TODAY'S PAPER
Overcast 30° Good Morning
Overcast 30° Good Morning
EntertainmentTV

"Survivor:" Russell's non-game

 

 

  At the end of a second straight Russell-Hantz-comes-up-witth-zero edition, the obvious questions are so obvious: Why? What is he doing wrong? If he's the Best Player Ever,  in his own estimation, then why two straight losses - the first to Natalie White, then the second to the Best Coattail Player Ever, Sandra Diaz-Twine?

  After careful rumination, the answer has finally arrived: The other players were playing Russell all along. They wanted him around for the duration. Why? So they could get into the finale with him where he was sure to get zero votes and they were sure to get at least some. 

  Sandra insists she did everything in her power to dump the bearded one early on; doubtful because she knew if he was sitting next to her at the final tribal council, all spoils would come to her.

  It's actually an interesting dynamic: Somehow keep the least liked contestant in the game until the bitter end, in the hope that votes will be split between the two most likeable contestants.

  Of course, Parvati Shallow made a fundamental error in this calculus: She was too closely allied with Russell.

  This is of course all purre speculation, and imagine the complexity of actually  refusing to vote out someone llike Russell simply so you can keep him around to the end - all hereoes and villains would have has to have conspired at some point in the game to say, "let's do this!"

   I know it seems really far-fetched, but other possible explanation is there?  Russell had to know he would get no votes - had to. For all his trouble, he probably now wishes he had been voted out in the first tribal council.

 

More Entertainment