Thinking person: crumpet
Ah, University Challenge, one of those programmes that's seemingly always on, and if I see it at all, it's by mistake, and about ten minutes before the end, when Jeremy Paxman speeds up and tells the students off. I never sit down to watch it, because it's only the very occasional picture or music round that actually elicits any correct answers from my brain. Thus, unlike Mastermind, it's not participatory, merely passive. I was keen to see yesterday's final because of Gail Trimble, who I heard about on Radio 4's PM programme last night - unbeknown to me, she has become a bit of a name due to being really clever and earning Corpus Christi about two thirds of their points over the series. I understand she's also become an "unlikely sex symbol". The media loves creating "unlikely sex symbols" even though they instantly become "likely" once singled out in this way. Trimble is very clever and she's a woman who's more conventionally attractive than, say, Anne Widdecombe or Bella Emberg - that'll do for the media, which is still mostly run by unattractive middle-aged men, hence her elevation for a couple of weeks until these men get bored and realise that a student is never going to get off with them.
Anyway, the hype worked, as I tried to actually watch a full edition of University Challenge on the iPlayer, which wasn't easy, as my connection in the Library (where, ironically, I was surrounded by people who looked like they were on University Challenge) was very weak, and it kept rebuffering in the middle of Paxman's questions. This was no way to take part. Manchester were dominant initially, but I was ready to give up after about seven minutes, as I was sick of seeing that little clock symbol going round and round. The joke is, Trimble had not yet uttered a word apart from hello, and her buzzer remained unbuzzed, so I'd barely seen her move. What a swiz. I soldiered on into the seventh minute - just for her! - and then, at 7.43, she spoke! A question about vectors and cosines which she got wrong.
She seemed a bit prim and well-spoken in a Radio 4 kind of way, but confident, relaxed and smart, a combination of attributes that threaten many men. (She was, by the way, the second most attractive member of Corpus Christi, after Marsden to her left, but it's all relative.) After this, the magical spell of Gail Trimble momentarily unblocked my internet connection and the rest of the programme played out in real time, or thereabouts. (I'm not clever enough to be on University Challenge, and I'm certainly not clever enough to understand why KBs sometimes go really fast and sometimes really slowly in the "send" and "receive" boxes of my wi-fi connection panel.) Then my connection ran out of Gail magic, and went all wonky again. I gave up at 13.34.
For the academic record, Richard Herring, St Catherine's, says he got "about one answer right": Petri. (I think he was being self-effacing.) For the same record, despite a 2:1 BA Hons in Drawing Pictures and Photocopying, Andrew Collins, Chelsea, got four answers right in the first 13 minutes and 34 seconds: Freud; Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the attack on Pearl Harbor; Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis; George HW Bush and the Gulf War. But it's not a competition.
What I want to know is: why does Gail Trimble get all this attention, when Sophie Hollender, also a posh female student, did quite well on Mastermind in October with her specialist subject the Mitford Sisters?
posted by Andrew Collins @ 1:42 PM
37 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
37 Comments:
Ha ha, the Sun pointlessly asked Gail these questions:
1) Who won the Brit Award for Best Female last week?
Gail: 'I don't know'
2) What was the name of the 13-year-old dad whose story was broken by The Sun and caused a global storm?
Gail: 'I read the article, but I can't remember the boy's name.'
3) What is the name of the British lead actor in the Oscar-nominated film, Slumdog Millionaire?
Gail: 'I have no idea.'
4) Who is the new manager of Chelsea FC?
Gail: 'I don't know.'
5) Who won the most recent series of Celebrity Big Brother?
Gail: 'I don't know. These aren't academic questions.'
And this proves . . . what?
This is the last time I leave the University Challenge final on the DVR to watch the following day. I'd have predicted her team would have won anyway, but it sounds like it would have been an exciting match, and I really didn't expect the result to be all over the internets.
Maybe I'll look for the answers and try to impress my wife when we watch it...
By the sounds of it your connection broke before the last two minutes when she answered about six starter questions consecutively in the space of about two minutes, most of which answered before Paxman had got even half way through asking the question and pulling her team away for the win, which was quite impressive but made it even more difficult to answer any questions at home. It's hard enough with the whole question, but half! No Chance.
