ALL IS FAIR . . . Is Survivor just a game, or is something more personal at stake? If you watched tonight, you saw a good deal of discussion and impassioned debate on the topic. Here's my take, which I've had since the first season:
The game is whatever its players decide it is.
There are no standards or rules given to the jurors as to the basis in which they ought to vote. They can base it off of who played the game better, who was a better person, or a flip of the coin. Whatever they want.
The players create their own moral universe, and it is one which is refined through each iteration of the game. If jurors consistently voted for the most morally decent player, you'd see more morally decent play in future games. If jurors consistently voted for the best strategic player, you'd see more sneaky play.
Me? If I were a juror, I'd reward the most strategic play, because I do see this as a game where the only goal is to avoid being voted out, and within this contained universe I see no real value in playing honorably. Every player comes in with an equal opportunity to persuade others as to how to vote and to be persuaded in return, and if you can avoid being tripped up by your own lies -- within this game -- more power to you. But given the rules of the game -- or, rather, lack thereof -- anyone else's view as to how a juror should vote is as equally valid as mine. It's just up to the seven jurors voting, in that particular season, and that's it.
Based on the reunion show, we've got another question to discuss now, but let's put that on hold until everyone's had a chance to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment