"First there is a mountain, then no mountain, then there is ..."

Some time ago (I forget when), I talked about how to use a gold watch to hypnotize someone. You know, the typical scene in old-timey Westerns, when the snake-oil salesman pulls out a gold pocketwatch (the ancestor of wristwatches) and waves it back and forth in front of the farmer, saying "count to ten backwards, then sleep ... sleeep ... sleeeeep."

The farmer's head bobs back and forth as he stares at what he really, really, really wants -- the gold pocketwatch. A little clock he can carry with him into the field, would fit just right in that little pocket there on his overalls, and it's ... gold.

The swaying and the counting backwards do not hypnotize anyone -- they relax a person, instead. What fascinates, then hypnotizes, is the timepiece itself -- that not-so-obscure object of desire. Be it an SLK or an ultraportable, a silk dress or custom shoes, it's what we want that holds our interest. Or so I said, at the time.

I think television's "reality" shows* are today's gold pocketwatches, though.* They fascinate us because we tend to identify with one of the contestants (or more -- you need a backup, right?), there is a desireable prize at the end of the rainb-- er, contest ("a million dollars!), and there are the "twists and turns" getting there that are familiar to us all.

Who gets eliminated? Why, oh, why did they have to vote him or her off? Who will win instead -- oh, who? (twists hands anxiously)

They're harmless fun, at the end -- and that's OK with me. After all, isn't it better to learn from others' mistakes, instead of by making them yourself?

But if the stakes were really real -- if the loser of the week didn't just get "voted off the island" or get their publicity photo burned in effigy, what then? And the game were not played in an arena for entertainment, but on the street -- in earnest?

An "indie" movie a few years back explored that idea with a pregnant woman characterized as the ideal assassin, targeting her fellow contestants. I forget the name, never saw it, but it just occurs to me how far ahead of "reality" it was.

But another wrinkle -- what if it looks like reality, but isn't, but is... ? And someone figures that out -- ahead of the green door.

Originally posted to LiveJournal on July 9, 2008

___
*A commenter at the time objected to some of this post's generalizations and asked me to explain them. Here is what I wrote in reply (peppered with more of those idiotic "emoticons"):

The first reality show I watched from start to finish (and over again) was CBS’s “Survivor” (S1). Every contestant that I was rooting for was “outfoxed” by the evil Richard (I think that was his name). (*gnashes teeth*)
CBS made the decision to air the entire thing in repeat mode (in other words, an expanded “cut” of each episode), starting only a few weeks after the show finished that first season.
It was clear to me (watching the second time in hindsight) that Richard seemed to know what was going to happen before it did. :^ He just had that look on his face. Either Richard was “psychic,” or a really good observer, or … . Yeah, there’s that other possibility, isn’t there? ;)
Since then, I have taken “reality” television with a grain of salt. Actually, more like a shaker full of salt. ;D
BTW, a look at the title of the icon (as Romana I gets the better of The Doctor) may provide a clue to the “deeper level.” (*chortles evilly*)
And I _agree_ with you: the “losing” contestants really _do_ look hurt by their experience. If so, the shows are _not_ so harmless! But these shows appear to be so for the viewing audience, who can watch it all from a comfortable distance.

The LJ icon I was referring to has Mary Tamm grabbing Tom Baker from behind by his scarf. I do not recall the title I gave to it.