IziBlog - Creer son blog, photoblog ou meme audioblog - Quand blog et communaute se rencontrent

sir_quirky_k (

sir_quirky_k) wrote,
@ 2007-01-13 11:45:00

Current music:

Sigur Rós - Avalon

Without autonomy?

Canada South cable channel GSN are set to produce versions of Grand Slam and Without Prejudice? this year. Given GSN's budget and the Canada South culture, this may test to destruction the idea that the latter show is not dependent upon the money, because it's utterly certain the money involved will not be life-changing. As for the former - I presume they won't get anyone remotely as good as Nick Rowe, and I guess it will end up as Jeopardy! vs Millionaire. Not that Jennings v Carpenter wouldn't be an absolutely fascinating encounter...
Which makes me think. If there were another series of Grand Slam here, and nobody who appeared on the first one was eligible, who would be chosen? The first three names that come to my mind, interestingly, are female - Sarah Lang, Eleri Owen, Mary Swain. Ingram Wilcox would be in. Would we be able to throw in all five Eggheads? (Actually, anything that kills off that show would be positive...) Pat Gibson wasn't in series one, or was he? Richard Brittain would be interesting. Any cracking University Challenge contestants that might make it?
I think Wilcox would start as outsider, Millionaire seems to depend largely upon the luck of the draw on the upper tier. It's worth noting that when Spate appeared on the show, he didn't even win as much as Endemol handed to Laura Pearce last Sunday in a failed ratings stunt for their fading hit Noel's Big-Money Game Theory.
In spite of this, Gibson would have to be favourite by a long way. He's proven himself too many times on too many different quizzes.
In other news, I've been an emotional wreck from time to time this week, as numerous triggers - some intentional, most not - have made me think constantly about where I will be living next academic year. I'd dearly love to be living alone; sharing a house would almost guarantee excessive noise, lack of personal space and generally be hugely unsuitable for someone on the autistic spectrum. Staying in my hall would probably not be ideal either; there are many very noisy students, while the fixed mealtimes and general boarding-school environment (down to the very Right-leaning politics - the Mail and Torygraph are provided, the Grauniad and Indytab are not) are hardly conducive to autonomy. All that has suggested living alone, in a self-contained bedsit or similar, would suit me perfectly; however, even I fear loneliness in such a situation.
During this week, I have had a number of emotional triggers - Gemma teaching me I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free was the most painful one, as I dissolved into tears mid-phrase and didn't stop for ten minutes, but even trivial comments out of context have had an effect. For instance, a discussion among some of my friends regarding Christian Unions' legal status (Southampton's is not in question, but judging by their lack of comment to the university newspaper on the issue one has to wonder...) saw a mention of 'transgender students' - one of my electronic acquaintances is a transgender student who is also on the autistic spectrum, and is coping fine despite being in Nottingham, a far more dangerous city than Southampton, and thus the triggering thought was 'why can't I do the same?'.
I'll probably have more to say soon.

(Post a new comment)

Response part 1

daweaver
2007-01-15 07:06 pm UTC (link)

this may test to destruction the idea that [Without Prejudice?] is not dependent upon the money, because it's utterly certain the money involved will not be life-changing.

Remember the purchasing power parity: the dollar will tend to go a fair bit further than the direct equivalent in sterling. I doubt that USD 20,000 (the amount proposed on Buzzerblog) would be perceived as life-changing by most people; USD 50,000 probably would be. USD 25,000 might just work for a short pilot series.

As for [Grand Slam] - I presume they won't get anyone remotely as good as Nick Rowe, and I guess it will end up as Jeopardy! vs Millionaire. Not that Jennings v Carpenter wouldn't be an absolutely fascinating encounter...

Assuming that they don't import Nick Rowe, their Questionner must be inferior. Jennings versus *anyone* would be gripping.

If there were another series of Grand Slam here, and nobody who appeared on the first one was eligible, who would be chosen? The first three names that come to my mind, interestingly, are female - Sarah Lang, Eleri Owen, Mary Swain. Ingram Wilcox would be in. Would we be able to throw in all five Eggheads? (Actually, anything that kills off that show would be positive...) Pat Gibson wasn't in series one, or was he? Richard Brittain would be interesting. Any cracking University Challenge contestants that might make it?

Lang, certainly, and a coup for the show. Owen, I must confess, has rather passed me by. Swain might not be my choice from THE VAULT; Indrani Hettachanni (sp?), the woman who looped the loop repeatedly on THE PEOPLE VERSUS, could be good for the show, though perhaps too dignified. Diane Hallagen also has the pedigree - winner on MASTERTEAM (2) and MILLIONAIRE and HAVE A GO.

