I know the Carver is supposed to be revealed tomorrow night and, since I haven't seen the season finale, I'm mildly interested in finding out who it is. (My upset special: Liz.) I've been watching the show closely for the last few weeks, but feeling bad about doing so.

"Nip/Tuck" is capable of great shocks, and nervy scenes. Last week's Christmas episode showed that when it had the African-American nativity figure being dragged by a car. How many buttons was that pushing? But it's also a show that gets weak-kneed at crucial moments, or that ADD-like drops a topic and moves on without a glance back. In last week's telecast, it abruptly dismantled the story of Matt's white-supremacist girlfriend by just deciding to have her go completely bonkers. She was much more frightening, and interesting, when she was bringing Matt ever closer to her way of thinking. The sudden fit of madness just cut the story short.

Think, too, of Christian's recent relationship with the self-described masochist. She's there, he's involved with her, she's gone. Huh? And then there was the biggest cop-out of the season, the death/not-death of Julia's mother. I watched that unfold, thinking that they couldn't kill her off because she has been such a good character (not to mention that you get to watch Vanessa Redgrave work, and opposite her real-life daughter, no less). And, of course, they couldn't.

Oh, I still watch, more than I like to admit. And the next day or so at work, I'm going over plot twists with a "Nip/Tuck"-watching co-worker. But the show is so full of misery and its characters' self-loathing that it often leaves a bitter feeling behind, usually without any redeeming uplift. In the Christmas episode, I found myself snarling at the screen as Sean again and again did his hesitation-instead-of-action bit; when he sat in the clinic, I was almost screaming, "Oh, be a man!"

And then he acted. And I should have felt great about it. Instead, I was thinking that it took him long enough to get off his duff. And "Nip/Tuck" is too often like Sean — on the verge of something great, then pulling back. I even suspect something along those lines about the Carver. As I said to a reader earlier today, revealing the Carver's identity is not the same as getting rid of the character.

Well, it looks as if I am going to have to do another piece on odd Christmas music for the Beacon Journal next year. The 2005 one has been picked up by newspapers around the country and brought all sorts of enthusiastic e-mails; one gentleman sent a list of his more obscure fare along with a promise to forward his discography of Liberace's Christmas recordings.

Other folks mentioned a John Denver tune I had never  heard of, and one by Robert Earl Keen. One reader reminded me of "Christmas Card From a Hooker in Minneapolis," a Tom Waits ditty I actually own, on vinyl no less. (If you can't find the song, which was originally on his "Blue Valentine" album, see if you can at least hunt down the lyrics.)

Thanks, too,  to Dusty and Barb & Katie for including me in the recipients of their 2005 Christmas CD sampler. Thumbs up to the Manic Hispanics' "Santa Got Run Over by My Chevy," Steve Goodie's Christmas carol medley, the Alice Project's "Regifting for the Holidays," Box Car Willie's "Hee Haw Honey" and Relient K's "Hallelujah Chorus."

These suggestions had me thinking of other things, and digging deeper into my collection. The Relient K cut made me remember that every holiday I dig out the "Hallelujah Chorus" from "Handel's Messiah: A Soulful Celebration."

The CD also included a Fairfield Four cut, and that made me want to play (again) the Blind Boys of Alabama's Christmas CD. And I've been thinking about "Holiday Love," by Sounds of Blackness, one of the high points in an interesting album.

Kathy Mattea's "Baby King" reminded me of Wynonna's version of "Let's Make a Baby King." When I was digging around in my cassettes, I came across the odd and endearing "What If Mozart Wrote 'Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas'?" by the Hampton String Quartet — classically styled standards. And Dread Zeppelin's "All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth."

And I can't ignore Bridget Ball & Christopher Shaw. While their "Mountain Snow and Mistletoe" album included Chris's own "Ten Dollar Christmas," I keep going back to it for their version of Karla Bonoff's "Home." As they say in the liner notes, "Home is where Christmas is the way you remember it."

So, as I said, lots of material for a 2006 story. If you have suggestions of your own, post them now and avoid the rush next year.

