When I finally sat down to see Wednesday's telecast of "Veronica Mars," I was ready to be dazzled. It felt as if it had been forever since there had been a new episode, and I was long past ready for one.

The episode was all right, not great. I did like the scenes with Logan, since to the end it was not clear if he was a sincere suitor or a master manipulator. But other stories and relationships felt less sure-handed. And, since I was primed for good stuff, it was all the more disappointing when it wasn't there.

Is that disappointment the fault of the show, since most series have off weeks? Or am I to blame, for expecting a high level of accomplishment that wasn't there?

I'll blame the show. After all, there are programs that we come to with high expectations that do deliver. "The Sopranos" came back from its long hiatus with a very good episode, and tomorrow night's is even better. As I said in a column about the show, with the end of the series in sight, the makers of "The Sopranos" are acting as if every single episode counts, not just one here and there leading to a big finale.

But the quality of the early episodes has been so high, viewers are going to expect the show to maintain that — and it may not be able to do so every week. I thought of that when watching the season finale of "The Shield" next week.

I'll have more to say about "The Shield" in a separate post. But this has been a terrific season, both through the addition of Forest Whitaker as a "good" guy who is as ruthless and unscrupulous as Mackey, and in the impact of Whitaker's presence on all the other characters. The intensity has been incredible; what might have been cat-and-mouse in lesser hands is more like cobra-and-mongoose here.

Still, because "The Shield" has been so compelling episode by episode, I was prepared for something epic in the season finale. Make no mistake, it's good. It has an air of tragic inevitability for anyone who has been watching closely this season. And there's a funny little surprise in the middle of the drama. Even so, it disappointed a little because it did not top everything leading up to it.

This wasn't a case of waiting for a show to return, as with "Veronica Mars." It was instead a matter of getting so deeply involved in a series that I wanted an ending whose power would carry me over to the next (and possibly final) batch of episodes.

This morning I arose with the remains of my cold. My bride's attempt to fight off illness continues to be a losing battle. My morning paper told me that the company owning my newspaper is being sold. Knew that was coming. Then my e-mail basket included the news that the company buying my newspaper's company did not want my newspaper, so we're up for sale again. Then I got almost all the way to work before discovering I did not have my key card. (I had dropped it in the living room, I learned when I drove back home.) And somewhere in all that, I realized that I had forgotten to record "Grey's Anatomy" last night.

But let's talk "Sopranos." While there are spoilers aplenty out there about the March 19 episode, you won't read any of them here. I believe in a code of silence on this one, since anything else would spoil the delight of watching it unfold. And you'll really want to watch the next episode.

At least we can talk about last night's show.

(IF YOU HAVE NOT SEE IN YET, DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT.)

Not only was it a shock when Uncle Junior shot Tony, the show increased the brutality of it with Tony's agonized attempt to call for help. And it came at the end of an episode laced with dread, with the feeling that something very bad was going to happen. Oh, sure, there was the artful misdirection — making it seem that Eugene might actually put a bullet in Tony to end his own family's suffering. Still, when I looked at the episode a second time, I noticed all the times it pointed that Tony was prospering — new boat, new car for Carmela — as omens that things were not going to stay good forever.

The irony of it, of course, was that Tony was not shot for all his misdeeds. In fact, he was performing a good deed — taking care of his uncle when no one else would or could — when Junior shot him. That touches on a theme that has run through "The Sopranos" as well as other art, including the novels of Larry McMurtry and '"St. Elsewhere," that sometimes punishment is arbitrary, and goodness does not by itself guarantee reward. Pain can come from unexpected places, and be no less horrible for that. Look at the beating and hit-and-run earlier in that same episode. Confusion leads to the beating; fate sends a car.

If the world can let some men thrive on wrongdoing — like Tony — then others will not thrive even when they do no wrong.

