Full Show Index
Advertise With Us
Write For Us
Survivor: Cook Islands – Why Candice LostPage 2
View Printable version of this article
And speaking of Yul, he has a tight bond with Becky, but otherwise has shown himself remarkably open to change. Ozzy and Sundra were supposed to be the next to go on Aitu. Yet when Yul found himself on a tribe of only four, with those two as part of the tribe, he immediately adopted them into his plan and his confidence. He knew they had to stick together, no matter what the plans might have been previously.
Those are two examples of flexibility that occurred this season. Candice exhibited none of this trait.
The fourth rule brings us to where we thought we would focus before Candice did all her post-show talking. It says not to let your emotions control you. From what we saw, Candice wanted to be with her friends, and that’s why she mutinied. But Candice says no, it was a ploy to make people think she wasn’t plotting their demise.
While I’d like to believe this, I simply cannot accept it totally. It seems clear that part of the reason she was allied so tightly with Parvati and Adam was friendship (and more, with Adam, though that apparently disappeared after the show). That friendship, I believe, blinded her to other possibilities. She was able to rationalize her decision to mutiny using strategy as a cover, but I think her emotions were at least partially responsible.
Fifth is to pretend to be nice. I don’t think Candice had a problem in this regard. Yes, she came down hard on Jonathan at the dinner incident, but she was already going home by that point, and she knew it.
Speaking of the dinner incident and jumping ahead a bit, the seventh rule says providing food wins allies and you shouldn’t be lazy. While Candice has said she doesn’t think she was lazy – just worn out – nobody can deny that Jonathan’s ability to feed the tribe helped him. It helped him make it to the point where he could turn on the Raros, and it helped him against Candice. It’s unclear just how serious Yul was about the possibility of voting off Jonathan instead of Candice, but one thing that I’m sure weighed on that thought process was that Jonathan was a giver while Candice was a taker.
Going back to the sixth rule, it says not to be too much of a threat. Frankly, at this point int he game, Candice was not a big threat. However, compared to Parvati, she was certainly the most dangerous when it came to challenges. Might as well get rid of her first.
So did the tribe do the right thing in voting Candice off? Hell yes! Even if they don’t trust Jonathan or don’t particularly like his behavior, he is a necessary evil. All of the Raros need to be gone before they can consider getting rid of him. Candice was just one of three.
In the end, I do believe Candice when she says that she was not just some lovesick dingbat who switched tribes to be with her sweetie (thus the reason she did not get entered into the Reality TV Hall of Shame). However, nor was she a brilliant strategist. Candice made numerous mistakes in judgment and decided incorrectly about how to proceed in the mutiny. She backstabbed too many people, too soon. She allowed everybody to know exactly where she stood, and that standing was determined at least in part by emotion. Candice had an alliance from the start and never left, making her completely inflexible at a time when she needed to be evaluating all of her options. That is why Candice lost.
If you haven’t already, be sure to check out these other recent Survivor: Cook Islands articles here on RealityNewsOnline:
David Bloomberg is the Editor of RealityNewsOnline and can be reached at RNO@pobox.com.
Be sure to sign up for our e-mail update so you can stay informed about new articles on the site! And take a look at the rest of the site. You can find all of our recaps and other info on this show at the Survivor: Cook Islands page, and take a look at our The Amazing Race 8 page and our Apprentice: Martha Stewart page. You can even buy reality show stuff at our Reality TV Store!
<--Previous 1 2
View Printable version of this article