John
I read a piece in the Observer on Sunday about her being vilified by people as a loser - they seemed to think it was mostly because she's because she's intelligent and a bit prim, and one quote from a woman was 'Not one friend did she own at school'.
Is that not the most awful thing you've ever heard? People are mean. Well done, Trimble, I say.
This, I fear, is the nature of the blogosphere. I read a piece in the Daily Mail where they quoted - without crediting the source - a number of antagonistic and bitchy comments, which were clearly from message boards and blogs. In other words: who cares? The newspapers are continually referring to blogs and forums for their quotes, and it's worse than stopping people in the street because we're talking about the opinions of the opinionated. Who cares if some bloggers don't like her teeth, or whatever. 20 years ago, we'd have just been talking about this in our workplace or canteen or common room, and it would have been a private conversation.
I like the fact that people blog and comment - of course I do - but I really object the way it's become an instant resource for journalists.
And this proves . . . what?
Well I knew the answer to question 3, so that proves I'm cleverer than her, I think, or something.....
Actually I'm registered as a student at Manchester at the moment, so surely it proves that Manchester won really. Yes that's it, we definitely won.
If only life was as simple as Sun journalists assume Sun readers are.
Mastermind is far more passive as half the show has people answering questions on topics they have indepth knowledge of when almost everyone else hasn't got a clue. It's only worth watching the second half. University Challenge is far more engaging and, er, challenging too.
You seem to be reading the Mail a lot Andrew. I understand that this provides a huge amount of podcast material, but remember the age old advice, "You keep looking at that filth and you'll go blind!".
Hmmm. You are right, I suppose my ire would be better aimed at the Observer for failing to crack an angle on what is, if a story at all (before the final), certainly not page three-worthy for anything other than Trimble's local periodical.
Still - the information age means everyone knows what everything thinks - and people think mean mean things.
Trimble really went for the kill in the second half. Maybe try and watch it again? I don't get the animosity towards her at all. She seems like a sweet, geeky, polite academic. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's nice to see they still exist in our shallow, celebtastic, dumb-downed world (see Mastermind these days, Mitfords or not!)
I think Mastermind's lass didn't get the coverage because to be on UC you need a far greater breadth of knowledge, it IS more highbrow (I can cane Mastermind these days and I didn't used to be able to do so when playing along) and UC's contestants' answers do often seem to be delivered at lightning speed compared with ploddy old mastermind. I DO miss Magnus Magnusson.
Anna
I'm irked that the Daily Mail has, once again, turned this into a class war issue where there is no such thing.
They scrabbled round the nether regions of the interweb, including the BBC's 'Have Your Say' facility, and found some people who didn't like her. Come off it - trawl over 30 seconds for 'Mother Teresa' and you'll find someone posting 'WHO DID SHE THNK SHE WUZ? PIUS BITCH LOL'.
The Mail's crack team then decided that, as we are currently ALL being quite nice about Jade Goody even though she is only 'famous for being thick' (their words), Britain is going, once more, to hell in a wheeliebin. Nothing about cervical cancer. Nothing about anyone else's hysterical treatment of the Shilpa Shetty episode. Only this: Everyone hates cleverness and glorifies stupidity in Britain.
I only read it because we get the papers free in my office, and it's good to know your enemy, but this level of sweeping statement was something else, even for a seasoned Mail-watcher.
Sure, she's intelligent (at that academic level) and I, as a regular quizzer, salute her dominance of the show but sexy? Give us a break. I wouldn't, would you? Just because she isn't ugly, it doesn't suppose that she's sexy. Unless you're one of those of those any-port-in-a-storm kind of chaps. Now Kate Winslet, she's S-E-X-Y and she probably knows hee-haw about quantum physics.
A man in a similar position wouldn't have got the same coverage. And talking of that, thanks to the BBC News for practically giving away the result of the final before it was even broadcast. If she had crashed and burned in the final (like Mendelblatt in the semi) we wouldn't have heard a peep about it but it was obvious she had done well.
Don't forget they came out with the same tosh when Daisy Christodoulou did so well for Warwick Uni in 2007.
Right, I'm off to watch it now so don't tell me the score. I'll let you know how many points I get. Although my wife always beats me. Now she IS sexy.
Why is there any animosity to her at all? I just don't get it.