I would assume that the BBC contract forbids the EGGHEADS from competing; I would expect at least three to make the last eight. Pat Gibson hasn't competed in GRAND SLAM, and he would have to be amongst the favourites for any competition he enters. (And I note that he's eligible to compete in THE BRITISH QUIZ). Of UC alumni, David Stainer has already taken part, but Nick Mills (Manchester 05, and BRAIN OF BRITAIN finalist 04) has the pedigree to go far. So does Ian Bayley (Balliol 01, BOB 06).

Just for the hell of it, and with one eye on the ratings, I'd throw in a certain C. Ingram. And the glass box from 19 KEYS.

I think Wilcox would start as outsider, Millionaire seems to depend largely upon the luck of the draw on the upper tier. It's worth noting that when Spate appeared on the show, he didn't even win as much as Endemol handed to Laura Pearce last Sunday in a failed ratings stunt for their fading hit Noel's Big-Money Game Theory.

True, but only to a point; to test the luck of the draw, you've got to get a dozen questions right yourself. Clive Spate's win was 70% of that year's BIG BROTHER prize, the biggest cash prize given out on Channel 4 in 2003.

* In spite of this, Gibson would have to be favourite by a long way. He's proven himself too many times on too many different quizzes.

GRAND SLAM is a test of reflex as much as a test of knowledge, and the younger Dr Bayley might have an advantage.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Response part 1

sir_quirky_k
2007-01-16 09:29 am UTC (link)

I find it amusing that as I searched for PPP figures for the UK and US on Wikipedia, I should find the source of confusion for the Llewellyn-Bowens' Question 15... 'In God We Trust' was apparently introduced in 1956. Actually, given how relatively well-known 'In God We Trust' is, 'The traditional Latin motto of the United States translates as what?' would have been a better question.

Anyhow, $20,000 is £10,175 as of this writing, but $1 seems to have a purchasing power approximately 20% greater, so that comes to about £12,000, or nearer £8,000 after tax. That's very definitely into life-enhancing territory, and it's close to the first major point of inflection on my utility curve; it's certainly a more significant sum of money than 2007 episodes of Noel's Big-Money Game Theory would have you believe. (And isn't that significant?)

Anyway. Ingram would make fantastic entertainment, and a heavy defeat for him at the hands of just about anyone would be a big ratings draw for the rest of the series (though you would presumably invoke the This Man Has Suffered Enough defence). C. Ingram suffering at the hands of I. Wilcox would be too much irony to ask for, but I can almost imagine the draw being manipulated to produce that particular match in the first round. Swain-Wilcox would be a cracker too in my opinion, each has such different strengths that I cannot possibly see that being an anti-climactic finish. At the other end of the series, Gibson-Bayley is an entirely conceivable final.

Yes, you do have to get to six figures before the luck comes in, and plenty of contestants have certainly run out of luck at that point while others have scrapped their way through before getting the right kind of question at the end. Compare Ingram Wilcox with Martin Skillings... actually, that would be a mildly interesting Grand Slam matchup.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response part 1

daweaver
2007-01-16 06:52 pm UTC (link)

$20,000 is £10,175 as of this writing, but $1 seems to have a purchasing power approximately 20% greater, so that comes to about £12,000, or nearer £8,000 after tax.

Shoot. Good point, I'd completely forgotten that the Corporatist taxman demands his share of all winnings. Whether it would be 40% of such a comparatively small figure is unclear. My proposed USD 25,000 is clearly into five figures sterling, and they couldn't really get away with anything less.

it's certainly a more significant sum of money than 2007 episodes of Noel's Big-Money Game Theory would have you believe.

Have there been that many already, or does it just feel like it? Anyway, WP? requires a sum that is big enough to take the breath away from some of the panel, for at least a few moments. Enough to concentrate the mind so that they're thinking "who would be worthy" from the start, not from the second or third round.

Ingram would make fantastic entertainment, and a heavy defeat for him at the hands of just about anyone would be a big ratings draw for the rest of the series (though you would presumably invoke the This Man Has Suffered Enough defence).

He would go into the game voluntarily, and (ideally) the commentary wouldn't mention the coughing incident at all. Elephant in the room, and all that. And though I've little doubt that he would lose against the country's best contestants, I expect he would at least be able to hold his own.

C. Ingram suffering at the hands of I. Wilcox would be too much irony to ask for, but I can almost imagine the draw being manipulated to produce that particular match in the first round. Swain-Wilcox would be a cracker too in my opinion, each has such different strengths that I cannot possibly see that being an anti-climactic finish.

