Yawn: I'm always quite impressed (and I genuinely mean this) by people who're able to watch Big Brother in the 'pure' way that (I reckon) you watch it eg. wanting to keep the likes of Craig in for the very good reason that they're entertaining. Increasingly, we're being told that this is the way we should vote (assuming we don't want anodyne blandness) and, intellectually, I agree.
However (and this is possibly connected to having been a priggishly 'law-abiding' child), I find it virtually impossible not to also filter the housemates in terms of 'good' and 'bad' behaviour - and want to see the one rewarded and the other punished. I'm well aware of how subjective this is, but the larger part of me wants Craig, say, to be 'taught a lesson' ie. evicted - even though his bad behaviour entertains me.
For what it's worth, I think he probably was unfairly penalised for his part in the Saskiassassin conversation, because, unlike, Derek and Roberto, he wasn't actively discussing nominations, merely doing that thing he does: agreeing with whoever's he's with who's actually gossiping, and giving things an extra stir. As with the consequences of Vanessa's rule-breaking, though, one gets the distinct impression that Big Brother is using these infractions, somewhat arbitrarily, to influence the House dynamic, particularly with regard to nominations. So far, we've had no 'straight' nominations - there's always been a twist or gimmick - and it's vaguely annoying. |