The chat with folks at the Beacon Journal on Wednesday was great fun. Let's do it again. But it was close to 10 p.m. before I got home, and viewing was backed up. The bride and I watched "Lost," and I expect to have more to say about it later today. Then I dipped into "The Sopranos." For now, let's just say that there are big things coming, so big that after watching the season opener, I was fast-forwarding through the next three episodes to be clear about what was happening.

Since I usually put some sleep on my agenda, I saved "Idol" for this morning — performances watched, personality stories skipped, judges mostly skipped. And this is all I can say:

Aren't the guys collectively remarkable?

Nine out of 10 performances were at least competent, with the horrible David Radford the exception. Eight of 10 were good to great. When I saw the show lined up Taylor Hicks, Elliott Yamin and Ace Young early in the telecast, I had to wonder if "Idol" wanted to get the good stuff out of the way before it competed with "Lost." Instead, the show was deep enough that it still had plenty for the rest. Well, except Radford. Since I keep a running report card during the show, in short order I felt like a figure-skating judge who has planned to save the big scores for the stars later in the competition, only to be forced to raise the scores early. And then where do you go?

Well, with Chris Daughtry, who closed the show, I threw up my hands and gave him an A. Is this guy tearing it up or what? And he did so at the end of a program where some people I expected to be really good (Hicks, Ace Young) proved just OK by comparison, while people like Gedeon McKenney and Will Makar stepped up big time.

Anyway, here's the card: Daughtry gets that A. McKenney, B plus. Yamin, B. Makar, B minus. C pluses for Hicks, Young, Kevin Covais and Bucky Covington. C for Jose "Sway" Penala. Radford gets a D, and considering what the other guys were doing, I should probably curve him down to an F. I have no idea what the voters will do, especially since Radford was lousy a week ago and still survived the vote. But the mid-level women have to be very worried about what will happen if they make it to final 12 and have to compete with six of the guys; if they were all in a combined vote this week instead of the gender split, I wouldn't have been surprised to see three or four women gone.

I think we may have to make Monday "Grey's Anatomy" night at the House of Heldenfels, since Sunday seems to fill up with other commitments. Not that Mondays are always easy, either. It took me almost a week to get to the Feb. 18 episode of "Grey's," and last night's episode is filling a spot on the DVR until we get to it tonight. I hope.

Sunday night I also recorded "Dancing With the Stars" and have peeked at the conclusion. Although I thought Stacy Keibler was better over the course of the show, I can't kick about Drew Lachey winning. He certainly did what it took to dazzle viewers on the Thursday telecast. But that still leaves me puzzling over Jerry Rice's second-place finish. Sure, he fit best with the idea of the show as "journey" (which I wrote about in a previous post), but his dancing was so much less impressive than the other two finalists, that I have to wonder if some people voted for Rice just to make mischief with the results.

As for why I was doing that recording, the answer is that the bride and I have rejoined the "Sopranos" dinners involving a bunch of our co-workers. The dinners date back to the previous airings of new episodes of "Sopranos." Basically, every couple of weeks, people bring food, we eat and then we watch a couple of "Sopranos" episodes — usually the one from the previous week followed by the newest telecast. Some conversation accompanies, often along the lines of "Wait, whose bloated body did they just find on the beach?" Attempts to understand the plot may also follow. It's low-key fun. Good food, too, although the show's violence may not be easy on the digestion. One co-worker turned away from the grisly scenes rather than risk losing her vegan chocolate cake. She told me later that violence is not good for the soul and the psyche. One more reason for me to write off my soul.

The dinner-and-TV format does not work with just any show. "Carnivale," for instance, was not as big a draw (and required a lot more plot discussion). But "The Sopranos" has been a consistent pleasure, so people started warm-up dinners. Last night, we watched the 11th and 12th episodes from the fifth season; on March 12, the 13th episode (which finished the fifth) will be followed by the sixth-season premiere. I'm going to be hungry for new stuff then, since the episodes last night just made me hungry for more.

But I'm still waiting for review copies of some new episodes. Today's mail instead included a real oddity: a Joan & Melissa Rivers bobblehead.

