Every day I wake up dreading the idea of posting something on Discriminator. I just can’t seem to make myself get into the groove of it, whatever that may be. The idea is to briefly highlight movies, topics, trends, failures, realizations and turns in the road accompanied by pithy, smart-ass commentary or analysis. I love the idea but I’m just not feeling it like I expected to. On some leve I almost hate it. (Almost.) Last night Sasha Stone told me to dump Discriminator because “nobody reads it” plus there’s no comment-feedback option. To my surprise I wrote back and said “you’re right.”

But I can’t junk it. Not yet. Not before trying one last thing.

My last-ditch idea is to make Discriminator into a communal thing. I intend to find/select/entice five guest Discriminator contributors among the HE elite with the understanding that they’ll send in topics + commentary as often as they can. Once a day, say, or at the very least once every couple of days. (Maybe I should make it ten contributors rather than five.) All contributors will be identified at the bottom of the Discriminator box (nom de plume or actual name) and at the end of each post a contributor’s initials will appear, like a capsule film review for The New Yorker. Contributors would simply send me the topic via email — I promise I’ll post within two or three hours, if not sooner. (No way am I supplying everyone with user names and passwords into HE’s WordPress site.)

And then I can contribute whatever comes to mind and whenever the mood strikes in the midst of all this. This way there will always be at least five or more new Discriminator posts every day. Then all I’ll have to do is figure some way to install a reader-commentary option for each post. That’s what’s missing here — without feedback the Discriminator stuff just lies there.

Each submission, to be clear, will consist of (a) some old or new movie, TV show, short film, YouTube thing, controversy, scandal, trend, revelation, box-office failure or argument/debate described in four or five words, if not less, plus (b) some form of snitty, snotty, all-knowing commentary or analysis running no more than two short sentences, three at the most. And remember to include your name and initials at the end. And keep the submissions sage and wise and not about you and your dingleberries — write them in a way that affords accessible understanding and/or empathy.

Needless to add any and all inappropriate topics or commentary will be dismissed and the contributor will be forgotten about. Clueless or juvenile or crude effusions will be thrown right out the window. (If LexG agrees to participate and sends me something along the lines of ‘GET ME A HOOKER! I NEED $100 GRAND A YEAR WITH MEDICAL TO WRITE A COLUMN….I’M THE NEW OSCAR WILDE BUT THE CHINESE WIZARD WON’T LET ME OUT OF MY CAGE!,” he’ll be immediately deep-sixed.)

If this new effort works, great. And if doesn’t then the hell with it…I’ll just drop it and that’ll be that. A failed experiment. But if the group thing takes off and if a good commentary function can be created, it might work. Just write me through the Contact button.