Brain Spill: Worst Winner Ever

Archive

Greetings to e-world! Welcome to my column! A humble introduction to…. screw it, you get the picture.

Last week’s column (DICS, or, Dora’s Insidepulse Controversy on Survivor) about Amber Brkich-Mariano drew lots of attention. And this week promises to do just the same. So without any further BS, I present to you the following statement.

“Sandra Diaz-Twine did not deserve to win Survivor Pearl Islands.”

With a sigh, I have to say that this is false.

You know how in Liar Liar, Jim Carrey has to defend that bitch client? Well in the course of that, Jim’s character goes out of his way to win the case, yet all the while, make his client look like the biggest loser in the world. I will be doing the same thing tonight. I will prove my point that Sandra did in fact deserve to win Pearl Islands, but I doubt that any of you will leave this column feeling better about the way she played the game.

This is a two-parter. I’m first going to go on a detailed explanation of my theories on Survivor, then I will say how they apply to Sandra. But believe you me, I will go more than out of my way to discredit her as a player as much as I can.

For years, I listened to people say some Survivor contestants did not deserve to win their season. And for awhile, I would agree with them. And then one day it hit me: those people are full of crap.

Anyone who wins a season of Survivor does so by playing that season the best.

It’s as simple as that. And there’s no room for argument. You win because you are the best.

But of course “best”, and thus “well” are all subjective and relative. There is no one way to be successful in Survivor. Different strategies work different times. You can’t say something like ‘the one who wins the most challenges deserves it most because he’s the best player.’ If someone doesn’t win, despite being a physical powerhouse, it’s because he/she didn’t play the strategic/political game. Tom won Palau but Boston Rob and Colby ended up with second place, so that clearly discredits that philosophy. And what about seasons like Pearl Islands or Marquesas where there was no one challenge powerhouse?

I guess the point that I’m trying to say is that different things work for Survivor. So the only way to measure “the best” in a season is by actually quantifying it. That means numbers, for those of you who don’t know. The best player is the person who finished in first place.

To me, this only makes sense. The winner does what he/she needs to do, when it needs to be done. Sometimes this can be done by being sneaky, being quiet, keeping a level head, or just simple domination of challenges. Of course, the best strategies seem to be the ones that maintain a balance of these traits. So because each season of Survivor is different, contestants need a different formula each time.

The winner wins because for some reason, he/she gets to the final two, and is considered a better player by the jury. How they got there is irrelevant; if they get to the final two, they obviously must have done something correctly (or not doing something incorrectly). And then the jury decides between the final two is the better player.

That’s deep down the secret of how to win Survivor. Get to the final two by alliances or challenges or by being nice such that others can’t vote you out. And you win by doing a good job sucking up to the jury, letting them hear what they want to hear, or by shutting up such the other person looks like scum.

And this philosophy applies to the whole game. The second best player gets second place, same for third through eighteenth place. The second place person must have done SOMETHING better than third place such that he/she made it further in the game.

A few examples. I LOVE Kathy Vavrick-O’Brien from Marquesas and All Stars. I am still upset at the Marquesas finale. However, Neleh did outlast Kathy in the final Immunity Challenge, such that Neleh won and voted out Kathy. Whether or not Kathy was a great player in every round except her final one is irrelevant; she did something wrong to place third. A similar case can be said of Amazon. Whether Cesternino was one of the best ever does not count when determining who played the Amazon season the best. Jenna won because she pulled out all the stops on finale night, and Matt got second because for some reason, Jenna wanted to bring him to the final two instead of Rob (Matt played Jenna better than Rob, thus Matt deserved to place better than Rob since Jenna was calling the shots at that time).

This philosophy also applies to why someone is voted out. You’re voted out because you’re the “worst” player of that particular round. You’re the “worst” because you did SOMETHING wrong or did not do SOMETHING to keep yourself in the game. Kimmi Cappenburg got into a fight with Alicia Calaway in the Outback. Gregg Carey may have been plotting against Tom in Palau. Ami Cusack was a huge threat. Stephenie LaGrossa did not win Immunity when she needed to. The list goes on.

So basically, everyone is in control of their own fate. If you may be a threat, stop showing off. If you’re annoying, shut up. If you’re outnumbered, try to break the alliance, or win immunities. Repeat as necessary.

Using this mentality, there is no “should” in Survivor. Everything happens the way it’s supposed to happen. You get what you deserve. People often misuse ‘should’ with ‘easily could.’ They are not interchangeable. While it’s true that Kathy easily could have won Marquesas, the fact remains that she did not, and thus should not have won, because she did something wrong at a crucial time.

I hope this all makes sense. It does to me.

So now that you know how I feel about Survivor as a whole, it’s time to apply this to Sandra. Get out your pistols and start aiming them at me. As I previously said, I’m going to do my darnedest to point out everything I dislike about Sandra as a player, but in the end, I am going to have to succumb to reason, and admit she did deserve to win.

Sandra, by traditionalist standards, played a horrible game of Survivor. She did essentially nothing the entire season. She had a crappy strategy, which included making as many enemies as possible by yelling at them. She won no individual challenges, even an “individual” challenge that three of six people won. And AFTER she won, she made herself seem like some sort of mastermind by inventing a non-existent motto of “as long as it isn’t me.”

You can’t even wear a pearl necklace without thinking immediately of Pearl Islands, and immediately thinking of the Outcast twist (maybe I obsess a bit too much). This is no exception. However, since this is a point I’ll make later in the column, and it does not apply here, I will stop talking about it. But I am obligated to mention the Outcast twist first when addressing this season.

