Earlier this month, HBO canceled the critical darling “Enlightened.” The show ran for two seasons and was not renewed because of low ratings. On the review aggregator website Metacritic, the first season received a respectable score of 75 out of 100, and the second received an outstanding 96. Such a number is matched only by the lauded “Homeland.” Laura Dern also received the 2011 Golden Globe for her leading performance in “Enlightened.”

Interestingly, Dern’s successor to the Best Actress in a Television Series Musical or Comedy award is none other than Lena Dunham of “Girls.” Many articles about the cancellation of “Enlightened” have been quick to compare the series to “Girls.” It is not hard to see why — while both series have earned critical laurels for HBO, neither has had stellar ratings. “Girls” failed to significantly increase its viewership from the first to second season.

This comparison is obvious even to “Enlightened” creator Mike White. He expressed concern before the series’ March cancellation during a February interview with Vulture: “[‘Girls’] has so much buzz and not so great numbers. We have less buzz and less numbers.”

“Girls” certainly has buzz. The show has become notorious for its ability to create fodder for think pieces. Why is “Girls” such a lightening rod? Why doesn’t “Enlightened” attract the same fervor?

Tiny nuances of “Girls” spark commentary. There are pieces on every relationship, every argument and, of course, untold numbers pondering Dunham’s frequent nudity.

From the first moments of “Enlightened,” Dern’s is a virtuoso performance. As Amy Jellicoe, she portrays a manic episode with vulnerability and grotesqueness, exaggeration and believability, aggression and pathos. Striking such a balance seems a great challenge, and Dern makes everything look so easy. It seems hard to imagine an amateur blogger feeling confident in critiquing such a performance.

By this token, young Dunham seems like an easier subject to amateur bloggers, but it also seems that “Girls” encourages its Internet commentary by intentionally responding to its audience. Following season one, there was outcry online over the monochromatic nature of the characters in “Girls.” Dunham implicitly answered this by casting Donald Glover. His character satisfied questions raised by Internet critics, both adding diversity to the show and revealing that Dunham’s character was indeed uncomfortable about race.

Even for shows with critical clout and skillful performances, it is difficult to stay on the air in today’s changing world of television. “Girls” seems to have been successful in harnessing the ever-growing resource that is the Internet. But television has been undergoing changes other than the evolving media cycle, and “Girls’” solution for attracting attention is not the only way.

The biggest problem a television show can face is failing ratings. It takes decisive innovation to turn such a problem around. Perhaps in this department, “Girls,” which has been renewed for a third season, has some enlightenment to offer.

Jake Folsom is a contributing writer.  Email him at [email protected].