Explain how this show depicts a "survivor". (For example, by listing characteristics or giving anecdotes.) Compare/contrast "survivor" with related terms like "winner", "leader", or "healthy person". Which of these meanings of "survivor" was most evident on the show? Why?

Explain how this show made us think of the meaning of the word "game show" or even "game." How were the games people played on the show like the games people play in real life--say, on the job? Would watching this show help you play those games? If so, how?

 CLASSIFICATION & CAUSE/EFFECT ANALYSIS

What types of TV shows do we watch? Why do we watch each type? That is, what do we hope to gain from each type, or why do we find each type compelling? How many of these types of TV are part of the format of "Survivors"? (Consider the possibility that the appeal of the show lies in the fact that it's a hybrid creation of many other different types of shows; for example, nature shows on the learning channel, game shows, sports events, and sitcoms. Maybe this show had something to appeal to each of these different types of TV audiences.)

Why did Richard Hatch win? Would most people have thought he was the right person to win? Why or why not?

Explain why all the runners-up lasted longer than the other contestants. Does it seem that they should they have done so? Why or why not?

Was it satisfying to see the elimination of certain other contestants? Why?

What lessons that we learned from this show could be applied to our own lives? How?

How did each of the two tribes come together and function as a community or team? What can be learned from studying this process?

What were the characteristics of the people who seemed most successful? Why?

What were the characteristics of the people who seemed least successful? Why?

What were the main differences between these two groups?

How did watching this show affect you as a viewer? Did it make you analyze your own personal or working relationships? Did it make you feel superior to or inferior to these people? Did it make you laugh? Did it "open your eyes" to some problems of group or power dynamics? Did it make you take your own problems more or less seriously?

What do you think you got out of watching the show?

1. Lessons in life?
2. Surrogate friends?
3. A vicarious tropical vacation?
4. The chance to gossip about people who couldn't be hurt or offended by what you said?
5. Answers to specific questions about human nature?
6. The chance to vent your anger or to be vicariously cruel?
7. The opportunity to see how much you know or to feel good about yourself in comparison to these contestants?
8. An opportunity to be grateful for the comforts of civilization?

You wouldn't want to try to present your reader with all these approaches in the same paper. There are at least two reasons why. First, your paper would be long, disorganized, and difficult to unify under one thesis. Second, there's a lot of overlap among these different approaches. In other words, two different strategies might really involve asking the same question twice, from two different angles. You might not want to do that in the final draft of your paper; it could be too confusing to your readers.

Instead, you'd look at all the different strategies of approach while you were writing the rough drafts of your paper. In the end, you'd choose the approach that did the best job of jump-starting your imagination.

While writing the rough drafts, how many and what kinds of questions should you consider? I'd suggest considering all of the approaches that focus your attention on the aspect of the show that most interests you, even if you don't want to include all these thoughts in your final draft. Let's see if I can use an example to show how this is helpful.

Look at the first set of questions in the third group, "Why did Richard Hatch win? Would most people have thought he was the right person to win? Why or why not?" Now look at the first set of questions in the sixth group, "What were the characteristics of the people who seemed most successful? Why?"

Unless you were seriously disappointed in the outcome, there could be a lot of overlap between these two responses. For some writers, the answers might be almost identical.

On the other hand, though, the two different sets of questions do invite you to look at Hatch's victory from two different standpoints. If you start with the questions in group three, you might become hung up on one attribute of Hatch's that you didn't like, such as his authoritarian personality or his homosexuality. Considering the question from the different angle suggested by the questions in group six would force you to look at Hatch's victory differently.

Let's see how this might work. Rather than talking only about how much you hated his authoritarian personality, you might be forced to consider that he's also a good cook. If you thought about the matter for a little longer, you might find yourself asking, "What are the characteristics of a good cook?" The answers to that question might surprise you. All of a sudden you might realize that Hatch, like all good cooks, is resourceful. He makes do with the ingredients on hand. Also--again, like all good cooks--Hatch is a thoughtful person who's aware of the needs and tastes of others.

Gee, it's amazing how asking the same question from a different perspective can change your mind, isn't it? All of a sudden this man who "survived" only because of his resemblance to General Patton might begin to look a little more like your mother than like General Patton.

Uh, oh, I hear an objection coming up. Some of you might say this: "But I don't care about his awareness or his resourcefulness and I really don't think they have anything to do with his winning the game. Rather I think the great thing about 'Survivors' was that it showed us that all of life's real winners really DO act a lot like General Patton. Hatch did, so he won, regardless of his other qualities."

Okay, fine. You're entitled to that view. But you will still write a better defense of that view if you've also considered the matter from another angle. In other words, you'll write a better defense of the General Patton theory if your essay shows that you've first taken other theories into account.

For starters, you might be able to show a connection between Hatch's authoritarian qualities and his talents as a cook. For example, both a cook and an authoritarian leader are natural managers; it's just that one manages material resources and another manages human resources. Alternatively, you might decide that there's no connection between the two skills, but that leadership is clearly more important than cooking ability. That would give you the opportunity to explain why leadership matters more. In either case, you would have given yourself more to say. It's unlikely that you'd still be chewing your fingernails and wondering how in the world you were going to come up with 500 words.

Anyway, the alternative is to sound like a thoughtless person who really didn't notice anything about this man except that he's authoritarian. You may turn off your audience. Or they may decide that your biased view of Hatch stems from some personal experiences that have tainted your objectivity. Either way, you lose the interest of your readers and you lose credibility.

Let's look at one more example of two different sets of questions that require you to examine the same information or opinions from two different viewpoints. Look at group 4, "What lessons that we learned from this show could be applied to our own lives? How?" Now look at group 7, "How did watching this show affect you as a viewer? Did it make you analyze your own personal or working relationships? Did it make you feel superior to or inferior to these people? Did it make you laugh? Did it 'open your eyes' to some problems of group or power dynamics? Did it make you take your own problems more or less seriously?"

First of all, group 7 questions are probably easier for most of us to answer than group 4 questions, so starting with them might help us better understand the questions in group 4. However, group 7 questions have answers of limited value. We don't know if the same emotional reactions we felt were aroused in other viewers. By answering group 7 questions first and then moving on to the questions in group 4, we might be able to make our responses to group 7 questions more interesting and significant for our audience. In this case, then, the two groups of questions would probably work better when considered together than when considered separately.

Sorry we didn't get to discuss this all in class!