Whenever Alyssa lets me have a say here, I’m tempted to write things I know she disagrees with, just to be annoying. I mostly resist (and you’re not getting an impassioned defense of Rachel Berry, mostly because I’m trying not to think about this season of Glee any more than absolutely necessary), but hey, let’s continue this Taylor Swift conversation Alyssa started here and here. Now, I’m not defending or agreeing with all of the actual content of Swift’s songs, but I think her decision to write about famous people in a way that makes them easy to identify is, in general, a reasonable one, because . . .

1. It’s her life. At this point, the reality of Swift’s life is that the guys she dates is famous. It’s sort of refreshing that she’s honest about that instead of doing what so many other musicians do and singing about getting up and going to the office even though they’ve never done that a day in their lives. And Swift herself has gotten both sides of this – when her single “Mine” came out, critics complained that a line about having bills to pay was unrealistic. If she’s told not to write songs directly about her current life in the spotlight or songs that aren’t about herself, what’s she supposed to do, write about high school forever?

2. It’s good marketing. Critics may prefer to spend decades speculating about “You’re So Vain,” but Swift’s teenaged target audience is growing up in the age of faux-intimacy with celebrities due to the Internet in general and social networking in particular. If Swift came out and stated the names of the boys she’s writing about, there would be no game, but the extremely obvious “clues” make her fans feel like part of the in-crowd when they figure out who she means. An additional level is added to the listening experience when the listener can picture exactly whose “tan skin [and] sweet smile” and whose vintage dresses Swift is talking about.

3. She’s not writing in a vacuum. Some of these guys are writing songs about her – Joe Jonas has, with “Better,” and John Mayer certainly might – but, perhaps more importantly, these relationships are all over the tabloids and gossip sites. And even if Swift’s songs were all about puppies and rainbows and how much she loves her mom, her relationships would still be on the cover of US Weekly. I can’t blame her for wanting to grab control of the message and make sure that when people think about her and her relationships, the first thing that comes to mind is not sad pictures and headlines but rather her songs. As Swift says to another girl in a song on her new album, “You might have him, but I always get the last word” – and isn’t that the comfort and refuge of writers everywhere? Paging Nora Ephron!

BabylonSista mentioned soap operas yesterday, and while I’ve never really watched the TV variety, I have been sucked in to a BBC radio soap called The Archers. It’s about a few families in Ambridge, a fictional rural farming village in England, and . . . well, I’ll admit it’s probably not to everyone’s taste, but if you like Agatha Christie or Miss Read or Jan Karon, give it a try. I was skeptical of the format at first – I tend to be very visual and have trouble following the plots of audiobooks – but it’s no coincidence that The Archers has survived for sixty years. It’s completely addictive, and they do a good job both of hiring actors with distinct voices and of writing the script so that the listener gets enough information to follow the multiple plot threads without being bored by repetition.

The show’s continued success is undoubtedly due to the way it retains longtime fans while drawing in new ones by skillfully combining traditional village and farming-related plots with more modern elements. I’m sure this isn’t the first time there’s been drama around the production of the annual town Christmas play, but this year it’s entwined with other plotlines involving in vitro fertilization and Britain’s current controversy about rising university costs. Sometimes the traditional storylines are updated: while previous generations of farmers didn’t have to decide whether to go organic and how to market their goods online, they undoubtedly dealt with other issues of farming technology and modernization. And a few days ago, characters were discussing Prince William’s engagement – a topic simultaneously of-the-moment and oh-so-traditional.

The show’s creators also do an admirable job of incorporating technology, both in the show itself and in companion resources aimed at fans. The writers do better at presenting technology as it’s actually used than do most current American TV writers; the younger characters are always texting, everyone emails, and grandchildren constantly try to convince their grandparents that computers really aren’t that mysterious or difficult. Characters mention the town Web site, and fans can actually read it. Pretty good for a show whose early plots involved things like postwar food rationing.

Fans who are less technologically inclined can listen to the show on BBC Radio 4 six days a week, as they always have, but for the rest of us – especially those of us in other countries – the 13-minute episodes are available in podcast form. On the official site, there are synopses, a map, a timeline, genealogical tables, and extensive character biographies, all of which make it much easier for the new listener to jump in and figure out what’s going on. And on the unofficial side, there are fan sites, online shops, and dozens of roleplaying accounts on Twitter.

Okay, I’ll stop gushing before I start telling you all about that really fascinating plotline all about someone learning to make yogurt, or someone stealing a meat pie recipe. A friend remarked tonight that I tend to like “all these shows where nothing happens,” and there’s something to that: The Archers moves slowly and without giant earth-shattering events, but the drama is all the more intense for being so personal. Give it a try. Download an episode, make yourself a cup of tea, and I’ll see you in Ambridge.