True but its not always that the technically competent people don't have emotions its that the buyers are filtering them out and not buying them. In Rachel's case the tour audience bought and left Tom on the shelf so you have to wonder if its the buyers or the show presentation thats changed. In your analogy the probem isn't that people will prefer Brown but that they won't read Joyce and you will be lucky if most will take out the DVD of Da Vinci and use the book as a doorstop. What SCD voters do seem to like is the well trod SCD journey story of hulk discovers feminine side or wimp becomes manly or someone formal discovering fun. What they also like are people who fit other recipes for reality TV winners. You need to look like what SCD voters want or what they are, or who they respect, or who they would like to be with. Thats all defined by sex, looks, class, accent , wealth and education and the choices are often made instinctively not after great thought. Dancing ability or acting ability or ability to appeal to other groups of people don't matter by comparison. Alesha and Jill for example might do well on Big Brother or I'm a Celebrity - Rachel wouldn't unless lots of men voted and even Mylene couldn't win.

There's not much you can do about it this. SCD doesn't allow you to show merit by overcoming challenges as on other reality TV shows - the dance is the challenge and if you are naturally good the only challenge is the odd injury That just doesn't compare with facing rats or living with Jade for 2 months. If you are Ricky W or Ali as you can't act like Phil, speak like a character from Minder or steal a story from Nathalie. All you can do is to try and wow the audience over- but the show format makes that difficult. Beautiful or complicated may not win as many votes as funny. Even if the voters will give you a chance, you can't do wow factor if the music says beautiful or the dance for the week says dull but difficult on the label. Ironically, your best chance to show wow factor comes in the show dance after most votes have been counted.

Not really. My analogy asks them for their opinion after I've got them to read both books. And we all know after they've read both, lots more are gonna prefer Brown than Joyce. It doesn't matter to most people that Joyce has more technical craft or a greater intellect. They don't connect to him like they connect to Brown or his story-telling. A purist can see this as a problem. I'm not one, so I don't. I just see it that those people who prefer Brown to Joyce have different sensibilities to me. A purist might try to argue that that's because they maybe haven't studied literature well enough to be able to decide that they like Joyce better than Brown, but I don't buy the argument. All that will be doing in most cases is educating them that, all things being compared, they really should like Joyce more than Brown. But I bet most of them still actually won't. You can't foist a subjective choice on people. Their emotional reactions are what they are.



Well here, sticking with my analogy we've been discussing, all you're really doing is swapping me giving Joyce and Brown to a 100 sample of the general public to me giving Joyce and Brown to a 100 sample of sixth-formers studying English Lit ... Joyce's numbers go up, Brown's numbers go down. The sample is more predisposed to appreciating technique over raw story-telling. Technique is just something they happen to like, which is why they chose to study English Lit ... or, in your SCD tour example, why they chose to spend money on tickets for a show rather than just tuning in on the TV on a Saturday night.

So then, to get it back to subjectivity, I'd just counter by giving this new sample a copy of Ulysses and a copy of Crime And Punishment. Now, instead of Brown, Dostoevksy is gonna generally beat Joyce. They've got similar intellect and craft, but more people will generally connect with what Dostoevsky has to say than Joyce.

Back to SCD, overall I'd just say you're being overly pessimistic ... most of the time, no matter if they are technically good and the resentment that might stir in some, the best dancer or someone very close to it will usually win the show. So they managed to be good and connect with the broad public, rather than just the dance purists, there somewhere along the way. Times on SCD that doesn't happen will be an exception to the rule, this year maybe being one of them.

If, on the other hand, your main thrust really is that being female, white, middle-class and quiet precludes you from winning a show with a demographic taken from an audience of 8 million+ people, then I don't really think that's proven ... Natasha Kaplinksy ticks most of those boxes, I'd guess. It might be a hurdle, especially the quiet part on a show likely Strictly, but then again for a lot of contestants so is having two left feet. We've all got our crosses to bear. And I don't see there's any cross on a show like Strictly that will prevent anyone from dragging themselves to the winning line.

Ricky aka Lisa Snowden...rubbish. Ricky is far better than she ever was or could be. Lisa didn't win cos she wasn't the best.

