Yuku free message boards

getting real wrote:

---

To say, as some have said, that Edgic guidelines should be treated as gospel, invites accusations such as this by Roasted Samoas: 'Anyone who selects someone other than Mick is not using Edgic, they're using common sense. Which is fine, but this thread isn't for making winner picks, it's for making Edgic picks. Edgic picks Mick. And just like Bob's win suggested, Edgic is obsolete. '

It's a laughable claim, of course, but its logic, if taken to its conclusion, is sound. If the participants in this thread can not take into account any aspect of editing other than what is in the page 1 guidelines and if those guidelines are cast in stone, then two things logically follow:

• 1. Everyone must arrive at the same conclusions;
• 2. If those conclusions are wrong, then there is no point in Edgic in the first place.

Now we know those things are not the case. So, therefore, the premises that led to those conclusions must not be right either.

The reason why this thread is so worthwhile is that it relies on a corpus of work by a whole line of intelligent, caring people, each contributing in their own way, each offering an improvement on what has come before.

You have a right to place the emphasis on whichever of the guidelines you choose - or on all of them. Put your opinions out there and time will have the final say, either way. What you ought not to be doing is belittling the work of others, especially with charges that their views must be tainted by spoilers. It is this kind of undermining that is most dangerous to edgic. That, fandom and an unwillingness to consider any other point of view except one's own.

The edgic rules/guidelines/enter your term here/ on pg 1 are the point of this shindig. They're based on observations of the winner's edits (and the non-winner's edits) over the seasons. I think there is some dissonance here this year more than others because it's been clear since the very first episodes that this season's edit is different. Nobody has ever gotten the sort of edit that RH has. He was touted before the season started as the greatest villain since Hannibel Lecter ate Hans Gruber, so the powers that be put a huge amount of emphasis on him, as if they were staking the ratings on this one guy (or, rather, their edit of this one guy.)

Because of this, the editing is skewed. So because of this it is very easy to see why edgic might be skewed - or screwed.

Let's look at this season as if RH didn't suck up so much of the edit, and see if the non-Mick/Jaison edgic picks would make more or less sense. What if Russell didn't have all the ratings of 8 or 9 (according to RedWing's marvelous calculations) and was instead this same guy but more down-to earth numbers. Would anyone seriously vote for such a relentlessly OTT/CP/N person based on edgic? I'd wager no. I'm not sure if anyone is still selecting Shambo, so let's move on to Natalie. In a normal season without the RH singularity, would anyone give any credence to Natalie based on her first 3 episodes? Lordy, I hope not. They were dreadful. So too the fact that her story is so aligned with just one other player's game.

But the cold fact is - Russell did get this bizarro edit this season. And maybe the dividing line between the two factions in this edgic mini-fracas is defined by those who prefer to analyze changes to edgic after the season, or to do it during the season. Normally, I'd think that those who want to redefine edgic during the season are just rationalizing trying to select their BFF survivor player, and those who say,"No, let's rely on edgic as it is, because we still don't know the full season story," are the keepers of the righteous and pure edgic flame.

But even I cannot ignore the alarming edit that RH has gotten. So why am I still picking Mick? Precisely because RH's edit, if you want to use edgic terms to define editing decisions, is in itself completely OTT. It's an almost absurd edit, as if they poured every editing trick into one guy. Super complex, super mean, super OTT, super "he's in trouble." It's a rogues' gallery of edgic concepts distilled down to an absurd level,.all dumped on one guy. OTT/CP/N players don't win. The fact that RH is OTT/CP/N on steroids is a huge warning flag to me.

Basically, I'm also looking at how RH's edit in this season has affected edgic. It's the elephant in the room, the 800-pound gorilla. To NOT think that this idiotic edit affected the show is to avert your eyes from the obvious. But ultimately I come down to the edgic principles that stand out. The only way that Russell can win is if the editors completely toss out every story-telling principle, story arc concept, and 19 seasons of history and base the success or failure of this season solely on the edit of this one guy. That's incredibly risky. He is the anti-edgic, the OTT meany who's now "in danger" (and does anyone think he's gonna be voted out this week?) Despite that, I do understand why people pick him - precisely because the producers are basing the success or failure of this season on this one person's shoulders. But do they really want a chorus of boos at the reunion? Do they really want a Brian H on acid to smirk at the other players and laugh in their faces when he says how much he enjoyed burning their clothes and calling them useless shills?

Trust me - that is risky for Survivor. Nevertheless, someone picking him because of his edit is not illogical.

Natalie is different. She too has been sucked into the death spiral of RH's edit, so one can understand how she was ignored in the first three eps (and again, this is only from the perspective of RH's ratings of 10, 6, 234, and 12,444 in the first few episodes.) So how can she win? By being the anti-anti-edgic, the person who defeats the bad guy, the sweetheart alternative. Frankly, if you just look at the storytelling this season (like panurge?) this would make some sense. But it would even make more sense if Natalie gets nicer and RH gets even nastier. So if we see RH get even meaner, Natalie's chances of winning would likely improve.

THe problem I have with the Natalie Wins analysis vis a vis edgic (and not the INV stuff, which I am willing to ignore for the time being) is that if we're using the "RH's edit is so huge it's twisting the life out of the show" meme, then Natalie's game has less to do with winning than besting RH. The big cheer would go up because RH was voted out, not that Natalie wins. There is little to her edit to have people root for her other than the fact her initials aren't RH. Yet I can understand why some might pick her, simply because her victory in this RH-centric season would be satisfying.

So again - why am I picking Mick (or, alternately, Jaison)? Because of the sheer mundaneness of his edit. A little P, somewhere between CP and MOR. Amidst the tumult of the RH season edit, where so many people are INV or OTT, Mick's edit is actually the most anomalistic of all. He's utterly normal. I readily concede that he didn't say much in the merge episode, but if people are willing to ignore Natalie's INV or Russell's average rating of 9, then grant his less-than-huge merge. What's left? Utter normalcy.

And in this peculiar season, normalcy stands out.

Jaison's edit is also a standout because it seems to be also less affected by the RH edit. THe one problem I have with his edit, and I'm still mulling this over, is that he sounds like he's going through a redemption edit. Redemptions haven't won survivor - they get close, but don't win. Nevertheless, if we are willing to ignore Nat's INV, Russell's mega OTT 9 rating, and Mick's minimerge, Jaison's edit is quite sound. He's probably the most introspective, thoughtful, and truly interesting person out there. This is internal and personal to him.

Despite that I put Mick slightly ahead of Jaison because of Jaison's multiple comments that suggest winning isn't his priority.

In this season, the standout might not be Russell's huge edit, but the sheer normalcy of Mick.

Oh, crap, flf. You picked Scout?

uh, can I change my pick to Jaison?