the end of torture porn?; the end of the Internet?; what TV viewers want more of (and what they're going to get instead); more: leftover links

Television got very reflexive in the 1980s in the UK, with more and more programmes being made about the production of television, about what it was like to be an actor, and so on. People working in television very often assume that their lives are endlessly fascinating to everyone else. However, I think Quigley's article gets it wrong: it's not that there are no more ideas, it's that Hollywood backers won't fund anything that doesn't come with a franchise attached. (Hence the boardgame movies. Hence the films of TV series from thirty and forty years ago.)

I've never got the point of torture porn, so I can't see why those who do might turn away from it.

The MPAA has been a joke for more than thirty years (and that's just how long I've been paying attention). Why should anyone be surprised that they're wildly inconsistent and favour those who give them most money? That's what organisations do unless they're thoroughly reined in.

Second rule of authors: never reply to your critics. It just makes you look silly.

No, Leo Hunter has not "landed a book deal". He, or a supposedly responsible adult such as his mother, has paid to have his books published. I could pay to have 23 books published if I wanted to; there's no literary merit necessary for that. Strategic Book Company is a vanity press, and as with all such it violates the first rule of authors: money flows towards the writer. The only news here is that SBC is prepared to take a lot of money from a woman who should have known better.

There's a simple solution to there being less money available to make TV drama: make less TV drama! A few good shows instead of lots of boring mediocre ones. But of course everyone wants his slice of the pie, even if it's just a couple of crumbs.