My friend and colleague Diane Werts has written a new book about Christmas on television. It's one of those "gee, I wish I thought of it" ideas, and one that Diane has been working on for years, and a topic that could call for regular, newly updated editions of the book.

When she gets around to a new edition, I hope she gives all praise to the Christmas episode of "Everbody Hates Chris," which was about as realistic a portrayal of the holiday season as you can find in a TV show.

For those of you who missed it — and you have a second chance to see it at 8 p.m. Monday — it has Chris wanting a special gift for Christmas. But the family has an unexpected expense and can't afford it. Gifts have already been bought for Chris's brother and sister, so they won't suffer, but Chris has to be satisfied with an explanation of why he won't get his gift.

So what happens? Chris handles it. He accepts his situation, even puts on a positive face for the rest of the family. And — this may be the best part — he still doesn't get the gift. There's no phony-baloney, present-from-heaven ending on this. He just doesn't get it. In fact, the show ends with a moment of charity that is so wrong-headed to Chris's family, you can see that they don't mind doing without some things; they're still proud of what they have managed.

It's great stuff. There are also some laughs along the way, and a subplot about Chris's sister that is nicely handled, but I keep coming back to how well the show deals with Chris not getting the gift. (The replay on Monday is also the first of four "Chris" replays this week, at 8 p.m. Monday through Thursday, so you have several chances to see the show if you haven't already.)

In doing so, it avoids a mistake a lot of shows make. They assume that there has to be a big, sentimental payoff, a gratification of a wish, a reward for a good deed. Life doesn't always work that way. We have to find our happiness in the life we have, and in the emotions we feel, and not in the stuff we get.

There's an old Richard Pryor routine about — as well as I can remember it — a mean dog. And one day, when Pryor is feeling bad, the dog actually feels Pryor's pain and is momentarily sympathetic. But the dog also warns Pryor that, the next day, he's going to be back on Pryor's case. Christmas is like that, too. We get a day that should be warm and fuzzy, but the next day, we're back to our old lives. So we have to forget about the stuff and hold onto those feelings that will carry us through the day after Christmas, and the day after that.

I mean, "It's a Wonderful Life" is the best Christmas movie ever made, and it has that happy ending, but like a lot of Frank Capra's work, it doesn't pretend that the world is suddenly all better. George Bailey has gotten out of a jam, but the savings & loan will still struggle. Potter is still out there, spinning his webs (and now he has some of the Bailey money to spin them with). George's vision of his impact on the world is also a reminder of how easily things can fall apart for people. But George has a good heart, and a strong will, and they will help him get through any struggle.

Chris's family is also strong and good. Their life is not perfect, but they have the hope, love and determination to get through bad times — and to make even the bad times feel pretty good.

I took Friday off from work but did plan to blog here and there. Unfortunately, Typepad was jammed almost all of the day, so I couldn't post, even though I had the urge several times. I was finally back late Friday, and I was able to post the note about John Spencer.

I didn't want to post anything else for some time after that, because I wanted Spencer to have the top of the blog for awhile. It may seem like a weird way to show respect, but it was what I did. I'm still feeling the loss. I had lunch with my older son on Saturday, and one of the things we talked about was Spencer, because my son's a big "West Wing" fan, too, and especially liked Spencer's work.

But I do have some other things I've been meaning to talk about, like the fine holiday episodes of "Everybody Hates Chris" and "Grey's Anatomy," and why "Joey" keeps falling just short of being really good, and maybe some more about Christmas songs, since I have been getting e-mails from a lot of places where that story ended up running. I'll try to add a few things later today. And the supporting actor story has run and you can find it here. The bold type in it is messed up for some reason, but you should be able to follow the text.

Word reached me a little while ago that John Spencer of "The West Wing" has died. It's quite a blow. You can see my admiration of his work and his character in my recent "Journey of Leo McGarry" post. I also had a chance to talk to John several times over the years, and not just about "The West Wing," and he was one of the nicest guys in the world. At the moment, I don't know what "West Wing" will do without Leo, and I pretty much don't care. Instead, I'm saddened by the loss of such a terrific actor, and glad I had the chance to know him a little.

