performances such as Chloe Sevigny for Big Love, Katey Segal for Sons of Anarchy, Michael C. Hall for Dexter and Steve Carell for The Office and those wins are the tip of the iceberg. Both they and the Critics Choice Awards have done more to guide me towards which shows will likely be nominated for Emmys in the following year and just as often which shows should have been nominated and won in the previous year.  I may have my issues with their leadership but rarely have I had it with their winners and nominees.

Ever since the Critics Choice Awards started giving their awards for TV at the end of the year along with film (the former changed in the winter of 2015) both awards shows will usually find a consensus for which shows will be nominated in the year to come as well as the ones that are at least for the moment the early favorites. Much can change in six months – and almost certainly will – but in these two awards as well as the various guild awards which will come in the next few weeks we will get a sense of where the Emmy voters might be thinking. So let's look at the Golden Globe nominations for TV for the year 2025 as well as my reactions.

 

BEST DRAMA SERIES

Four of the shows that were nominated are in common with the Critics Choice Awards: The Diplomat, The Pitt, Pluribus and Severance. The biggest difference is two who the Critics Choice excluded and I'll be honest this was two of the biggest snubs. Slow Horses is here for Season 5 and Season 3 of The White Lotus, which was completed shutout by the Critics Choice, has the most nominations of any series with six.

I have no problem with any of the six nominees.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA

We see a common thread between the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice on five of the selections: Sterling K. Brown, Diego Luna, Mark Ruffalo, Adam Scott and Noah Wyle. Gary Oldman absolutely should have been nominated by the Critics Choice Awards instead of Billy Bob Thornton for Landsman so the Globes are actually one up on them here.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA

Again five of the six nominees share commonality with the Critics Choice: Kathy Bates, Britt Lower, Bella Ramsey, Keri Russell and Rhea Seehorn. I could quibble about Carrie Coon being excluded for The Gilded Age but since 1) she has been recognized further down and 2) the sixth nominee is Helen Mirren for her superb dark turn in Mobland which the Critics Choice Awards ignored. No notes.

 

BEST COMEDY SERIES

The Golden Globes chose to recognize The Bear which may demonstrate their old habits rather than the fourth season being deserving of awards. The other five nominees are to be expected: Abbott Elementary, Hacks, Nobody Wants This, Only Murders in the Building and The Studio. Interestingly Abbott was nominated for any other awards while Only Murders, which received just one nomination from the former group leads all comedy contenders with four. They also seem to have finally dropped the musical adage which was here for years.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Four of the six nominees were here last year: Adam Brody, Steve Martin, Martin Short and Jeremy Allan White. Seth Rogen's nomination for The Studio is no surprise; Glen Powell's for Chad Powers is because it was ignored by the Critics Choice Awards all together.

Honestly I'm inclined to think collectively this is a more realistic group of nominees then the Critics Choice Awards and since Alexander Skarsgard isn't here for Murderbot I'm more inclined to approve.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES

Kristen Bell, Jean Smart and Natasha Lyonne for Poker Face all made the cut. In all candor Selena Gomez deserved to far more than Rose McIver for Edi Peterson did by the Critics Choice. Ayo Edebiri and Jenna Ortega were almost certainly going to be here as opposed to Rose McIver. This is both a better selection then the Critics Choice Awards and a more likely group.

 

BEST LIMITED SERIES/TV MOVIE

No surprise that Adolescence and Dying for Sex are here and only a minor one that Black Mirror is representing. All Her Fault and The Girlfriend were significant forces in the Critics Choice Awards as well; I will be reviewing the former very soon and the latter down the road. The Beast in Me was expect to do better than the Critics Choice Awards did. Somewhat surprising: no presence for Sirens or Death By Lightning which did very well at the Critics' Choice.

 

BEST TV LIMITED/MOVIE ACTOR

Stephen Graham is the only Emmy nominee here. Both Charlie Hunman for Monster: The Ed Gein Story and Matthew Rhys for The Beast in Me were nominated by the Critics Choice Awards. Tellingly the two previous seasons of Monster received multiple nominations from the Golden Globes and this time Hunnam is the only nominee. The third season may have gone too far.

