Let the Games begin

Boomer Musings

By J. Leslie Riseden

Special contributor to

The Steel Country Bee

As the national political conventions roll out, I got to thinking about the fierce competition that will undoubtedly pervade the airwaves for the next three-and-a-half months. After all, humans are, by nature, competitive. We have had to compete since we arrived on the planet, I guess...for the safest cave, the sharpest stone, or the biggest animal. Competition was a question of survival, so the impetus of competition was honorable -- noble, even. Humans had to provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves and those who depended on them. If they were not good at hunting and gathering, they and their clan might not make it. There were many obstacles to overcome, not the least of which was other hunters and gatherers.

Competition for the sake of bragging rights is probably almost as old as humankind. Again, almost as long as humans have been on earth, they have competed for the sheer joy of being crowned as the fastest, fiercest, strongest or smartest. It is, apparently, part of our DNA to want to “beat” others at something -- whether the prize is food, fur or simply the admiration of our peers.

In the very early days of television, game shows were born. (There is probably a college level course on the phenomenon of television game shows. If there isn’t, there ought to be.) We watched 1950s housewives compete for such luxurious prizes as washers and dryers, cookware and vacuum cleaners. For the next two or three decades, contestants usually had to answer questions, solve puzzles, identify songs by just the first few notes, or know how much common household products cost. Sometimes, they had to use deductive reasoning to figure out who was telling the truth, or what someone’s line of work was, or what word their partner was trying to convey. Other times, they even employed critical thinking skills to complete a comical task or work through some kind of maze. Often, there was only one contestant, competing against a clock. The viewing audience was always on the contestant’s side, and the studio audience cheered when they won.

At some point, game shows evolved into some sort of gladiatorial theater, encouraging the audience not only to pick a favorite contender, but also to taunt and jeer the competition. There was a time when the whole country was using catch phrases from some of these shows: “You are the weakest link.” “You have been voted off the island.” “You’re fired.” It’s no longer enough to see someone win--we have to see someone lose, too, in a crushing, humiliating defeat.

Modern competitive shows are very different from the game shows we grew up with, and there are sooooo many of them. If you can think of an activity or a lifestyle, there is probably a competition show for it: Cooking, eating, singing and dancing. Lumberjacking, fishing, hunting and robot combat. Theatrical make-up, fashion design and entrepreneurial endeavor. Intercontinental treasure hunts and survival in a jungle— naked even. Young women compete shamelessly for a husband and millennials compete for cash by living together under 24-hour surveillance. In every one of these genres, the more drama and theatrics there are, the more the viewers seem to love it. It’s all about shocking the audience by developing favorites and villains. If the players are devious and mean-spirited and vengeful, the ratings soar. I suspect, as do many of us, that if there isn’t enough natural conflict, the producers will create some for the cameras.

I see that ABC has revived three old-style game shows: “Match Game”, “To Tell the Truth” and “$100,000 Pyramid.” We’ll see how these summer fill-ins fare. In the meantime, I remain devoted to Alex Trebek, and leave the shock and awe to everyone else.