(Update Thursday morning: The column is done. Thank you to everyone who offered suggestions.)

As I mentioned in the "team players" posting below, I'm writing a piece about favorite supporting actors on prime-time TV shows.

I'm focusing on shows that premiered in 2005, or on new actors who joined returning shows. (You can find a longer explanation in that previous posting.) Several people have e-mailed suggestions to rheldenfels@thebeaconjournal.com . You can do likewise, or simply post your ideas as a comment here. I'm writing the story tomorrow, so this is your last chance to talk up your favorites.

At the office today, one of my friends offered an occasional chant of "no Weavers no Weavers," borrowed from the game-show mantra "no Whammies." And, as I've said more than once, I have wanted to cry out "Down go Weavers."

I could have said it tonight, but didn't feel the need anymore. My friend's chant worked. The nicer people prevailed on "Amazing Race" tonight: The Linz family in first, Bransens second and the Weavers in third. Nor did it appear that the Weavers were greeted with more than polite applause from other competitors, and my wife noted that you didn't see a lot of Weaver-hugging at the end, when the other teams all seemed cordial to each other.

I couldn't be happier with the outcome. What was often a not-great "Amazing Race" — no really exotic locales, a cumbersome four-person team structure — galvanized viewers like me by making us hate the Weavers.

As much as I disliked Rob & Amber on the last "Race," I disliked the Weavers more. Their prayerful talk was constantly undercut by their nastiness about the other teams, for one thing. ("They give Christians a bad name," my office friend said awhile back. She's a churchgoing Christian, too. And so am I.) They were quitters, including on tonight's telecast, when the Weaver mother seemed ready to pack it in long before the race was over. They were smug when ahead, whiny when behind…

You get the point. Even more to the point, it's important to me that nice people win "The Amazing Race." I still like to think of it as the purest of the reality shows, and one that people often seem genuinely happy to be a part of. So I was content with a win by either Team Linz or Team Bransen, since they found the joy in the game — and bonded with each other. (My wife, on the other hand, rooted for the Linzes from the beginning.) So a one-two Linz-Bransen finish was just fine. (And it was even nicer that the Bransens won the car in that bonus challenge shown online, one that I never would have been able to manage. I doubt I could remember which state was which on the map, let alone put all the icons in the right place.)

I suppose there will be some complaining about the way the Linzes and Bransens shared information while cutting out the Weavers. But I have to wonder if that alliance would have formed if the Weavers hadn't been so hostile and nasty along the way.

The Weavers drove the Linzes and Bransens together (and most likely would have faced some double-teaming no matter who else was competing against them). As I've said before, I hope that when the Weavers look at the tapes of the show, they get a little better idea of how they behaved. And that maybe instead of just talking all that Christian talk, they'll make more of an effort to walk the walk.

I'm working on a list of great supporting performers on TV shows. Feel free to contribute in the comment section below. (Hello to everyone who has linked over from TV Tattle and from AVS Forum. And thanks to the Forum for recommending your participation here.)

Here are the rules. I'm not interested in lead characters, but supporting ones. So, if a show is called "Everybody Hates Chris," don't suggest the guy who plays Chris.

I'm only interested in characters/actors on shows that premiered this year (for example, Neil Patrick Harris on "How I Met Your Mother") or brand-new characters in returning shows (example: Charisma Carpenter on "Veronica Mars"). Although the people should work well in an ensemble, they get extra points if you're watching a show for them instead of for the lead. (My colleague Alan Sepinwall has an interesting take on that issue, which he calls Herskozwickitis.)

Among the people I've been thinking about are Terry Crews and Tichina Arnold, who play Chris's parents on  "Everybody Hates Chris," Ethan Suplee and Jaime Pressly on "My Name Is Earl," Harris, Jason Segel and Alyson Hannigan on "How I Met Your Mother" and Carpenter on "Veronica Mars." Also, everyone on "Kitchen Confidential" except Bradley Cooper — not that he's bad, just that he's the lead.