To use the literary analogy I didn't particularly like the Joyce I had to read at school apart from some of "The Dubliners" but I don't think I'd like Dan Brown either. My favourite books are Pride and Preduice and Jane Eyre. I suppose I'm saying it's a style thing like any art and there are different types of excellence and not all excellence is publically inacessable - P.D James rightly IMO described Jane Austin's books as being like Mills and Boon written by a genius and most of the people who win Strictly are the equivalent of that.

Exactly. And that's a great description of Austin, or a Strictly Winner. Thanks for that.

There are things in life that can be judged objectively. If I make up a maths problem, the first person in a group to solve it is the winner. If I mark out a 100 metres track, the first person to cross the line is the winner. And the problem is there are people who sincerely believe the arts can be judged just as objectively. It can lead them to call people who can't see what is such a plainly obvious yardstick on worth to them as idiots or Philistines. What they don't realise is that their objectivity rests on a set of subjective criteria that they believe deserve to be ranked higher than possible other sets of subjective criteria.

Which is a pile of long-winded old rollocks to say art, music, literature, dance, have intangible qualities that make objectivity pretty well impossible. And would allow me to say, in extremis, that it's possible - not very likely, but possible - for the worst two left-footer ever to appear on Strictly to drag someday from the bootstraps of his soul some elementary routine that somehow, maybe in ways they can't even explain, touches enough people to see it voted by majority the best ever dance on Strictly. And for those people to genuinely mean the 'best'.

If Ricky W is the new Lisa S, does this mean we will get to see him perform a dying swan routine in silver swimsuit? I'll vote!!

While being hoisted over the Misstress head and held up for 25 seconds .

There was a whiff of that about John Sergeant's Week 1 waltz. It was utterly, utterly charming and - dare I say it - almost uplifting. Actually brought a lump to my throat. It's certainly one of the dances I will never forget - and for all the right reasons!

Go on then everybody - mock me. I don't care.

I'm certainly not going to mock you, because that's exactly how I felt.

I think the key to this thing is in your post and in Gig-ge-dy's. You speak of JS's waltz being 'utterly, utterly charming' and Gig-ge-dy talks about 'from the bootstraps of his soul', and that's what is missing for me in Ricky W and Ali's work - no soul, no real charm. Technically accomplished but no heart or soul.

To go back to the literary analogy; I hate Jane Austen with a passion. Years of having to dissect her books down to the nth degree just ripped any heart out of them. Technically clever but no warmth for me. But the metaphysical poets - woah! I love them - and other people go 'whaaaa? '

Im different, I studied the Metaphysical poets so am so bored of them now but I will always love Austen.

Different horses for courses I guess in literature and in dancing.

But long live King Richard the W of the Dancefloor for me!

Really good post and I so agree with you. Might have known I would find another thread against Ricky!!

I think he is a great dancer and seems a nice person and I hope he wins.
What I find puzzling as well is posters are always saying Ricky is not popular with the public - how do they know this it is not as if he has even been in a dance off!!

Problem is many won't read the books at all . The analogy is more that some people asked to choose between books can't read and some liked the colour of one book rather than the other, voted on the pictures or thought one was too heavy to lift. If you look at who wins and who doesn't win reality TV shows there's an awful lot of similar winners and a lot of runners up who are also similar to one another but didn't make it. Good or better with a story and the right boxes ticked does well, very good without much story and the wrong boxes ticked tends not to win unless you and the opposition are both female and/or you have a very powerful story no one else can match or everyone else is dire.

I agree Natasha is the SCD exception but she had two countervailing advantages - the big Angela Rippon story - with the same surprise factor - and poor opposition. There is a limit to how much of a gap in ability voters can ignore and stories matter- even if you walked in on day one with one. The Cheries, Rachels , Zoe's and Ali's don't have the benefit of either a story or such an obvious gap and Ricky W has walked in with the opposite story of looking too good at the start and surprising no one that he is good every week after.

I agree they could help get themselves to the finish with a really big number if anyone found the dance, choregraphy and music for one, but I suspect the show will end up relying on the dance off to actually get a couple of the top 3 or 4 to the SF.