Hats off to her for doing so well on the show, she was impressive in the earlier rounds and wiped the floor with the Manchester team (all the more pleasing for the way they won their previous rounds by umm-ing and ah-ing their way through the answers once they'd won a starter question).
Pete
I know the point of UC is that it's meant to be highbrow, but sometimes I despair at the music and picture rounds.
Yesterday's final was a case in point - one of the music rounds had two of Manchester's team knowingly smirking at each other when they recognised a Mendelssohn or Mozart piece.
Meanwhile, a picture round had Paxman despairing because Ms Trimble couldn't recognise which artists had painted various images of Dante.
Is that really what students learn now?
Trimble is ace and my hero. BTW, I re-listened to Lion Man this evening after a v. upsetting day at work and it made me feel much better. Many thanx.
Gah. Why do people always get called a "geek" for being clever? Why can't they be admired? If she was a talented singer, or a sportsperson, or anything else really, she'd be winning awards and being heralded by all. But knowing stuff is uncool and ridiculed. Why?
(I'm still miffed that they never awarded colours for maths at school. Maths: not as admired as hockey).
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
All this has completely passed me by, save for catching the very tail end of the show and seeing Wendy Cope give out the award or trophy or whatever.
And so we are all meant to be amazed that she's clever and not unattractive? Is that the deal here? Poor cow, I'd be decidedly uncomfortable with all this if I were her.
Update: I scored 25! On a good (easier?) night I can get 150. Storming comeback by Corpus and at least it was more of a team effort. Well done.
Andrew, get back on to Twitter and stop wasting your working time watching University Challenge.
i'm just trying to work out which one of you is mark kermode....
Talking of Mark Kermode, I've had a few abusive comments overnight - not published, obviously. Might be the same person posting under different pseudonyms. I have no empirical proof but I wonder if they dropped by after his kind plug for the blog on Mayo? If so, they don't seem like the kind of person either he or Simon would want as a fan.
Still, always good to be reminded that there are people out there who think it's funny to knock on your door and run away into the night. (Even when comment moderation is clearly in practice. Idiots.)
I'd like to echo ed209. Get back on Twitter. You can still watch UC if you want, although they'll have that 'professions' version now, which isn't really that good.
Personally, I don't really see the point of "quiz shows" that just test your recall of bits of information, whether academic or trivia - and it's rare for a show to include both.
Thus the best new show last year amidst a sea of entirely random and thus tedious "press your luck" Game Shows was Only Connect which required people to actually think about the information that they were recalling, rather than just regurgitating it on demand.
Then again, I did admire the risk that the team took on UC by clearly deciding to "hold her back" until it looked as though it was too late. It did make for exciting television.
-- David
I like the fact that people blog and comment - of course I do - but I really object the way it's become an instant resource for journalists.
There's a weird space between bloggers and journalists. The former can be very bitter about it and the latter can be very smug about their position. The only real difference is remuneration. Aside from that, any one opinion is as relevant as another.
I think it's odd to say this:
It's worse than stopping people in the street because we're talking about the opinions of the opinionated.
What's wrong with the man in the street? With that quote you credit yourself with being smarter than him in a strange generalisation. And what's wrong with being opinionated?
I assume you walk down streets sometimes and I know you're opinionated because I read your blog. You may be a journalist, but you're also a blogger and a man in the street, so why try and separate them at all?
It's an example of journalists believing their opinion is of more importance than anyone else's - when it's patently not. You only have to read Kathryn Flett to know that even journalists in trendy newspapers can sometimes talk a whole heap of rubbish. You only have to listen to Mark Kermode to know some critics are blatantly nepotistic. Julie Birchall doesn't even warrant mentioning - except I just did mention her by mistake.
There are good bloggers and there are good journalists - they're not different breeds.
Agreed with David about "Only Connect", which was, unfortunately hidden away on BBC4. There will be another series I believe. Hurrah!
It also had the eye-candy host in Victoria Coren. You would, wouldn't you?
Would like to 'third' or whatever the count is up to by now, 'Only Connect' (although am not endorsing The Cat's opinion of Victoria Coren), the best Gail Trimble article so far has to be
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/gail-trimble-to-be-burnt-as-a-witch-200902251601/
re: Swineshead
"Aside from that, any one opinion is as relevant as another."
