At the end of last season, it had come down to two very different players - the heroic Natalie and the villainous Russell. This opposition is incredibly interesting to me, specifically because the two who remained in this crucible of social situations were indeed the purest of their kind and this happened on it's own. (Presuming, of course, that Survivor really is a REALITY show unadulterated by the higher-ratings efforts by producers.)
But what defined their evil and heroic personas? A non-exhaustive list may look something like this:
Evil:
- lied to alliances
- destruction of group harmony
- eliminating opportunities for protection or advancement for other teammates
Heroic:
- praying
- contributing effort at camp to make life better for everyone
- being non-aggressive, letting others make moves for themselves
So how is it then that the heroic survivor of last season, Natalie, with 'praying' (I use the quotes to communicate the widely perceived intangibility of prayer) and without trying, won?? In her words, her primary strategy was to play as a non-aggressive female which then made her appear weak and undeserving; Russell made all of the cut-throat moves, taking her along with him. She was loyal to her original alliance but it was with the devil and she therefore indirectly supported his malign actions. She did not even try to counteract him. Doesn't it seem like she would be guilty too as his accomplice? And still undeserving?
I'm not sure if any of that made a difference. In the end it was the jury's decision; the jury consisted of the most-recently double-crossed players voted out. Russell still had their blood on his fangs and claws. Natalie, the impotent hero, won by a great majority. And Russell, the very potent and effective deceiver, lost significantly. Clearly, she appeared better to them. And to them, even though she would not have made it to the end without Russell, she should nonetheless be the winner, not him.
It is my theory that this parodies the bible by exquisitely showing how day in, day out, efforts with self-serving motivation win and that most people actually TRYING to win are likely to resort to these moves. Which implies that even heroes are subject to falling. Poignantly, that's already been seen in the hero tribe in the current season. Sometimes the lines blur and heroes become villainous.
At the editing suggestion of a friend, I'll tie the points together better here. Natalie is like the Christian: we are sufferers of our sin (hence no neutralizing attempts to Russell's displacing actions) with the choice of EXPRESSING our sin (I wish I could take credit for that analogy but instead see
Matt), yet accepting that our own assessments and strategies are still inadequate and to let the others decide their own fate. That is a very hands off approach that allows other things to happen, and those other things are simply the greater forces netting some action. And that is the Christian belief to not worry because God, the greater force, is in control.
Russell is like the non-believer: operating on what his intelligence deducts. But this intelligence is limited because assessments are based only on Russell's empiricism and what he hears from anyone else - the latter is an interface that cannot be assumed to be accurate, not to mention battling it from becoming fully incorporated with your collected knowledge. And the hero is subject to these qualities, because they exist in a world where being a non-believer/falling is the
DEFAULT M.O. But falling is not a terminal status, spiritually. We have the choice to continue in that expression or to not. As demonstrated by Russell, the most successful of the villains, these qualities bear no gain - except in the short-run, but ultimately they lose.
But in the end we all want to be treated fairly; we want to matter and not be treated like we are expendable. On the final day of judgment, the jury rewarded this hero even though it was a paradox that she was even there. In essence, Russell expected his victims to praise him for being the best at playing the game they were all trying to play by rewarding him with the winnings for his cunning/diabolical actions against them. Yet, despite her inactive strategy towards winning, and still operating in the bad world she lived in, they chose her. They did not want bad to win, they wanted good to perpetuate. It's so simple. We are logical beings with illogical motives. Russell's logic is a salient illustration of that - what should occur logically isn't what we all actually want to happen.
Is this not like the bible says it's going to be? The bible says we are going to get what we think we want, like the jury. They employed self-preservation moves that resulted in the opposite, including Russell. But when the reality is revealed to us, it will be anything but what we wanted.
God ASKS us to praise him for his holy grace towards us, and that doesn't make any sense until you are a believer.
