I Love Shirley Hemphill

I realize you may have come here seeking solace, closure...some type of justification for what happened last night. If so, you're missing the point.

I don't care.

No really. Sure, you think that since I write weekly updates praising all things Probst and capturing the pixelated private frillies of the contestants that I am obsessed with Survivor. As such, you think that after a season of trumpeting the evil prowess of one of the most interesting contestants ever, capped with an embarrassing. gutless final vote that put a forgettable no one in the winner's chair that I'm going to let loose with an endless spew of barbed insults at society.

Not so.

You see, the point isn't that Survivor is a great show, the point isn't that it's a microcosm of real life...it isn't even that it's a good respite for women to bask in a sea of glowing abs or men to bask in a sea of eye-magnet silicon (granted - both good reasons, just not THE reasons)...

It's because it's a vehicle to sing the praises of Jesus playing basketball, herald the brilliance of hanging meat, and bask in the innate perfection of the essence of Shirley Hemphill.

Yes, you read that right. Let me explain.

I've been writing these updates now for what, 18 seasons? I remember watching the finale of season 1 with a group of friends and the room absolutely exploding in shouts, cheers, jeers (OK, and yes, perhaps a smidge of flatulence...) as the unique drama unfolded. It was...fun, captivating, filled with delicious drama. Yes even a little stinky.

Believe me, I know the score. Survivor - the show - is fun, but the true fun is in experiencing it with others, sharing the outlandish drama, and, of course, in poking fun at every possible opportunity.

As a long-time viewer, I can't help but gravitate toward contestants or drama that are...different, new, unique - because over time you learn that the the "good guys" are simply forgettable, fleeting, one in a million.

However, it's never just good vs. evil, ethical vs. unethical, asshole vs. saint; I judge how good a contestant is by one simple criteria: who has played the game the best.

Because that's all it is: a game. A game show, to be even more precise. And the motto of the show is "Outwit, outplay, outlast," ...it's not "Be nice, don't lie, praise Jesus," (although maybe I should pitch this concept to "The Word" network...).

So when Russel's speech says exactly that: "If either of these contestants has outplayed me, you should vote for them. If either of these two contestants has outwitted me, you should vote for them." ...he is, of course, right.

This is a GAME SHOW. People don't come onto this show to make friends; they come to win cash.

Does it surprise me still that the jury is upset when a contestant lies?

Yes.

Does it surprise me still that the jury is surprised when a contestant lies?

Of course.

Does it surprise me still that the jury has expectations that the ultimate winner accomplish the award by being straightforward, honest and strong at all times?

Sigh. Yes yes yes. Because the ultimate hypocrisy is that the second any contestant displays any of those attributes, they are targeted and swiftly booted off the show.

Erik's speech last night could not have been more wrong. The jury wouldn't have been "rewarding" bad behavior by voting for Russel, they would have been acknowledging his ability to beat them - plain and simple. So he lied to John; had he not, he would have been on the jury. But here he was in the final tribal council instead. That's called strategy. That's called outwitting, outplaying, outlasting...

The jury didn't vote for Natalie, they voted against Russel, and as such, they made a fool of themselves. They target the strong for elimination, but reward the weak for their bad conscience. It's atrocious, but I have to say, it is definitely consistent throughout the years on this show. The best players do not always win - in fact, I'd say it's probably 50-50 over that time.

Do I think Russel is a good guy? Who cares? It doesn't matter. He played the game the best - maybe the best ever. And THAT was the point of the game.

So Natalie goes home with a million dollars - good for her. As Probst said, her strategy of attaching herself to Russel and leeching off his power is an absolute legitimate strategy. Russel's one mistake was in not realizing that the jury's votes could (and would) be arbitrary. He was clearly shaken for not winning - it looked like the man was going to blow up - and, just like the jury, his expectations were too narrow minded.

Do the best professional sports players make the All-Star teams? Of course not (for god's sake, Tracy McGrady is leading right now and hadn't played a single minute all season long). Do the best people get promoted/elected/recognized/etc.? No, no, no and no.

So what's the lesson here? What do we take from this? How do we go on without something like this weighing on our minds, holding us back, festering in a fecund swamp of flim-flam?

The answer is simple:

Look to Shirl.

Bite down on some frog jerky.

Invite Mr. Excitement over for Beatles trivia night.

Defend the honor of Mrs. Cunningham.

Dream of the day when your neighbor's lot will be razed.

Stir some mushroom gravy in your Cream of Wheat.

For god's sake people, have a piece of friggin' pie.

Because when you're a passive audience member watching a formulaic TV show populated with countless contestants whose IQs rival the wattage of my fluorescent light bulbs, there just has to be a way to have fun, make it interesting, enjoy life.

Serve it up. Add some smarmy wit. Frown and smile at the same time. Pull that half-chewed pencil from behind your ear and write down our order: make us forget how much this can suck.

That's right, look to Shirl.

Hay hay hay.

Probst Beef