I am aware of Jude Law's performance in Black Rabbit and Paul Giamatti's in Black Mirror. I have never heard of The Narrow Road to the Deep North and suspect Jacob Elordi's nomination has more to do with his double-dipping for Frankenstein. That happens a lot with the Golden Globes.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A TV MOVIE/LIMITED SERIES

Michelle Williams was expected to be here and Rashida Jones was nominated for an Emmy for her work in Black Mirror. Robin Wright was nominated for The Girlfriend by the Critics Choice Awards as well as Sarah Snook for All Her Fault.

I'm thrilled to see Amanda Seyfried in the hunt for her overlooked performance in Long Bright River even if it just for double dipping same as Elordi. Claire Danes always deserves recognition and I will no doubt get to The Beast in Me down the road as well.

 

One last note: Golden Globes you really have to take a note from the last year of your predecessors and divide the Supporting Actor and Actress awards between drama/comedy and Limited Series TV movie. It's not as egregious as past years but still. Anyway.

 

BEST TV SUPPORTING ACTOR

Two nominees are present from Adolescence and The White Lotus and they're who you expected: Owen Cooper and Ashley Walters from the former and Jason Isaacs and Walton Goggins for the latter. We also see the winner is Best Drama Tramell Tillman for Severance and two time Emmy winner Billy Crudup for The Morning Show. I guess we won't get to hear: "Thank you Sal Saperstein" unless Seth Rogen wins but honestly when it comes to drama this is a better group that the Critics' Choice Awards did.

 

BEST TV SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The biggest snub in this category, perhaps the entire list of nominees for TV, is the absence of Katherine LaNassa for The Pitt. Considering she managed to win at the Emmys last September a nomination seemed a foregone conclusion, especially considering that the two other winners in Supporting Actress: Hannah Einbinder for Hacks and Erin Doherty for Adolescence were nominated. That said there's still an argument that the Golden Globes did a better job then the Critics Choice Awards to an extent, considering that they nominated Catherine O'Hara for The Studio and three actresses from The White Lotus: Carrie Coon, Parker Posey and Aimee Lou Wood, all of whom received Emmy nominations.

 

All things together this is a solid group that overall has a better sense of the Zeitgeist when it comes to TV then the Critics Choice generally does (sorry). I will confess to being surprised that Yellowjackets was skunked by both groups as well as recent series like The Lowdown. But honestly I'm looking forward to both awards shows mainly because two of my favorite comediennes Nikki Glaser and Chelsea Handler will be back at the helm for each.

Expect reviews for some of the contenders before the year ends and I'll be back with my predictions for the Golden Globes in January.

In Never Flinch Stephen King Looks At Today's Political Wars in The Most Direct Fashion - And Makes It Very Clear That He Finds Fault In Both Ends of the Political Spectrum

 

 

Author's Note: While I will be discussing Stephen King's Never Flinch in a certain amount of detail this isn't a book review in the conventional sense of the word. Rather this is about how in the novel King looks at what could be considered the extreme left and right on the most controversial of subjects and points out – remarkably to those who know his personal politics – that both sides have inspired fanatics who are more alike in their behavior and attitude towards not only their causes but the rest of the world in ways that demonstrate that, in terms of personality, they have more in common then they would ever admit.

Because I believe I can do this without spoiling the main plot of the novel, I'm not going to issue a spoiler warning save in terms of character analysis. I will speak in vague details about certain events in the novel but only to reveal what it shows about the characters involved, not the plot. Keep that in mind.

I'm very much aware of Stephen King's personal politics: he is after all a child of the 1960s, marched against the Vietnam War and has always been on the side of liberal causes. And I am very aware what he has always personally thought of the current President. That said, as someone who has essentially read every novel he's written when it comes to the politics of the characters in his books he has the same view of believers that the late Richard Jeni had: "If you're on the far right or the far left, you know what you've done. You've gone too far." This has been true of all his novels to an extent but in his most recent novel Never Flinch, which is also the latest in his novels about his breakout heroine Holly Gibney, he actually shows us a character who truly believes this with all her heart.