Not sure how popular he his but do not know anyone that I compare notes with that votes for him. Again the keeping secret of the votes gives people scope to question the validity of them. Our little discussion group thought his Tango was terrible but all the judges wanted to say was how good he was the weeks before. The marks seemed based on what he could have done, not what he did and several people feel that they were trying to keep him out of third or fourth place which is what he deserved. Not bothered because he'd have got through the dance off any way and at the end of the day this is an entertainment programme not a dancing competition.

Which Natalie could manage, I'm sure she could! Though it wouldn't be a pretty sight.

I disagree about the judges being able to affect the results this early. They may know who they want in the final, but it doesn't mean they can achieve it. Ali has already been in the dance off once.

To answer the actual thread topic... YES!

Ricky is over marked. He made glaring mistakes and still got 9s. Other people get points deducted. I just don't feel very comfortable watching him. There's no personality to his dancing.

It's funny that people describe Ricky's dancing as souless because that's what I feel about Ali's. I thought Ricky's marks were about right on Saturday, as I think the panel were gearing up for 10s had he not gone wrong. Ali's 40 was inevitable - she was performing her preferred discipline in Blackpool where the first 40 ever on Strictly was given. It was going to happen and she was technically sound. She just doesn't inspire any emotion in me. Ricky does.

Neither do for me!

Both seem rather wet in the personality departement and whilst I can appreciate that both can dance very well , I dont have any emotional connection or any desore to vote for them

This is the first year for me that I would be happy for the best dancers to disappear off our screen and have the competion won by someone with a bit of a story or a bit of personality !

I think it's fairly easy to predict that both Ricky and Ali will be in the final, unless they come up against each other in the Dance Off at some point (when more than likely the judges will spontaneously combust in protest).

Whether one of the other of them will actually win, rather than the as yet to be decided 3rd final place filler, is slightly more open, and probably depends on the storylining and VT-ing between now and them

Ali has been in the dance-off, sure. Ricky could be in the dance-off also one week or every week. That's not a problem for the judges. To get both to the final, their only criteria is to avoid them BOTH being in the dance-off against each other. If they score one or other top of the leaderboard from hereon in, like the last two weeks, taking turns who is top each week if they like, then they should be able to avoid that happening until the semi-finals. It doesn't matter to them if only one of Ali or Ricky W appear in the dance-off every week, they just use their second DO vote to save them against any of the other competition.

If the judge's vote is completely reversed by the public vote in the semis, because in case of ties the public vote gets precedence, there is a mathematical chance their nightmare of an Ali v Ricky W dance-off can't be avoided at that point.

BTW, I'm not criticising the judges for employing any tools in their armour to get the two people they clearly feel are the most technically gifted to the final. The judges role in the show is to focus in predominantly on technical ability. So they are, for the most part, doing what they're paid to do. It's the public's role to take a more holistic approach to the whole thing and weigh other subjective factors like heart, soul, fun, likeability etc in to the mix.

Ricky's dancing doesn't thrill me, but he by far the best dancer in this series.

There are two reasons I thought he was over marked on Saturday -

1. They made at least 3 mistakes (even more obvious when shown in slow motion on tonight's ITT).

2. Any other couple dancing first would have been marked lower than deserved rather than higher, leaving wiggle room for better performances. The first couple up is usually the benchmark for the scores given to other couples.

By giving 9s the judges prejudged every other couple that night.

It was no surprise then that Ali & Brian got 40, plus there were other knock on effects because several couples pulled off great performances - some with difficult choreography too.

Definite example of favouritism, although I don't think it was intended to keep Ricky & Natalie out of the dance off.

PS Ricky is no Lisa and the comparison is very unfair.

Having seen the widely circulated photos of Mr Whittle in his underpants, the idea of him re-creating Lisa's showdance in all its turkey-foiled gusset-flashing glory fills me with dread...

I'm beginning to think you've got a foil fetish LOL!

Curses!
Foiled again!

Even though I'm a devoted Whittle-watcher, after seeing ITT's CC last night I agree with Buddy above there were mistakes which I honestly did not catch on the night. But, having said that, his Tango technical standards were extremely high (apart from the errors) so I think the judges were in a difficult position.

OT, I thought Karen's views on Ali's VW were interesting - simple but faultless gets 10's and yet her advice to Nat & Ricky was to keep going for the challenging stuff.

PS Also agree comparison with Lisa completely unfair - she started in a very mediocre fashion and got better - IMO her best was equivalent to where Ricky began