Like with any other game (or any other narrative), we would like the winner of Survivor to be the player who "deserves" it. But the place where Survivor is situated on the entertainment spectrum-- "reality," but heavily edited, to the point where expectations about players can never be very personal-- makes the question of "deserves" difficult to answer. (Can anyone not "on the island" ever really determine the worthiest of the castaways? All the information we receive we are getting secondhand.) Typical "deserving" qualities in a Survivor winner include strong alliances, relationships with other players, dynamic play (i.e. strategy that adapts to always changing circumstances), ability to "read" the game, persuasive ability, and most of all, having a good "resume," i.e. a list of "accomplishments" (voting off a potential threat, winning immunity challenges, successfully playing idols) to present to the jury during Final Tribal Council.
In many Survivor online communities, some of these "deserving" qualities are more valid than others. The ability to retrieve and play hidden immunity idols is not considered a vital part of the game; the willingness to search high and low at all costs (including forming relationships to other players) indicates a "tryhard," a pejorative for a player who receives an edit that emphasizes idol-finding, "making it to the end," and yes, "trying hard" even when "on the bottom." Recent Survivor Ben, who used several immunity idols and won a controversial fire-making challenge en route to a narrow victory over supposedly more "deserving" opponents, embodies the "tryhard" archetype. The "tryhard" excels at elements of the game that seem arbitrary to many viewers. Accusations of producers/Jeff-Probst stacking the deck in favor of certain players typically follow around the "tryhard."
On the other hand, one current metric that seems popular is "vote accuracy." This theory maintains that a good Survivor player is one who consistently votes "correctly," i.e. casts their vote against the player that is then eliminated. The ability to play along with the crowd, to know the numbers and throw in with the group that is dominant, demonstrates many strategic assets that are highly valued especially among the supposedly closest readers of the game. An accurate voter prizes above all else the need to stay in the game through at least one more Tribal Council. They value the short-term gain which is crucial in a contest that constantly changes.
In the current season of Survivor, "Edge of Extinction," we have two players who demonstrate these differently valued Survivor qualities. "Edge's" resident tryhard, Devens, is a player who even a casual viewer would argue has benefited from extraordinary luck. Voted out early, Devens was able to crawl back into the game from this season's "Extinction Island," where all voted off players get a second chance (providing they are willing to endure even less food, shelter, and general comfort than normal Survivor). Since that point, Devens has done many things that have simultaneously endeared him to the "casual viewer" (and, it looks like, the current jury) and alienated him from the "intense/hardcore viewer": he has "misread" the game on multiple occasions, committed to alliances that were weak, voted "wrong" more than half the time, and had to be "rescued" several times by other players/immunity idols/secret advantages. To the casual viewer, this might look like the up-and-down journey of a fun-loving guy. But to the "close reader" of Survivor, it looks like extraordinarily weak gameplay, premised on the "arbitrary" sort of advantages that would never have saved a poor player in the days of "classic" Survivor.
Contrasting with Devens is Victoria, the accurate voter, who has yet to throw in with anything but the majority against the player who was eventually voted out. On her resume therefore are the heads of four returning players, at least one (Aubry) who Victoria was directly responsible for eliminating, and multiple other semi-talented players, including the strategic threats of The Wardog and Ron Clark. In taking at least a small role in the destruction of so many potential winners, Victoria must count as one of the most lethal players this season. And yet, to the casual viewer, Victoria is barely there. Her "edit" has not emphasized her quiet strategy but for a few occasions (particularly the Aubry vote). We have learned extremely little about her personality, her life "outside of the game," her relationships with other players, or her motivations for playing Survivor. In other words, Victoria is not receiving a "winner edit," and even with her smart gameplay, she doesn't seem to have a reasonable chance at winning the game.
For the online fan community, this gap between possible winner, supposedly poor player Devens and unlikely winner, supposedly good player Victoria is maddening. How can the game (and its editors) be rewarding a survivor who makes so many mistakes, who so consistently misreads the game, who hasn't voted "correctly," who has gotten lucky so many times? And how too can they be "burying" the much more sound gameplay of Victoria, who is putting together a truly impressive "resume" almost entirely behind the scenes?