And yes, I know that there's a "Buffy" all-supporting squad there, with Hannigan, Carpenter and Nicholas Brendon from "KC." You might even throw in David Boreanaz, who is very good on "Bones," but is kind of a co-lead (prominently pictured in "Bones" promotional material). I'd give more consideration to Michaela Conlin, Eric Millegan and T.J. Thyne on the show.

You can either endorse some of those choices in your comments, or offer suggestions of your own. Please include why you're making your picks. I may then use some of your comments in the story — duly credited, of course. You can also e-mail ideas to me at rheldenfels@thebeaconjournal.com.

Thanks in advance.

"The West Wing" has been about a lot of people. President Bartlet, a little-seen figure in the series pilot, has constantly stepped center-stage. Josh has had a lot of emotional moments, and I hope we haven't seen the last of Toby. But when we sit down to write the complete history of "The West Wing," Leo should be at the center.

We saw that again Sunday night, where Leo was featured not only as a vice-presidential candidate but as the ultimate Democratic party pro, always the smartest guy in the room when the issue is politics, the one man who can validate anyone and end any argument. Yes, there is a huge fantasy at work in the show, including the idea that someone with Leo's terrible past could end up getting the vice-presidential candidate. But even that selection played off the notion that, if anyone had to hold the hand of an underdog and maverick presidential nominee in a rough campaign, then Leo was the one to do it.

Can't say I really liked Sunday's episode, and not just because I'm watching it in HD, which has been brutal to Mary McCormack. Entertaining stuff here and there, including Josh's tortured expression and Barlet's phone tantrum. And every time John Spencer, who plays Leo, gets onscreen with Martin Sheen as Bartlet, it's just a joy to watch.

But the campaign stories are still much more interesting than anything the White House has going now; the show keeps having to pound war drums, like a real-life president trying to get attention by starting a war somewhere. So for all the wedding business, I wanted to be back in the rooms with Josh and Santos — and, of course, Leo.

Television can be like a scrapbook, and not a well organized one. Think of the channels as different pages holding bits of your past, little reminders that you  either seek out or come across without expecting them.

When you do what I do, that scrapbook can be even more startling, because over the last 20-plus years I have been in the presence of a lot of actors who have since died.

Some of them are people I have talked to directly. The other day I was channel-hopping and glimpsed a movie with Gregory Hines. In 1997 he starred in a sitcom for CBS. The show had some good things, but was not successful, lasting only one season. Still, I remember talking to Hines at a CBS party, and enjoying the conversation, and so feeling a deeper pang of sadness when Hines died in 2003.

All of this leads up to "Peter Jennings Reporting: Breakdown — America's Health Insurance Crisis," which airs Thursday on ABC. As you all know, Peter Jennings is dead. This program consists of reporting he did before being diagnosed with lung cancer; Jennings is seen on-camera during interviews, although his health problems kept him from narrating the special.

The documentary is solid enough, and I expect to have something about it in the Beacon Journal later this week. But I couldn't help watching it on a couple of different levels.

One, of course, was a serious news documentary — the sort of thing ABC News is promising to keep doing even if Jennings himself is gone. (At least, that's what Charles Gibson says at the end of the special. Gibson, who reportedly came close to getting Jennings's job after the anchorman's death, also introduces the program.)

The other, though, involved watching just Jennings, whom I had met and interviewed here and there over the years. I thought again about the man, and how he might have been happy that people got another reminder that he loved his work. And — couldn't help myself — I looked for signs of the health crisis he was about to face. During one interview, he seems to struggle for breath for a moment, and does so again later in the same interview. Is that it? I wondered. Is that a sign of what he is about to face?

Some of you may look at the show in the same way, and some of you may tune in just because it's a last, lingering look at Jennings. I know that's a big reason why I watched it. I don't review a lot of news specials, after all. But I felt the need to turn to this page in the TV scrapbook.