Holly, its worth noting, has always been liberal in her politics and indeed in her most recent book she made it clear how much she hated Trump.  But in Never Flinch we get a real sense of her true feelings when she is hired to be the bodyguard of Kate McKay an outspoken women's right activist who is ostensibly on a tour to promote her most recent book, theoretically  on a tour to defend a woman's right to choose, but really – as we learn when we first meet her and becomes clear throughout the novel – to promote the cause of Kate McKay.

Much of our insight into Kate McKay comes from her chief of staff, Corrie. At the start of the novel Corrie is the victim of an assault from a stalker who mistook her for Kate. When we meet her Corrie has been hired by Kate as an assistant because she idolizes her. She knows from the start Kate is 'a monster of ego' but she also learns that Kate only seems to hire people who idolize her. After she is assaulted by the stalker Kate says the appropriate words of consolation but at their next speech she brings Corrie onstage as a prop point. After it Corrie realizes she's been used and she has a very clear picture of who her boss is. When she tries to do the work to help protect Kate she knows something simple: Kate doesn't like anyone telling her what to do.

As the stalking becomes more serious Corrie hires protection in various forms for Kate but at the end of the Kate rejects them because safety is less important to her then optics. We get the clearest sense of who she is when a tour date is cancelled in Buckeye City for a blues singer named Sista Bessie (more on that below) and Kate uses the worst obscenities in the book – including the kinds of works that are frowned upon when men use them. She clearly wants to scream and rant at Buckeye City for their cowardice but she chooses not to because Sista Bessie is black (her words) and she is white. Only the politics of the issue cause to her calm down. (We never learn the racial makeup of the crowds at Kate McKay's rallies but they seem to be dominated by white people more than minorities. By this point Corrine is beginning to dislike Kate actively and she thinks if the tour reaches its natural end (it doesn't) she will end up loathing her.

Eventually Corrine hires Holly. Holly has been following the case academically but even though she's never been hired as a bodyguard before she decides to do it for money and perhaps to learn a new skill. The reader knows that this is a job Holly is more than overqualified for (by the time The Outsider was over we had full confidence she could handle anything thrown at her). Holly has doubts and decides to do it "assuming Kate McKay doesn't come across as an arrogant poophead'. (One of the endearing qualities about Holly Gibney is that she refrains from foul language and it bothers her when people swear but she never shows it.) The irony is the reader knows that Kate is exactly that but Holly decides to stick to her guns. Kate will be lucky because of this but Holly very quickly regrets it.

It takes Corrine months to realize just how horrible Kate McKay is. Holly realizes it in a matter of days. You get the feeling the longer the job goes on she would be more inclined to resign but the reason she stays is out of sympathy for Corrine more than Kate. The main difference is that Holly's work involves clients who respect her opinion and Kate regards her as 'an employee'.

Very quickly Holly comes to realize that Kate is being stalked by someone who is part of a religious cult and while I won't try to spoil details about who and how it is worth noting discussing the man who hired the stalker is very much in the Falwell-Pat Robertson mold  The leader is very much involved in the deep state narrative, believes doctors or part of it and is more fundamentalist than most. He has no problem manipulated the stalker for his own ends and while the stalker knows that he has been sent on a mission that will almost certainly end in his death, there's a part of him that is more committed to the cause then his handler.

The irony is that as the novel progresses we are inclined to see both the Reverend who sent the killer on this mission and Kate McKay as two sides of the same coin. Neither has any use for human life aside from what it can do to benefit their cause and the further we get in the novel we are led to doubt that maybe even Kate herself is only using everything involving abortion as a means for self-promotion. She poses for pictures besides the collateral damage of her accidents the same way the church uses media to promote its agenda. And the Reverend believes his faith protects him the same way Kate believes her celebrity does. Late in her job Holly thinks coldly: "This woman is begging to be assassinated" unaware that just a few pages later her stalker will have reached the exact same conclusion.

By the time the novel gets to Buckeye City Holly knows exactly who is stalking Kate and that she may very well be in town. When she tries to alert the media to stop the assassin – something that will save lives and other people – Kate clamps down so hard on Holly's shoulder to leave bruises. The possibility of her death bothers her less then being cancelled by the politicians:

"Every time I go onstage somebody wants to kill me, and its probably just a matter of time before someone tries it. Do you understand that?" Kate's smile is positively feral. Holly is speechless. So is Corrie."