Is clearly untrue - if I want to know about something I'd rather listen to someone who is something of a specialist in their fild or at least has a prioi knowledge.
For example :
Huw Edwards : and the Government said this would have no effect on current policy. Now, who should we ask to analyse this? Our political editor or somebody we shoved a microphone in front of at Birmingham New Street?
Not all opinions are equally valid.
I'd also like to see examples of "nepotism" with regard to Mark Kermode's position at the BBC.
Swines: you pick me up on this comment:
It's worse than stopping people in the street because we're talking about the opinions of the opinionated.
You ask: What's wrong with the man in the street? With that quote you credit yourself with being smarter than him in a strange generalisation.
No I don't. I'm saying that the opinion of an opinionated blogger is no better than the opinion of the man in the street. And yet the man in the street is being increasingly sidelined by lazy journalists creating stories out of vituperative comments on message boards and in blogs.
I'm only a journalist in the sense that I write occasional reviews and features for newspapers. The kind of journalism I'm talking about is the kind I've never really done ie. news-gathering. The news gatherer has a responsibility to the truth, and if a few bitchy comments about Gail Trimble from some blogs and forums now constitutes taking the public's temperature, I say we're in choppy waters. Stop three people in the street and ask them who Gail Trimble is, they probably wouldn't even recognise the name. But do an internet search for her name and you'll quickly find a few juicy slag-offs. Is that honest news-gathering, or is that lazy editorialised hype?
As for whose opinion is more valid - clearly all opinions are valid, but a cross section of opinions is far more valid than a skewed selection from some message boards, where, lest we forget, only a small percentage of "people" choose to air their views. Which is why I said you're only getting "the opinions of the opinonated." Worse, the opinions of those who hide behind pseudonyms and enjoy venting their spleen in public. Hardly a fair representation of the public. It's what I always used to say about readers' polls in newspapers and magazines - it's the views of your readership, it's the views of that small section of your readership who bother to fill in forms and (in the old days) send them off. I loved filling in the NME readers' poll form, as a reader, but I never cut it out and sent it in. And I would have considered myself passionately opinionated about what was in the NME.
You are clearly very bitter about journalists in general. (After reading Flat Earth News last year, I'm not a big fan, although falling standards do seem to be linked to falling budgets.) However, let's be careful with charges of "nepotism." You don't accuse Mark Kermode of this crime, but you do say, "You only have to listen to Mark Kermode to know some critics are blatantly nepotistic." This is an implication that he is nepotistic in some way. You'd better back that up.
Correction: where it reads, "it's the views of your readership, it's the views of that small section of your readership", it should read, "it's not the views of your readership, it's the views of that small section of your readership."
Fair enough on the whole 'man on the street' thing - I see your point when it comes to googling somebody. The result will always be overbearingly negative.
My own blog is overhwhelmingly cynical and critical but I hope it's not the snarky sniping you're criticising. I can't help but feel some quality blog writing is lumped in with the majority, which is the reason I reacted to your comment.
But there was no need for...
You are clearly very bitter about journalists in general.
!
I'm not, as it happens. That's quite an insulting accusation, implying I have a grudge and sit around being jealous and twisted about them. I don't want their jobs, if that's what you mean. I just think the majority of journalists under-research their subject matter and use the same tired sentences over and over again. I'm very cynical about them, because I read the papers a lot. It's as simple as that. 'Lazy journalist slags', that Lee and Herring slot referring to the casual slackness in the trade is what I get wound up about about.
As for Kermode - his show with Mayo is a horrible listen over the awards season. A smugfest, basically - and it reached breaking point for me when Kermode, in another of his half hour Slumdog adverts mentioned that he'd been texting Danny Boyle...
I'm sure these people (with their industry links) are friends offstage, but I really don't want to know about it - and it surely informs the reviews. It's all a bit Smashie and Nicie, isn't it?
I love the way the word 'nepotism' provokes such a strong reaction... people tend to protest too much when something obvious is mentioned.
Cripes - I haven't half fallen out of favour round here...
Andrew - I agree with your line on this.
