Big Brother
July 14, 2000
7:01 a.m.
Lisa and I watched Big Brother last night. Brigid, being of sounder mind, chose to remain downstairs and do positive things like play computer games and stare at the walls. We hadn't seen the show previously, and I get the feeling that yesterday's format was different than that of other shows in the series since this was a day they were voting to kick people off the program. Basically, the contestants sat around the circle and jabbered nervously for an hour while people watched. Regardless, it is an interesting show. Interesting, anyway, if you're a person who gets into contrived reality-based shows, which at some level I am. Talk to me about Web journals. Lisa and I have a local interest in that Karen is from our hometown of Columbus, Indiana (not Ohio, or very much bigger sister to the north and east). So that added to our desire to see the show. Do I like the show? Well. Yes. But. I enjoy seeing what people will do next--which, as I told Lisa, is really the fundamental desire that draws people to stories and story telling. When I go to the mall, my eyes are constantly roving for people, constantly trying to see what they look like, who they're with, what they do when they sit down to eat, and all that. I am a people watcher. I used to play the game of making stories up about people, and still occasionally try (aside: in general I think I pretty much gave this up some time ago--maybe it has something to do with making stories up for real taking all the energy that used to go into this activity, maybe not). I know the people that go on these shows are looking for a bump in other areas of their lives. I have no problem with them trying to leverage their notoriety into something bigger after their stint on national TV. I also have no problem with a network getting big dollars off it. That's what television companies do, you know? What I didn't like about this was the network commentators, and the fact that they did things like bring in psychologists and oddsmakers to tell us what we ought to think. The oddsmaker was just basic entertainment, so I guess I could forgive that. But I find it kind of pitiful that the show thinks a psychologist's opinion of various events are required or, well ... I'm struggling for the right word. Appropriate? Not quite. I'll think of it sometime this afternoon, and get one of those V8 moments. In addition, I thought having Karen's husband come on and talk about her actions was a little off base, too. For those blissfully unaware, Karen has talked probably way too openly about her problems with her husband. So the network brought the husband on to get his comments. The husband then went into Monica Lewinsky mode, saying that he didn't want to air his thoughts in public then proceeding to make sure he left no stone publicly unturned. Among the thoughts of the esteemed psychologist was that this was only fair since Karen was using the national stage to tell her one-sided story. This, of course, is bull hockey, it's the husband who is basically shooting fish in a barrel. Karen can tell her story, but has no ability to enter a discussion--hence the public couldn't truly begin to judge her fairly if they wanted to. I stop here to think of all the Asian defensive-minded war disciplines wherein the idea of the person who strikes first is at a disadvantage. In the end, I guess it all doesn't matter. The people on the show are grownups. They knew what they were getting into when they signed on. They get to control their behavior on the show. Yes, it's high pressure. But it was staffed in America. No one put a gun to their heads and told them they had to do it. They're getting paid. One of them will actually leave with a pretty hefty bankroll.   I also think this show actually has a lot to do with writing fiction. Your opinion may differ. Have a great day.  Could you do it? Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
Reading: Harry Potter |
BACK TO 
|