When Holly tells Kate that the cops will likely think of her is bait its Holly's turn to smile the most humorless smile possible – she can't do feral. By this point the only reason the reader wants Kate to live is because we know the death will do countless amounts of devastation to Holly.

There is a press conference that proceeds the climax of the novel and the local broadcaster actually asks Kate a question about how she justifies the risk not only to herself but to her audience.

Kate begins her speech about women's rights but in the middle of it the broadcaster parrots her own words back at her. The laughter puts her off her game but she finishing her spiel. The broadcaster is unfazed: "You didn't answer my question." When another reporter asks her if there's an attack and people are killed Kate is less polite: "No matter how that sort of question is answered, it gives the accusation credence." Kate makes it clear that either way she doesn't care if anyone lives or dies.

It's worth remarking on the contrast of Sista Bessie, a blues singers who's been around for decades and who is about to give a comeback tour in Buckeye City.  We spend as much time with Sista Bessie as we do with Kate and the contrast couldn't me more striking. Sista Bessie is clearly beloved by all of the people who have been around her for decades, and instantly gleams on to Barbara Robinson, whose been part of Holly Gibney's entourage since Finders Keepers.  The two of them instantly cotton to each other and at one point Sista Bessie takes Barbara around the city to a carnival, ostensibly to work on the song, mainly for the two of them to have fun together. Holly will meet Sista Bessie late in the novel and she instantly likes her.

The people on the tour have a very simple opinion of Kate McKay, calling her 'the women's libber'.  Kate would no doubt prefer the term political activist but there's a more subtle point: the people on this tour almost all of them African-Americans and much older than Kate might very well agree with her on her issues in an abstract sense but they are also old enough to know that people like Kate McKay come and go, thinking that they are hot shit and eventually being passed by.  All of them are aware of what the cause that she is fighting for (and in fact a battle is being fought out blocks from it) but they think that for both sides, it's more or less an abstraction.

Perhaps most critical is that at the end of the novel both Kate and Sista Bessie end up facing a threat from a killer who is targeted someone close to them. I won't reveal the full details but their reactions will no doubt interest you.

Kate believes that she has the ability to talk down anyone and can deal with violence but when faced with a person who makes it clear he has no use for her celebrity she is struck dumb. She also thinks that despite the fact Holly saved her life earlier in the book that there's no way she can handle this killer. Holly knows otherwise: "This is no pundit's forum on CNN or MSNBC." And she's right the minute Kate walks in the door she's beaten to a pulp and trussed and tied up to be killed.

And it's worth noting that we get a sense of Kate's thoughts near the climax of the novel:

"Kate has been afraid of death ever since she first saw shooting targets with her face on them for sale on the internet. That fear has been mostly academic, mitigated by the understanding if it comes, her death will be a rallying cry. What she never expected was to be taken by some random crazy person with no political axe to grind, a man to whom she means nothing more than one more victim in a killing spree."

By this point we get the feeling that it is this fact more than the actual death itself that truly bothers Kate, that she's going to die the same death as two women who she has spent her life advocating for but clearly thinks she's above because she's famous.

Sista Bessie's reaction when confronted by the same killer using the exact same methodology is by contrast lucid and rational in a way that Kate – and the killer themselves – isn't. She asks questions that it never occurs to Kate ask. Sista Betty then thinks about what's coming and makes a plan. She thinks it will fail and expects to die one way or the other, but she isn't bothered by this really. What matters more is saving the life of her friend.

Indeed it takes a lot more time for her to make her plan, she realizes what the problems are and she is seems more certain of the flaws in it.  And its worth noting that unlike Kate she realizes her limitations – and because of it she ends up saving the day.