Someone in TV decided that bobbleheads are a cool way to hype shows. A little Chuck Wooley bobblehead on my desk has been joined by a "Dennis Franz as Andy Sipowicz" figure (tied to the release of the third season on "NYPD Blue" on DVD). I may take Sipowicz home to keep my Vic Mackey bobblehead company. I am keeping him a safe distance from Joan & Melissa, who arrived to promote the TV Guide Channel (where they will be holding court for the Oscars soon).

But there's something wrong with Joan & Melissa. Joan in particular looks too normal — well, bobblehead-normal. And that may just be more marked with time. The figures should come with their own tiny scalpel, so they can be brought up to speed with Joan's nip/tucks, then keep pace with future changes.

Here is HBO's latest announcement that "The Sopranos" will keep going longer than anticipated — which, of course, just makes us all wonder if it could keep going beyond this.

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 11, 2005 - HBO announced today that in addition to THE SOPRANOS' upcoming sixth season, which will include 12 episodes, HBO will produce an additional eight bonus episodes, to debut in January 2007.

Currently filming its sixth season, the critically acclaimed, Emmy(r)- and Peabody-winning THE SOPRANOS will continue in production for these eight additional episodes. The sixth season is slated to launch in March 2006.

‘‘We are obviously delighted that we will be able to extend THE SOPRANOS' series beyond its slated 12 episodes,’’ said Chris Albrecht, chairman and CEO, HBO. ‘‘When something is as remarkable as THE SOPRANOS, our audience would like to see it continue as long as possible, so we are thrilled that David Chase felt there are more stories to be told.’'

‘‘With every season, this series continues to creatively evolve and grow. We are all looking forward to spending more time with 'The Sopranos',’’ said Brad Grey, executive producer of the series.

HBO Chairman Chris Albrecht didn't even wait for the question. "I don't know," he said during opening remarks at an HBO press conference today. "I read what you read."

The question, of course, was will there be even more "Sopranos"? The next season is due on HBO in March 2006, and that's supposed to be the last. But there have been hints in the press that series creator David Chase would be willing to do more.

While he didn't know, Albrecht was at least willing to let his daily mood swings on the subject include some optimism.

"David was so charged after last season and the response to the show from last season, and he's so happy with what he's doing now that I honestly believe that he feels like there's more to tell than just what he's got planned for the (coming) season," Albrecht said. "I know he knows he can tell more."

Then Albrecht's mood swung.

"David has always been most concerned about leaving the audience feeling great about the show. … If he felt he's got 12 more episodes in him, but only 11 of them were going to be really good, and the last one wasn't going to be, he would in his mind make the decision not to do (the 12th episode)."

So we'll just have to keep waiting for Chase to make the call.

Among the many other subjects Albrecht addressed was the demise of "Carnivale," a show I liked very much, but which HBO has ended after two seasons.

"Never have we gotten besieged the way we have been by 'Carnivale' fans," Albrecht said. "Literally 50,000 e-mails over a weekend. And I don't mean the first weekend (after the decision). … It is so over the top, not just in terms of the number but in terms of things that they say and threaten."

So did HBO miscalculate in dumping the show? "After reading the e-mails, I'm not sure," he said.

But he argued that "Carnivale" just did not make financial sense.

"If 'Carnivale' was a $2-million-an-hour show, we'd keep going with it," he said. "But a period piece shot all on location, a huge cast like that .. and you've got to order at least 13 episodes to give something a real shot — it is an enormous investment."

The show did not sell well overseas, he said, so the expense could not be covered that way. "So you just have to say, 'Can I take this money and allocate it in other ways that appeal to the same audience?' "

As for how the show ended, viewers weren't the only ones taken by surprise. Albrecht said he originally thought the plan for the second season was for an ending "where you didn't have to go on. At the end, (the makers of the show) decided to kind of change that a little bit, which turned into a little bit more of a cliffhanger."

And who can love a cliffhanger that remains eternally unresolved?