When the Emmys were held back in August, it was a forgone conclusion that Jane Lynch would win Best Supporting Actress for her work on Glee. As Sue Sylvester, Lynch was the breakout star from season one, the one Glee performer offered unanimous public and critical support. You know the story, of course: Lynch won, the order of the universe remained intact, and despite losses to Modern Family, Glee was able to head into season two with the label of "Emmy winner" (Ryan Murphy won as well for directing the pilot). So consider it more than a little disconcerting that just two months later, the Lynch has become so unnecessary to the plot of Glee, that she went entire episode without appearing. Worse, she wasn't even missed.
Besides all that weird Finn homophobia, that was the craziest part about "Duets." I get that everyone wants to see Sue Sylvester drop a bunch of inappropriate one-liners on Mr. Schuester and New Directions, but at no time during this week's episode of Glee was her disappearance detrimental to the plot. In fact, what little plot there has been during this season has found Sue shoehorned in like some afterthought or, worse, wet blanket -- her main job this year has been to issue red-cheeked complaints about the sexual nature of Britney Spears songs and the existence (or lack thereof) of God. In that regard, it was a relief that "Duets" didn't even bother. ("I hate duets, they're bad for kids!" Yeah.)
Though at least Lynch isn't as hard-up as Matthew Morrison and Lea Michele. Whether their lead performance Emmy nominations were deserved is certainly up for debate, but what can not be argued is that the two stars were the real focal points of season one; Glee was the story of wannabe star Rachel and earnest teacher Will. Yet here in season two, they're being treated like second tier performers at the tail end of their careers. Michele's Rachel, once a complicated diva in the vein of Tracy Flick, has been reduced to singing one or two songs per episode, mostly while crying. (The lack of screen time aside, Michele's vocals remain impeccable.) Remember when Rachel really wanted a mother-figure? Neither does Glee.
Meanwhile, Morrison is barely there at all; only during the Britney Spears episode was he featured, and while it was embarrassing ("Toxic," shiver), at least it was something. At this point, I'd even accept Mr. Schuester white-rapping -- anything to integrate him into the story. If it seems like Ryan Murphy and his writing staff are just going to twiddle their thumbs until Mr. Schue has an affair with an of-age student in season three, that's probably because they are.
Here's the thing: I understand that the second season of a show needs to round out the cast and branch out to ensure narrative arcs for seasons three, four, five and beyond. (Lost did this during season two with Desmond and Ben and it's hard to imagine the show existing without their contributions down the line.) So yes, fleshing out characters like Santana, Brittany, Sam, Mike Chang and Tina will probably be beneficial to the long-term success of Glee. The difference though is that Lost and other series were able to integrate their additional characters without giving their leads the short-shrift. That simply isn't the case on Glee. At this rate, Matthew Morrison will get a Best Guest Actor Emmy nomination in 2011.
In the end, only Emmy nominee Chris Colfer has seen his season one success translate into season two story -- if the first season was The Sue Show, then consider this year Kurt's Playhouse. Colfer has been given the heavy-lifting this fall, first saddled with religion and then with tolerance. That he's handled everything with aplomb, grace and flair (all while remaining as wonderful as ever; "Le Jazz Hot, swoon!) could easily translate into an Emmy win next summer. Of course, as Jane Lynch has proved thus far this season, maybe that isn't the reward on Glee that it really should be.