There's one last subtle commentary that I think King is making: unlike Kate McKay who is polarizing and doesn't care about who she pisses off, Sista Bessie is universally loved and admired in a way Kate never will be even if she becomes President. (Holly rejects that idea: "Kate's too focused on her own cause to ever be elected.") On the day of the climactic events of the novel there's a speech being given by Kate at the local theater that while heavily attended, dwarfs the 82,000 people who have come to a charity baseball game to hear Sista Bessie sing the National Anthem as much as anything else. I may be reading too much into this but perhaps there's a subtle commentary there as well: that at the end of the day all of the things that both sides of the political aisle think are life or death matters (and they are more then willing to kill for it) really don't matter as much in the grand scheme of things as they believe. Given the choice to advocate for a political issue or go a ballgame and hear a retired singer belt out the national anthem, people preferred to go out to the game. To be sure both events end in violence (though how and why I won't reveal here) but the larger point prevails.

And I do know what Holly thinks at the end of the book. The experience with Kate has turned her off ever being a bodyguard again but given a chance to hang out with Sista Bessie later makes her smile and cheer. She might agree with Kate when it comes to politics (but looking at her I don't think she does) but when it comes down to it she sees no difference between the positions Kate McKay takes on one side and those of her opponents on the other. As she'd put it, they're equally poopy.  I also know that the last image we have of her is when she thinks about seeing Sista Bessie she smiles and according to King 'the years fall away and she's young again.'

Of course that's not King's final image of the book but it's one I'd like to think is a larger lesson for not just his readers but all of us. The world may be a horrible place much of the time (and that's before you consider the usual monsters who inhabit King's fiction) and it may seem hopeless. But considering how much of this is beyond our control maybe it's not a bad thing that at the end of the day most of us would prefer to turn the news off, unplug from the political debates and either catch a ball game or see live music. The fights that are being fought in the arena seem urgent but they did fifty years ago as King and his characters know. And maybe they only matter to a relative few and the rest of us have just tuned them out because we've accepted that there's only so much we can do. Maybe most of us know that the people who claim to have our best interests at heart, whether they are the Kate McKay's or the religious leaders, only really care about them in relationship to themselves. Maybe most of us are smarter than both sides think – and we've decided that they're both equally stupid. That's the conclusion Holly Gibney's reached by the end of Never Flinch and while I don't know if King holds with it (he very well may not) I agree with her positions and love her even more for having them. Even more then before she is the hero we need right now.

My Joyous As Always Reactions to the 2025 Critics Choices TV Nominations

 

 

There are times the longer I do this that I have reasons to doubt the profession I specialize in. With so many of my fellow professional critics taking an increasingly elitist approach to film and television – really everything – it can often become difficult for me to maintain my objectivity. So many times with each passing year I find it harder not to give in to the narrative of criticism being out of touch and everything else they are called.

And then when we get closer to the end of the year and groups like the Critics Choice Awards meet and give their annual nominations my faith in their judgment and my choice of profession are restored and I regain the enthusiasm and energy that is usually flagging by the end of the year.

I have made no secret that I truly believe that since they began giving awards for television in 2010 the Critics Choice Awards have been the gold standard when it comes to both nominated and giving awards to the best television the industry has to offer.  As much as the Golden Globes the Critics Choice Awards have been the guiding hand they I use to decide which TV shows to follow going in an always crowded field and it is rare that they have ever steered me wrong. What's more historically they tend to recognize those series and actors that can be overlooked and underappreciated by the Emmys, though in recent years the Emmys has managed to catch up and even occasionally surpass them.

They gave The Americans Best Drama three times and Better Call Saul the grand prize in its final season. They gave nominations to such masterpieces as Reservation Dogs and Somebody Somewhere every season they were on the air before the Emmys caught up in the final seasons of each. They have led me in the right direction when it comes to such limited series masterpieces as Black Bird and Lessons in Chemistry. And they will often nominate dramas and comedies the Emmys never will such as The Leftovers, Rectify and Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Sometimes their shows are overshadowed  by the time the Emmy nominations come out months later – as was the case for Day of the Jackal – but I've never regretted seeing any of their selections the way I occasionally have with the Emmys or Golden Globes over the years.

To be sure they have their foibles and quirks: there are some series like Slow Horses that never truly register on their radar. And they are far from perfect both in what shows and actors they include as well as exclude. But over the years I've come to view that is a virtue rather than a sin. So I was waiting with eager anticipation for the nominations to come out this afternoon. And as always they didn't let me down.