But to me, I dunno, I think it's fine. Because Survivor is not a normal game. There are no established "rules" to determine success, and I believe finally that the question of "deserves" is too fucking strange to answer in any sort of satisfactory way. The typical ways of determining a "deserving" player among the hardcore Survivor community seem premised on notions of "objective" good gameplay that might take us beyond our compromised, heavily-mediated viewer experience... But I doubt they can. In viewing the game from home, we're experiencing it a totally different way from any of the players. Our criteria for evaluating a "deserving" player are necessarily also different from the jury's criteria.
Right now, the jury-- four of whom are returning players, i.e. the folks you could argue have the most sophisticated take on the game-- seems to like Devens, quite a bit. You could argue that this is clearly a "playing favorites" situation, i.e. the jury likes Devens because they got to know him so well on Extinction Island (he's "one of them"). You could argue too that the multiple reactions we've seen of the jury enamored with Devens are the producers trying to guide the viewer into thinking that Devens is a "deserving" possible winner. It could be that Victoria is getting these kinds of reactions, too. We don't know and can't say. But I think it's fair to argue that the jury doesn't, err, dislike Devens, that their reactions are genuine, that he makes them smile, that they respect him, a least a little bit, as a player. If earning the respect of the jury is finally the thing you MUST DO to win Survivor, then why can't we argue that it is Devens who is truly the most "deserving" of his tribemates?
Somewhere along the way, Devens has convinced the others that he is a (1) friend (2) threat (3) combination of the two. It's the "friend-threat" combination that makes Devens such an intimidating force. He has balanced building strong relationships-- we've seem in especially align with David, but also join forces at different times with Ron, Julie, The Wardog, etc-- with a presence that suggests "strategic force," even if the vote tallies don't always suggest that. Basically, Devens is a possible winner because of his personality, not his gameplay, which I'm arguing now is just as legitimate a path to Survivor victory as the more commonly accepted, "hardcore" Survivor idea of being on the right side of the votes.
I'm going to suggest here that one element we at home cannot come to grips with, but which the jury uses to guide a significant part of their voting strategy, is the emotional turmoil that comes with being in a state of constant paranoia, with the potential of being stabbed in the back, with not being able to trust anyone. It's not as simple as saying the jury is, oh, voting with their hearts, and not with their head, because so much of Survivor is a heart game. It flips so many standard social dynamics upside down. Perhaps the player most deserving of a victory is the player who is able to play the game while still holding on to their humanity...
I think this is what Christian meant last season when, while casting a Final Tribal vote for Mike, he suggested that the pampered celebrity challenge nothing who never seemed comfortable in any alliance had played a "transformational game." Mike got as far as he did not because he helped out around camp, or caught fish, or because he made all the right moves at the right time. He got to the Final Three, and stole a couple of votes from Nick, on the strength of personality.
Let's assume the 42 minutes we see every week was as perfectly accurate a summary of many dozens of hours of gameplay as could possibly be managed. What would we make of the remaining cast of this season? We'd probably say that Devens has an outsized influence on the rest of the players, for better or for worse-- that every decision is being made with him somewhere in mind. We'd say, in short, that he is the biggest character of the season... But that he was "big" in such a way to get him further. He hasn't overwhelmed others with abrasiveness (Reem) or absurdity (Big Wendy) or insults (The Wardog) or a sense of being more strategic than the rest (the returning players). He's been "big enough" to gain respect, but not "too big" to ensure his removal. He's occupied that middle space that pushes you forward in Survivor, a space we recognize in normal life as, well, a place of social and emotional intelligence.
Am I saying that Survivor is a popularity contest? Maybe. Am I saying that's a good thing? Perhaps. I don't know. Maybe I just think we sometimes miss the forest for the trees, here. In focusing on the details of editing, the vote counts, the things we can tally and control as viewers, we miss the masses of humanity which finally determine who decides which player is truly "deserving" of being sole survivor. Character counts, friends.
And so do hidden immunity idols.
No comments:
Post a Comment