In fact this morning's BBC breakfast possibly hit an all time low which backs up what you're saying. The article, a discussion of a new survey on workplace stress, was pretty low rent to start with and pitched Jeremy Thingy (lifestyle balance guy, can't remember his surname) representing pro-life-work-balance against Joe the Plumber (again can't remember his name) representing the view that high workload is not a problem.
In the course of the item we found out, that Joe works an 80 hour week and he'd had no problems. His view was that this survey was a load of baloney (amusingly he nearly choked trying not to say bollocks). In his X years of working he'd never needed any surveys to tell him how to be successful and he certainly didnt have any "nut jobs or alchies" in his company. When it emerged that the survey was performed on (Danish?) civil servants his view was that we shouldnt be surprised as "they're all part-timers anyway" and do an easy job. It was quite simply the most irritating 5 minutes of tv I've seen in a while. He was the living embodiment of every "looks like a duck", "common sense innit", ill-informed-but-opinionated gobshite that haunt internet discussion boards (and clearly I'm including myself in that particular congregation).
Now Joe is entitled to his opinions - Voltaire and all of that. My gripe was with the lack of journalistic effort that saw them aired on a BBC news item. Why was a guy whose industry is largely manual being asked to express opinions on a study about a largely office-based workforce and environment which he clearly had no experience and pretty entrenched and outdated opinions. I'd have expected, perhaps, a senior HR manager who could compare and contrast with UK findings.
Really poor and the tv equivalent of the point I think you were making about print journalism.
Sorry for lengthy post. Rant over. Feel slightly sick for becoming the kind of opinionated twat I set out to criticse.
I think you know how much I enjoy and respect your contributions to the blog nation, Swines. But you will also have to forgive me for detecting a certain jaundice towards the professional media in your work. (I am pretty cynical about the media too, even though it could be argued that I am a part of it.)
It wasn't meant to be an insulting accusation, and if it was taken as such, I recall it with apologies.
You are entitled to find Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo "smug" - that's an opinion (hey, from the opinionated!), but but to suggest some kind of nepotism in Mark's appreciation of Slumdog is wide of the mark. He did uncharacteristically brag that he had Danny Boyle's mobile number on Monday, but that doesn't mean he's pretending to like the film. Most people seem to like it. I have spent the afternoon in a pub with Danny Boyle. He's always been that kind of approachable guy (and this was after Shallow Grave and Trainspotting). If mobiles had been ubiquitous then I bet we'd have swapped numbers after the fourth pint and then I'd have had his number. He still greets me like an old friend when I see him, but it wouldn't cause me to pretend to like his films. I think it's a dangerous implication to make, that's all. Nepotism is a serious charge. As a full-time film critic, Mark is far more likely to bump into the makers of the films he slags off than, say, me. It doesn't stop him slagging them off with the same passion he lavishes on Slumdog or The Exorcist. Does it?
a certain jaundice towards the professional media in your work
Guilty as charged. It's the word 'bitter' that carries the objectionable connotation. So there's some ammunition for you - for the future, like.
I don't see nepotism as quite such a serious issue - in fact it's so widespread in the media it'd be impossible to police outside of employment law. And it's not even all that annoying - when I see one journalist moving from paper to paper, undoubtedly due to connections, it doesn't bother me. But I feel it's best to keep it quiet rather than brag about how connected you are.
I think the mobile comment was a definite slip on Kermode's part, personally. If, by unlikely chance, Boyle's next effort is poor then Kermode will not, guaranteed, lay into it as he might if he watched it 'blind' (so to speak). Previous form is one basis for that forgiveness, but matey-texts make it all a bit hazy...
Again, I reiterate that I like the radio show a lot and your work on it too... it's only awards season that brings a rush of cantankerous blood to my head.
I just wrote about Masterchef to cheer myself up. I can't decide who I want to win.
Didn't sid vicious have something to say about the man in street.
The phrase the "blogosphere is awash with comment...." is this seasons "type X into gooogle..." media cliche. It's the similar shorthand for attribuitng a quote you've made up to a "friend of the star".
Oh and still have worked out which one of you is Mr Kermode...
I wouldn't attach any importance to anything Sid said, BLTP... he was hardly renowned for his wit.
In fact, the man in the street quote is the only one I can remember of his...
So now they've been disqualified.
For crying out loud BBC: GROW A PAIR !
Really. Stop. Now. This is getting stupid.
Post a Comment
<< Home