Officially Emmy Watch 2026 began earlier this week with both the Indie Spirits nominations and a couple of other groups. I will get to them in due time but for now let's just soak in what the Critics have wrought.  Let us begin with Drama.

 

BEST DRAMA

Here we see four of the major contenders from 2024-2025: Andor, Paradise, Severance and The Pitt. The Diplomat was nominated for Best Drama but this is for Season 3.

Two of the newcomers are not a shock: Pluribus and Task. The third one is Alien: Earth. This is an outlier because it received no other nominations.

I should mention that The White Lotus was shutout but that's not that surprising because its never done that well with the Critics Choice Awards no matter what category its in. The Last oi Us exclusion is a little surprising but it is recognized below.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

Here we see three of the contenders from last year – Sterling K. Brown for Paradise, Adam Scott for Severance and Noah Wyle for The Pitt. Diego Luna, who many thought was overlooked for Ander by the Emmys, is present here.

Mark Ruffalo leaps into contention with his expected nomination for Task. I'm surprised to see Billy Bob Thornton here for Landsman rather than Gary Oldman or Ethan Hawke for The Lowdown but honestly this is a good group.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES

They nominated Carrie Coon! For the right series. Here she is for The Gilded Age. Also overjoyed to see Rhea Seehorn up for her work in Pluribus. The other four were all present at the Emmy nominations this fall: Kathy Bates, Britt Lower, Bella Ramsey and Keri Russell. No notes.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES

Here I do have some notes but they may be more due to not having seen all the nominees. First good to see Tom Pelphrey in the hunt for Task. Tramell Tillman won the Emmy and Billy Crudup has always done well in this category for The Morning Show. (He's previously won twice, each time presaging an Emmy win.) Patrick Ball, in all fairness, should have been nominated for his work in The Pitt.

Ato Essandoh's work on The Diplomat has always been solid and I'm fine with Wood Harris getting nominated. I just find it odd to see no one from The White Lotus here, particularly because Walton Goggins has always gotten a lot of recognition from the Critics Choice Awards.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A DRAMA SERIES

They nominated another actress from The Gilded Age. I mean I would have preferred Christine Baranski but Denee Benton is fabulous. Katherine LaNasa more than earned and I'm thrilled to see Skye P. Marshall recognized again (are you listening Emmy judges) and I'm thrilled to see Allison Janney back for The Diplomat (ditto)

I will never understand the fascination these people have for The Morning Show. I guess Nicole Beharie and Greta Lee are great in it (they're great in everything I've seen them in) but it's odd to see them recognized and not Reese Witherspoon or Jennifer Aniston. Oh well.

 

Now let's move on to Comedy. And a big note the Broadcast Critics are done with The Bear. Whether it’s a comedy or a drama they have no patience for it. However…well, you'll see.

 

BEST COMEDY SERIES

Some of last year's faces are here again: Abbott Elementary, Hacks, Only Murders in the Building, The Studio and the new favorite of the Critics Season 2 of Nobody Wants This. (I will be reviewing it for my blog soon, thank you critics.) Ghosts has always been a critics favorite.

Elsbeth decided to take a swing and is apparently trying to be nominated as a comedy.  Honestly if you've watched this show for the last two years I think we can argue it has a much better definition then The Bear ever did. I approve. And in keeping with their recognition of series that are overlooked in their final season the Critics Choice chose to honor The Righteous Gemstones. The big surprise is that it's taken them this long considering how big a fan they were of Vice Principals, a previous David Gordon Green=Danny McBride joint.  No notes and I hope the Emmys follow along.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Seth Rogen and Adam Brody totally deserve to be here as do Ted Danson for Man on the Inside, David Alan Grier for St. Denis Medical and probably Danny McBride for Righteous Gemstones. But seriously? Alexander Skarsgard for Murderbot over Steve Martin and Martin Short for Only Murders?  Oh well.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY SERIES

Kristin Bell and Jean Smart are here as they should be. And even though Poker Face is cancelled the Critics chose to do what the Emmys wouldn't and nominated Natasha Lyonne. I don't think anyone should pretend Carrie Preston doesn't belong in the Comedy category for Elsbeth.