Anyway. Sandra made sure everyone knew where they stood with her. That kind of sass usually does not work that well in a game dominated by politics. Maybe in corporate America sass can equal determination, but as so astutely noted by Susan Hawk on the first ever day of Survivor, “corporate America ain’t gonna work out here.” While Sandra and Johnny Fairplay (by the way, his real last name is Dalton, in case you forgot) were on the Drake tribe together, they got into a fight. Of course Sandra made sure everyone made sure they heard her explosion at him, with her one cool line of the season: “What the —-, I can get loud too!” It’s sad that after over a month of footage, THAT became her biggest contribution.

And let’s not forget about how she treated the other tribe. After the tribe she was on won a challenge (I say “the tribe she was on”, because we all know Sandra was never responsible for a tribe winning, so the tribe must have vicariously won for her), Sandra went over the Morgan tribe to steal their tarp. But she VOLUNTEERED to go and MAKE THE OTHER TRIBE PISSED OFF AT HER. And then when she got there, she was none too diplomatic. With her tude and her thang, she demanded the tarp, thus essentially telling Morgan to “suck it.” (By the way, I am aware that she was merely representing her whole tribe in this example, but it’s human nature to blame the person in front of you. Thus, she was responsible)

A few weeks ago, I asked my audience to nominate someone for worst Survivor winner ever. I only got one reply, and that was from Sandra. All the email said was “Dora, Like the column. As for the worst, as long as it isn’t me. ~Sandra”

As long as it isn’t her. In this column, that motto does not exist, exactly how it did not in the Pearl Islands. The whole thing is fictional. And I’ll prove it to you.

Sandra claims that was her strategy her whole game. That meant that if anyone but Sandra left the game, Sandra was pleased. At least that’s what it would seem to me. Pray then, dear Sandra, why did you react like a little child when Rupert was sent packing? We all know the fiasco with the fish after his Tribal Council. If you were so content you made it another round in the game, why did you have to punish the tribe that booted Rupert (and yourself) by dumping the fish? I sense a flaw in someone’s logic (hint: not mine).

The same goes for Christa’s departure. Don’t be sad that your friend is gone; be glad you’re further in the game. At least that’s how it would seem to me if you were playing the game with an ‘as long as it isn’t me’ philosophy.

Oh, and one more flaw that easily could have cost her the game. When the players were playing for time with their loved ones, they found out about the “passing” of Jonny Fairplay’s grandmother. Sandra, driven solely by her hatred for Jon, and because she was a cold, unsympathetic bitch, did what she could to make sure Jon didn’t get his family visit. Granted, it was a fake death, but everyone on that island, including Jeff Probst, believed Jon. Everyone wanted Jon to win that challenge; anyone who didn’t lacked a soul.

(side note: I love the story Jeff told at the reunion. Survivor was not notified of the “death,” and Jeff, a producer of the show, called Jon’s home. He explained that Jon’s grandmother had died, and wondered if there was anything Survivor could do. The only problem was that Jon’s grandma had answered the phone, and was, in fact, alive).

It’s now time to talk about the Outcast twist. Everyone either loves that twist or abhors it. Opponents say it goes against the whole concept of Survivor. Proponents say that that was a twist, not unlike all the other twists Survivor throws at you, so it’s totally game. I loved this twist, and thought nothing wrong of it. That all being said, whether you agreed or disagreed with it, you have to admit that both Burton and Lill played excellent games when they got back in. Burton was instrumental in getting rid of Rupert, and Lill was the only person to vote out every person post-merge. Burton’s major flaw was when he won the car, and excluded Lill from his alliance, and Lill’s was being Lill.

I don’t know where that last paragraph fits in to the Sandra argument. I just know that the Pearl Islands season has to feature a detailed analysis of the Outcasts twist.

So, after all the crap I said about Sandra, it’s time to concede. I do not like Sandra, and if she were to use her strategy against a different crew, she would fall flat on her face. Her strategy was based on luck, and slight skill. And the only reason she won was because the other person threw the game.

That being said, she did play everyone, and played the game the best. She put herself in a good enough position during the tribal portion of the game that when her tribe took control, she was in good position. After her alliance was crushed, she let others shoot themselves in the foot. She played an integral role in booting Tijuana, and played it up that she was bummed when the girls ousted Burton. She was a nicer player than Fairplay, such that Lill wanted to give Sandra the game, and looked like a saint next to Lill in the final two. That all being said, she definitely played the game well, and DESERVED to win her season. Whether or not that strategy would cause her to win again (it would definitely not – people don’t throw the game like Lill did too often) is irrelevant. She did play her season the best, and deserved to win Pearl Islands (the way it SHOULD have happened).

I guess I just don’t like Sandra. I especially don’t like how she took credit for fantastic gameplay when it was just fortunate. “As long as it isn’t me” is a great idea in theory, but Sandra did essentially nothing to indicate she followed it. And it really bothers me that she gets credit for inventing this really good strategy, despite not following through. That’d be like crediting HG Wells with inventing the time machine when/if it ever does get invented just because he thought of it, yet did nothing in the actual machine.

Now that I just complimented Sandra Diaz-Twine, I’m going into the bathroom where I will either throw up or shower. Or both.

I just reread this column, and saw some holes in my logic. So feel free to grind me via email. Last week produced the most ever emails, and I think I may break that record this week. And I need more suggestions for future topics.

So until next time, when we discuss the benefits of semigloss paint, compared to satin finish, stay cool.

~Dora

GO COLTS