There was a Christmas music concert at my church tonight, so I didn't get home until about 9, just in time to see Lydia voted out. (Thank goodness for football overruns.) The only remaining suspense involved the last immunity challenge and whom Stephenie might take with her to the final if she won immunity. But if either Rafe or Danni won, taking Stephenie seemed a no-brainer; she had enough enemies on the jury to put her at a huge disadvantage against anyone else, and it's been that way for several weeks.

So all of Danni's agonizing after she won immunity seemed pointless, and Rafe's "I release you from your PROMISE" gambit was transparent. The smart move was to take Stephenie. So Danni did, and it paid off for her. The jury deliberations made clear there were at least four votes against Steph that were unmoving, and only sure vote for her (Rafe's). So it was just a question of how big a blowout it could be.

Not that I let myself rest entirely. I kept waiting for one of those stunning twists where everyone goes, shoot, Stephenie played "Survivor" exactly the way you're supposed to play it, so why not vote for her? I think she probably did a lot to kill those votes by telling all the jurors she had outwitted them; you're supposed to let them figure that out on their own.

Also, when the solution to "Survivor" seems obvious to me, I start to rethink, because I am so bad at picking winners.

The fact that even I knew Danni could beat Steph — and had sensed awhile back that Steph probably couldn't beat anyone left but Judd — tells me that this was, finally, a disappointing series of "Survivor."

The ending should feel more dramatic. There should be greater doubt in the air. And Stephenie never should have come back to the show; any good will she built up on her first go-round was wiped out by her machinations and ruthlessness this time. It wasn't just the jury she ticked off. It was a lot of us viewers.

Richard Pryor probably won't be thought of as a TV guy. He was a brilliant standup, and the big-screen releases of his standup routines could set movie theaters rolling. He was a very good actor, also mainly in the movies. But let's not forget his TV legacy, which was sporadic but important.

I have to think that the first place I saw Pryor was on "The Ed Sullivan Show" or one of the other variety series of the day. It was not the best place to see him, of course. At least one biographer has noted that in his early years he was a second-tier Bill Cosby, and an uncomfortable one at that. Cosby was at ease with mainstream rules, where Pryor was not. Pryor's beauty was in his rawness, in his embrace of painful emotion, risky content and harsh language, and broadcast television was no place for that.

He would later find a more congenial place in "Saturday Night Live" but that, too, wasn't going to allow the sort of talk Pryor was by then offering onstage. (The closest he probably got was the Chevy Chase/job interview sketch, still one of the greatest moments in "SNL" history, but one where the harshest word comes from Chase — although the magnificent, utterly convincing reply is Pryor's.)

His prime-time "Richard Pryor Show" tried to take risks, but that just led to misery for Pryor as he fought with network censors. While his children's show, "Pryor's Place," was thoroughly charming, no network was going to be comfortable for long with the idea of Pryor talking to kids.

So why should we think of him as a TV guy? Three letters: HBO.

In the days when HBO was making its mark as a place for uncensored content and unfettered comedians, Pryor and Robin Williams were two of the guys who made HBO appointment viewing. Sure, Pryor's contribution was mainly his concert films, but who wouldn't want to watch those again and again? Whether Pryor was talking about sex, his changing racial attitudes or his nightmarish addiction (and brush with death), you had to stop and listen, and laugh, and know you were hearing something that regular TV just wasn't able to try.

That ends the thoughtful, serious-critic portion of this post. Because I also have to say simply that I loved this guy. The closest I ever got to him was seeing his image on a movie screen or a TV set. But I loved the guy.

Pryor lines still pop into my head at odd moments. I smile just thinking about him and Gene Wilder in the bathroom scene in "Silver Streak," or walking into the jail cell in "Stir Crazy." I remember how good he was in "Lady Sings the Blues," and how great and terrifying he was in "Blue Collar" (another piece of Pryor that I discovered through pay-cable). And how funny and sad simultaneously he could be in "The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings." I remember sitting in a theater for one of his concert films, and watching him talking about the pipe and Jim Brown, and feeling sheer awe.