Rose McIver has been coming her for Ghosts for a while and I'm glad to see Edi Patterson recognized for Righteous Gemstones. I would have loved to see Selena Gomez or Quinta Brunson here but the latter has gotten her share of recognition already.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY

Thank you Sal Saperstein! Ike Barinholtz may get the prize he didn't get at the Emmys.  Chris Perfetti and Paul W. Downs, both overlooked at the Emmys for acting last year, are in the fight. Timothy Simons deserves to get nominated for his work in Nobody Wants This.

I suppose I could hem and haw about Walton Goggins being ignored for playing Baby Billy in Righteous Gemstones but considering how many nominees for Supporting Actor are ineligible for these awards I'm find with Oscar Nunez for The Paper and Asher Grodman for Ghosts..

 

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY

Okay I'm fine with Hannah Einbinder and Janelle James, overjoyed with Justine Lupe here for Nobody Wants This and I can make some accord for Ego Nwodim (we have to have an SNL nominee). But nothing for Catherine O'Hara or Kathryn Hahn for The Studio?  Rebecca Wisocky I'm fine with for Ghosts but Danielle Brooks for Peacemaker? Oh well. Better them than Liza Colon-Zayas.

 

BEST LIMTIED SERIES

As you'd expect Adolescence and Dying for Sex are here. But there are some new nominees, some of which may play into the Emmys for what's to come.

The major contenders among them are Netflix's Death By Lightning and All Her Fault both of which have been highly praised and which I will review in the days and weeks to come. Chief Of War may see him nominations and its hard to know what they'll do with Devil in Disguise or The Girlfriend. Dope Thief is from last year and I'm somewhat shocked to see it ahead of Sirens  though I'm glad its hear ahead of Ed Gein.  (Though as you'll see both were recognize to an extent.)

I should also mention Outstanding TV movie nominated Bridget Jones: Mad about the Boy and Mountainhead because they play into what's below.

 

BEST ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE

Stephen Graham and Bryan Tyree Henry, both of whom were nominated last year are present. The other four faces may contend in the following months.

We see Charlie Hunnam for playing the title role in The Ed Gein Story and Michael Chernus for playing the title role in Devil IN Disguise. Michael Shannon is in the hunt for playing James Garfield in Death By Lightning and Matthew Rhys is up for Netflix's The Beast in Me.  Since the majority are for limited series I have yet to see I'll withhold comment until I do.

 

BEST ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE

Two of last year's contenders in the Emmys are present: Michelle Williams for Dying For Sex and Meghann Fahy for Sirens. Renee Zellweger, who many though would be nominated for Bridget Jones is here.

Sarah Snook is her for All Her Fault while Robin Wright is nominated for The Girlfriend. Jessica Biel is up for The Better Sister, which was eligible for last year's Emmys. I approve of the first three and I'll withhold judgment on the latter.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE

As you'd expect Owen Cooper and Ashley Walters are here for Adolescence. Less expected, but welcome, two nominees are from projects of last year: Wagner Moura is present for Dope Thief and Ramy Youseff for Mountainhead. Michael Pena is up for All Her Fault and Nick Offerman for his work as Chester Arthur in Death By Lightning.

 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A LIMITED SERIES OR TV MOVIE

Again Erin Doherty and Christine Tremarco are here for Adolescence. I'm thrilled to see Julianne Moore nominated for her work in Sirens.  I'm always glad to see Betty Gilpin nominated for anything (this is her fourth consecutive nomination from the Critics Choice Awards) and she's here for Death by Lightning.

I'll withhold my judgment on Sophia Lillis's work in All Her Fault and Marin Ireland's in Devil In Disguise.  My only disappointment – if you could call it that – is that neither Jenny Slate nor Rob Delaney were nominated for Dying For Sex. Otherwise I'm basically fine.

 

The remainder of the categories in play I don't have enough knowledge to comment or if I do I'm going to remain silent. I will say I am thrilled to see Brett Goldstein nominated for Best Comedy Special.

 

That's all for now. I'll be back with the second part of Phase One of Emmy Watch 2026 on Monday when the Golden Globe nominations are announced. The Critics Choice Awards are scheduled for January 4^th and I'll have my predictions (and hopes) on January 2^nd.