posted
I certainly wouldn't take Mr Card to task for book reviews, political beliefs, etc (as I read in another thread), but in his most recent Review he sounded like like a conspiracy theorist:
"And then I remember the tournament they had between Jennings and all the previous winners, and how one of them finally managed to beat him. I remember thinking at the time: I don’t think Jennings wants to win this. And during that final round, I think he blew questions that, if he had cared, he would have won.
In short, given the things he did know, I think Jennings simply decided that he had had enough – he didn’t want to be known as the all-time best Jeopardy player. He had nothing left to prove, and maybe by losing he could get his life back. So he didn’t stretch himself enough to win. Winning that final game would have been hubris. (And you can bet that Ken knows what the word hubris means.)"
I watched that final match, which played out over 2 days, and the other guy bested Jennings's score both those days, by big margins. If he looked a little "off", I'd attribute that to shellshock. He lost because he was beaten to the punch by a guy who knew a lot of really hard answers, not because he himself blew easy questions.
And that guy was no slouch. He had won the tourney of champs before. He played back when you could only play 5 shows. And he had to carve up a touch field (which he did easily) just to get his shot at Jennings.
Give him his due.
It's no accident Mr Card is such a fine novelist. That he can create a fictional Ken Jennings who didn't want to be saddled with 2 and a half million more dollars, so he could shed the onerous responsibilities of being labeled "That Jeopardy Guy" (while still doing TV commercials cashing in on it) is impressive.
But you have Occam's razor burn here, Mr Card.
The most plausible explanation is that Mr Jennings is (or was on that day) the 2nd best Jeopardy player of all time.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Mr Card sounds like a conspiracy theorist just because he thinks Jennings simply decided that he had enough. He sounds like someone who thinks that Jennings simply had enough and said so. You sound like someone who thinks that someone better than Jennings (on that day) beat Jennings. That doesn't make you a Jennings hater. I guess for some people the only way to express an opinion is to attack the person's character first, then state your opinion second
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't intend the post as an attack on Mr. Card's character. I suspect he may have been rooting for Jennings, and attempting to frame his loss in a palatable way. I do the same for the Broncos and Sooners all the time.
The crack about conspiracy theory is just this: a convoluted explanation involving hidden motivations was offered while a straightforward explanation was already extant.
And seriously, if Jennings didn't want to be "That Jeopardy Guy," why the books, commercials, and, c'mon, the appearance on the show again. He could have gracefully declined and severed his ties.
Jennings was awesome. It was a fluke when his streak ended on that UPS question. But he was beaten pretty soundly on that 2.5 million dollar tourney.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may not have intended the post to be an attack but it certainly came across like you wanted to. Jennings could very well have been tired of appearing on the show day after day, week after week. Sometimes the motivation to win disappears once you reach great heights. Tiger Woods is a great example of that.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have been clearer. i don't think this was a CONSCIOUS decision on Jenning's part. (It could have been; I don't know.) It simply seemed to me that he had lost his intensity. That this was a replay of something he was, in his heart, done with. I'm only speculating. Though Mr. Jennings and I have had a brief correspondence, I didn't ask him about this. I watched as I watch all performances. You know when the edge is off the performance. Even though he always seemed preternaturally relaxed, there was a tension there underlying everything during his magnificent performance last spring. But in the tournament, I didn't see that. He wasn't "not trying" - he'd never want to embarrass himself. But i've watched hundreds and hundreds of performances for precisely this element (watching actors is part of what a playwright or director does) and while I could easily be wrong, this IS how it seemed to me.
But I really do mean it when I say - and even when I don't say - "I could be wrong." Since this statement is ALWAYS true, or at least trueish (who would dare argue with me that i'm wrong when I say "I love my children"? - but maybe I don't know what "love" really is so I COULD be wrong <wince>), I usually assume that it's understood and goes without saying....
posted
Sounds like you two really held the same opinion
I've been reading alot of Nietzsche lately, a pleasure as always, but in bulk for a project.
The thread reminded me a bit of an aphorism I read last night:
"One often contradicts an opinion when it is really only the tone in which it has been presented that is unsympathetic"
Posts: 42 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