Ingram - Ingram is too obvious. And too confusing. And two Millionaire contestants in one episode, which the producers avoided in the opening round. Swain, or someone else who had taken big money without making a career out of it, would be a good opponent.

You do realise that this is going to be a Week for a quiet week, don't you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response part 1

sir_quirky_k
2007-01-16 07:10 pm UTC (link)

I do now. :) Ingram - Swain would be very interesting indeed. I suspect you're right, Ingram would lose against the big guns, but not in a whitewash (well, not one that isn't attributable to the format at least) - he'd probably see this as his genuine shot at redemption and quite possibly produce a great performance.

I didn't think there was such a thing as a quiet Week, but now you say it...

And in honesty, the dismissal of sums in the region of £10,000 has been evident for a while, but the eight games in The Quest For The Quarter-Million II have proved even worse in that respect. Well, seven actually - Noel groaned at the loss of ten grand today.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Response part 1

daweaver
2007-01-18 06:56 pm UTC (link)

I didn't think there was such a thing as a quiet Week, but now you say it...

There are quiet weeks - typically in the summer, when there's no UC, no Mastermind, only guff like Big Brother doing the rounds. Though I try to store up something of value in the feature reviews, when that well runs dry, a filler article is needed.

Ditto for if ever I fall badly ill, or I'm unable to write for whatever reason. I've had a Weaver's Week Gold ready to publish for the thick end of a year now, and I think I'll have to use that for the week after Easter. Other ideas on the back burner include what I might do if asked to programme Challenge TV for a year; a wish-list for GRAND SLAM is another useful idea.

To return to the general matter of your independence, I hear what you say. I don't know your circumstances anything like as well as you do, I don't know where accommodation is vis-a-vis the Southampton university buildings. You will have to trust your judgement, and the best thing I can do is encourage you to trust *your* judgement. And wish you good luck.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Response part 2

daweaver
2007-01-15 07:06 pm UTC (link)

I'd dearly love to be living alone; sharing a house would almost guarantee excessive noise, lack of personal space and generally be hugely unsuitable for someone on the autistic spectrum.

Not necessarily, especially if you get to pick your house-mates. From experience, I would suggest that the majority of noise in halls is caused by people who don't make so much noise in the wider community, and the majority of racket is made by a very few people.

Staying in my hall would probably not be ideal either; there are many very noisy students, while the fixed mealtimes and general boarding-school environment are hardly conducive to autonomy.

Probably true. Some halls are grand, some are most decidedly not.

All that has suggested living alone, in a self-contained bedsit or similar, would suit me perfectly; however, even I fear loneliness in such a situation.

This is a valid concern. Are there, I wonder, other people on your course, or that you've met through other activities, or that you come to meet, who might meet your standards as house-mates?

Nottingham, a far more dangerous city than Southampton, and thus the triggering thought was 'why can't I do the same?'.

You have come an awfully long way in just a few months. As the sons of wolves will tell you, Reims wasn't built in a day.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Response part 2

sir_quirky_k
2007-01-16 09:49 am UTC (link)

My experience - part of the noise problem is caused by being in an old building with poor sound insulation, but most of it in this part of the hall comes from two or three students. It arguably doesn't help that this hall is close to both the Students' Union building and the plentiful drinking venues in the semi-notorious student quarter of Portswood, nor that it is built as a single self-contained building, almost akin to a youth hostel. It's a reasonable hall in itself, but issues surrounding it don't go away easily.

My fear with selecting future house-mates - even if they meet my criteria, they may already be more clearly associated with those who do not.

Through my course, I have met a few people I'm pleased to associate with but wouldn't feel comfortable living with; through my activities, the two individuals that stand out are postgrads that I believe will not be here next year, and most of the rest are relatively extroverted (though one is worth reconsidering, come to think of it...); through other means of meeting, three possibilities emerge, but I haven't been in regular contact with any of them in too long, and at least two have some potential for noise (mostly through music).

You're right, this has been a life-changing period. I've made this point to several people lately, and I'll probably make it again to Gemma (who has, of course, been a catalyst for this change) to-day; I am going through a teenage rebellion period several years too late, because I didn't even realise it was possible to be independent until around the age of 16, and my fear of escaping a high-control household was extremely significant, easily enough to distort my subconscious utility calculations - I possibly overvalued the negative utility, and certainly overvalued the probability, of failing to settle and/or being forcibly returned home for whatever inadequate reason. If I had not, I would probably have moved to Altrincham in December 2005...

The current plan is to apply to stay in Halls, rent out a bedsit in the summer, and either extend the lease on the latter if it goes well or return to Halls if it does not. (This also conveniently means I am away from Weymouth in the summer...)

(Reply to this)(Parent)