The show just finished its first season. Matt Zoller Seitz celebrates its accomplishments:
I fear that a lot of anti-Girls hoopla came from the fact that it's about, well, girls, and is set in a comically exaggerated version of reality, by which I mean that it isn't a genre show: There are no gangsters, no spies, no vengeful socialites, no vampires, no cops or lawyers, just young women (and a few men) having relationships and losing jobs and moving in and out of apartments and hurting each other without thinking. Such stories have historically been devalued: witness "chick lit" and "chick flicks." Critics (male and female) often embrace the thinking behind these condescending labels even if they avoid using the labels. A lot of the same gripes about Girls could have been lodged against The Catcher in the Rye, The Graduate, Harold and Maude, Risky Business, The Royal Tenenbaums, or any number of very white tales of young men with money and no sense of direction, but weren't.
John Cook, by contrast, still can't stand Girls:
The 'artist' and the character are virtually identical, and you valorize the artist for skewering the character. Besides, [creator Lena Dunham is] not skewering the character. These people are meant to be loved, to be understood and explained. It's a celebration, not a satire.
Dish commentary on the show compiled here.
The Dish 