Wait, what? We are?
Caitlin Dewey takes to her WP blog to tell us "Why we’re actually mad at ruthless ‘Jeopardy!’ contestant Arthur Chu".
Except "we" aren't. Not if "we" includes me and a few other people I know.
Granted, though, many of "us" are, according to Ken Jennings in Slate, which is kind of sad. But I'm not - I like watching him win.
I have a couple of nits to pick with her - first of all, for claiming that
Since time immemorial — read: at least September 1984, when the Alex Trebek-hosted daily syndicated version of the show launched — “Jeopardy” has almost always followed a simple pattern: Contestants pick a category; they progress through the category from top to bottom; they earn winnings when they, through their hard-earned and admirable knowledge, get the questions right.O rly? I can't think of a time when running the category was the norm. Many contestants do some bouncing around, working from closer to the bottom if they're confident of the category, and sticking to the top when they're not. Heck, it was way back in 1985 that one of them invented the "Forrest Bounce" strategy for hunting the Daily Doubles...
And as for
Most unforgivably to many, Chu tries to squeeze in the most questions per round by pounding the bejesus out of his buzzer and interrupting Alex Trebek. This is Alex Trebek, North American icon (he’s Canadian by birth), we’re talking about here.well. Come on. I love it when they clear the board. And you can't ring in before he's finished reading the question; the buzzer doesn't work. Buzzer timing is what made Ken Jennings such a killer, not to mention that machine Brad Rutter, who was handicapped by playing in the "only five games" era and still is the biggest money winner. As for interrupting Alex, well, Alex does occasionally just start to make some little point, and you never know when. If Chu's into the game, he won't be expecting that.
... OMG. I just read through Jennings and Chu's talk and I'm stunned. "We" do seem to be mad. Wow.