The Weal and Woe of the Misfortunate

If you happened to see "Wheel of Fortune" last night, you saw a heartbreaker. Oh! how terrible!

The contestant in question was a deputy sheriff named Syeeta, who managed to accrue over $19,000 before attempting to solve the puzzle. The puzzle was this: HOGWARTS SCHOOL OF WITCHCRAFT AND WIZARDRY. Syetta had enough letters that the solution was obvious.

She seemed tentative as she launched out on solving it. Getting everything but WIZARDRY right. I thought she said WIZARDY without the R. My companion thought she simply said WIZARD. Whichever she said, the final R of the word was already revealed. So if I'm right, she mispronounced the final syllable, more likely. And if my companion is right, she stopped a little early. Either way, she lost.

That's a sure $19,000+ down the drain, simply gone. How horrible would that be?! Ghastly. I don't think I'd even be able to watch my episode later at home, knowing that happened. For most of us it takes a lot of time and effort to get $19,000+. Then to see it just [POOF] right out of our grasp would be too much. I felt sick for her.

But for me, the cherry on top was Pat Sajak at the end of the show wishing her well, saying he hoped it was "a good experience" for her! Think of everything you could say to that. "Yes, it was a fantastic experience ... seeing $19,000 go down the toilet ... I only wish it happened everyday!"

I got some laughs from my companion when I was kicking my leg up in the air. "Yes, I love kicking myself in the ass so much! It's such 'a great experience' for me! Great experience?!" And there I go chasing Pat Sajak around the studio. Vanna would have to step in and be the temporary host the last few minutes.

Some Proposed Changes For Jeopardy

Everyone loves Jeopardy. I've never known anyone -- out of my handful of acquaintances -- who didn't love the quiz show that turns questions and answers on their heads, and pulls out all the stops doing so.

This week it's the Tournament of Champions, which I always like. You get to see contestants who are proven winners, each having won something like a minimum of five shows, go immediately from winner to loser. Because there's only one winner. Even though they're all smart, it's still not like Superman split in three where each is of equal strength and none can win.

One of the weirdest thing about Jeopardy is how every week there's at least one contestant who totally crashes and burns. It's weird because they have to pass a minimum competency test in trivial knowledge to even be on. And yet ... they die on the spot. Frequently, it's a woman who gets the middle spot, but not always.

The current host is Alex Trebek. I heard he signed a three-year contract a couple years ago, and that that will be it, so we're probably getting to the end of his tenure. I actually lose some sleep at night worrying about who they're going to get to replace him. I toss and turn trying to think of who it might be. Then I tell myself two things: 1) The Lord is good, He will provide; and, 2) They replaced Bob Barker and that worked out well. Seriously, Drew Carey is the nicest guy on TV.

Alex has a couple quirks I don't like. One of them he shows when someone gives an answer (question) that's totally off the beam; Alex says, "Oh no..." as though it was obvious and Shame on you. That's rubbing it in a bit much. And two, I can't think of the other quirk. Oh yeah, it has to do with his picture perfect pronunciation of French.

Now, as to the proposed changes, some of these come out of my own Jeopardy play at home. One, I like to bet big on the Daily Double, but I don't like to just bet the money I have. I like to add to it, including pieces of property. It's just for play, and my dog isn't injured in the course of the show, but I take pretend snatches of dog fur to bet. So I might bet everything I have, my Jeopardy money, plus a dollar out of my wallet, my cable remote, plus a snatch of dog fur. Then when I get it right, which has been known to happen, I get it all back double, and the dog's more ready for winter. Or if I get it wrong, I have to reconcile not only with a cold dog but the cable company.

So let's go from there. Say each contestant could bring 10-12 items from home -- valuable and trivial -- to add to their Daily Double wagers. The judges, maybe with an auctioneer as a judge who has lots of experience knowing what things are worth, quickly determine what the items are worth, and that gets added or deducted from the score. So if a guy has a barbecue grill, that could be $40; a bucket of green walnuts, $20; three dead tropical fish, the minimal value of 50 cents; etc. It'd make it fun, like a garage sale, or like Let's Make a Deal. You never know what you might win! A two dollar mule!

I've watched Jeopardy on and off for many years. I remember watching it in the '60s, when I never knew a thing about Shakespeare or Potpourri or Potent Potables. Shakespeare was a total mystery. Now, though, that I've read Romeo and Juliet, although it's been 20 years, I at least have a chance.

What's Your Purview?

"Purview" is a word I have a hard time keeping in mind, its definition and how to use it. Typically, the only way I can use it in a sentence is to simply use it afresh. If I sit and think about it, it becomes unknowable and absurd quicker than most other words. Maybe the key to that is I only use it once in a blue moon.

But when it's called for, of course I use it, whether or not it makes me sound like an egghead. Yes, I have regrets anytime it escapes my lips. Because people will be sitting there going, "WTF is this guy talking about?" or words to that effect.

Today I used "purview" early on just talking to myself. And decided then and there it'd be a great game show from the past -- "What's Your Purview? -- with a panel of blindfolded socialites guessing a particular individual's purview. He's out there, and the panel is thrashing about, hoping to get a handle on his purview of whatever the topic is. "Would your purview ever include a breadbox?" I think that'd be entertaining.

Is something like that funny or interesting to you? Would it be locatable in your purview of what a decent game show would be? The subject could be something very trivial, like what his favorite brand of coffee is. He has a purview encompassing the subject, probably like all of us. Just speaking for myself, I have a definite favorite, but an overall purview on the subject that still encompasses other alternatives.

Or the subject could be something quite complex, meaning they'd have to have guests whose purview of matters had complexity in its scope. On a broad subject like the underlying unity of the world's religions, let's say, not everyone's purview could do it justice. But it'd still be interesting to see them try, humorously so if they were fundamentalists, or enlightening if their purview were already broadened by thought and strong conclusions. I mention this in particular because I feel that my purview concerning the topic is probably broader than most. On that and old cartoons.

However, let's leave me out. Having a broad purview, as I do, I'm more than willing to admit other voices. Plus, my purview of topics is wide enough that, really, any subject would be fit fodder for any given episode, and would interest me. If your purview differs from mine, I don't mind, because my purview is broad enough to allow for all kinds, the ignorant as well as the smart.

So let's say you ended up on the show. It's you and another contestant. The panel is in place, judging one purview against another. You win, that's good. Or you lose, it's good. Because I have a broad purview on the outcome of the show, knowing that the lovely parting gifts are worth having. And just being on the show, in my overall purview of entertainment history, it's a nice slice of immortality.