Pryor bridged generations. My 16-year-old, too young to have seen Pryor in his prime, still knew enough of Pryor's work to be thunderstruck by his death. And as long as video and audio preserve his work, people will continue to find him. Hearing he died, knowing he had been sick, I still felt the urge to use one of his choicer epithets to express my dismay. But there are rules about language here. So let me just say, with huge regret, Richard Pryor is dead. Damn. Damn. Damnit.

I was looking up something else on the Fox Web site today and saw that "Kitchen Confidential's" return proved horribly brief. After bad ratings for Monday's telecast, the network has yanked the show again, and this time it won't be back. Fox will double-run "Arrested Development" this Monday to fill the "KC" time slot.

What a bummer. If this weren't the holiday season, when people's schedules are overflowing, I would set up a screening/wake for the seriesand show you a couple of episode that haven't aired. Oh, well. I guess we really do need to hope for a DVD…

When we first saw Stephenie on the previous "Survivor," her will to win was not only powerful but endearing, since she managed to outlast everyone else in The Worst Tribe Ever before being stopped. This time, her will to win is just as strong, but it has taken on a merciless, hypocritical quality that keeps feeling like the sort of thing that bites you hard at jury time.

Having sold out supposed ally Judd, this week she turned on Cindy, even after Cindy had taken Stephenie along on part of the reward challenge. Yes, Cindy hurt herself some by winning a car in the reward challenge, supposedly setting herself up for the "car curse" (that a car winner never gets the final, top prize). She was offered a chance to give up her car and let the other four players have one, and decided to keep her car instead. And why not? If the curse goes to the winner of the car, she had already won it, whether she kept it or not. Giving up the car wasn't going to change the curse. But that didn't sit well with the other players, especially when Cindy gloated too much about the car.

Still, the car came with a big meal, and Cindy took Stephenie along for the eats; but when it came time to figure out whom to get rid of, Stephenie turned her back on Cindy and joined Rafe, Danni and Lydia in Cindy's ouster. And if Cindy remembers how votes are counted on the show, she knows that Stephenie took her down. Stephenie in turn should know two things: that she is steadily building a jury of people she has shafted, while still competing against people who have no reason to trust her, and ample reason to take her out the next time she is without immunity.

In sum, count me in on Sunday night. And count me out of the Stephenie Fan Club.

Kind of a snore tonight, although I suspect they knew that going in. And so tried to save it with that scene at the end.

Snore 1: That Meg was the character who died. She was, after all, toast in the alternate ending online last week, and — while viewers preferred the original, televised ending — the alternate ending offers the possibility that her death was not as described in tonight's show. But even if you didn't see the alternate ending, there was that Big Fat Hint early in this episode, when she worries that she might die and wants Veronica to see that her child is taken care of.

Snore 2: The jury story. Oh, it had some good things, especially the way that Veronica did not save the day; it was another juror who got to be Henry Fonda — or Robert Cummings, if you know your old-TV history. A very different character who ''sees all sides of every question and constantly seeks the truth." (That's from the original "12 Angry Men," by Reginald Rose. Yeah, I'm showing off a little.) The jury story also set up a way for Veronica to stay in Neptune after high school, an issue that's been lurking in the background this season. But the whole thing still felt a little too by-the-numbers.

Snore 3: Well, not a snore, just a nagging question. Why is Steve Guttenberg, who does not rank among our better actors, in this show — and what is the deal with his eyebrows? They bugged me all through "Poseidon Adventure," and they're bugging me here, too.

Disappointment: The way the stolen tapes may bring Aaron Echolls back on the scene. He's a thoroughly creepy character but Neptune is hip-deep in creeps. Bringing him back feels redundant, and I don't expect redundancy on "Veronica." And the rationale for why the deputy stole the tapes felt like something taken from a much inferior show.

So was there a plus side? Well, there was the look on Logan's face as he watched the tapes. There was just about everything Enrico Colantoni did. And there was the return of Wallace, whom I missed very much, so much that his return almost made me forgive all the shortcomings of the episode.

Almost. This feels like one of those mid-season slumps even good shows sometimes suffer. Let's hope it proves brief.