Chuck. You love it, or you’ve never seen it; that’s pretty much the TV viewerverse at this point, with the unfortunate reality that those of us in group one are far outnumbered by those in group two. Having just put forth maximum effort on Chuck’s massive, multi– pronged, cast– supported Save the Show campaign, loyal Nerd Herders remain anxious for any hint of news before NBC makes its official schedule announcement next week. Here’s the latest scoop on the show’s future, courtesy of EW.com’s Michael Ausiello:

Question: What’s the latest on Chuck’s renewal? –Dave
Ausiello: Warner Bros. and NBC are haggling over money. Shocking, I know. If a deal can be worked out – and I have every reason to believe it can (and will) be – it’ll be back for a 13-episode third season.

This, for fans, is horrible news. A 13-episode order is one thing for a new midseason replacement. Sometimes you have too much quality merchandise for the schedule. (And sometimes, not). Regardless, there’s no shame in a new show being given a concentrated opportunity to establish itself, with the fall failures cleared away. Some huge hit shows have started that way – Moonlighting, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Office , as a few examples.

But that’s not the case for Chuck. Its 2007 starter season was cut short, courtesy of the industry-wide writers strike. The recently-concluded second season gave the showrunners and writers the chance to really hit their stride, showcasing the entertaining action-dramedy blend that inspired such intense fan loyalty. A 13-episode order, bluntly, kills, or at least seriously weakens, the fan commitment.

The way I see it, Chuck returns at the start of the next season, ends after 13 episodes, and leaves a nine-month forget-me gap until it’s renewed (or not). Or, a 13-episode third season doesn’t return until midseason, to the considerably less excitement of fans who’ve had nine months to forget about the show/find other new favorites/decide to move to Hawaii and pursue their dream job of becoming a Benihana chef, thus leaving them less time to watch TV at all. Either way, a nine-month time out – time enough to bring a new life into the world, after all – is also just about enough time to slow walk Chuck to a premature grave.

Anyone disagree?