Final Jeopardy: 20th Century History

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. john blahuta says:

    @ VJ & elijahjt

    well, for me “british monarchs” would be far less intimidating than 20th century history for 2 reasons:
    1. I do know a lot about british and english history, after all I am from europe and studied especially british history and
    2. you can hide all kind of things in “20th century history”: from art of every kind, medicine, politics, ww I and II,sport,to all kind of things that happend and/or persons that lived or died during 100 years.

    i personally would be much happier with a “british monarchs” category than “20th century”. but that’s just me. knowing how they like to name a category and then put something in that would really could or even should belong somewhere else, happens quite often during j and dj. so I would not trust them about WHAT they would throw at me under “20th c. h.”
    but as I said, being from europe and an anglophile I might be prejudiced here, however “british monarchs” narrows it down considerably. otherwise they could make the clue read: “this was the year when penicillin was discovered….” or ” in this year hemingway committed suicide” etc. but it’s a moot point now anyway, I would have loved them -as I already said-
    to be co-champs, they both played very well.if i had a choice, i would take “b.m.” ANYTIME over “20th c.h.” that category has just to many options.but then, they don’t give you a choice…:):)
    this being already thursday early evening for you, I wish you both a great weekend!!

  2. elijahjt says:

    @VJ and @john blahuta

    I was trying to figure out why you two (or VJ specifically) seem so bewildered by my comment, and it seems you both misinterpreted what I said.

    What I was trying to say is that having the category as “20th Century History” rather than “British Monarchs” makes it much easier — not the other way around. The comma placement generates confusion (the two commas there were intended to simply bookmark the parenthetical phrase), but I thought that would have been understood given your readings didn’t make sense, as you both acknowledged. I was basically trying to make the point VJ made:

    “If the category had really been just British Monarchs, and it could have been any century, I could see that being very intimidating, but narrowed down to the 20th century — nah.”

    Indeed. I don’t know my British monarchs well, so when I saw the clue initially with the incorrect category, it was largely a shot in the dark for me. I was taken aback that you would state that the clue was a no-brainer. However, with the correct category narrowing things down to the 20th century, I’m almost certain I would have gotten that (given how long Elizabeth II’s reign has been) and I could understand why you think a Jeopardy! contestant should have easily gotten it.

  3. VJ says:

    @johnblahuta, OK, now I see your point. Personally, I would be more cautious if the category was British Monarchs than 20th Century History (as an American, I would probably assume it was 20th century American history – LOL)

  4. john blahuta says:

    @VJ – 20th century-yes, but WHAT? that it was about monarchs was not indicated, so he did not know it was about monarchs. it could have been anything in 20th century history. THAT’S what probably made andre cautious. I already said if it had been (20th or any century) (british or any) monarchs, andre would most likely risked more. just 20th century history without any further indication IS a very wide area. and let’s be honest: even the j contestants are smart – you don’t get on the show as an idiot – history is not the strongest suit of americans, especially when it’s NOT american history. it could – and was – european history. but it could have been anything. andre did not know it was about monarchs OR g.b. it could have been something “out of Africa”, asia, australia, europe… and then it WAS europe. the category covered the entire world and “history” is a somewhat flexible term (wars, inventions,art,medicine….. you can stick anything into “history”..). the category could also have been named EUROPE, GREAT BRITAIN, MONARCHS, RULERS, NUMBERS…. you know how the category titles sometimes indicate one thing and then it’s actually about a language or a country etc.. they love to pull your leg sometimes! but it’s the old dilemma: do I risk everything when in second position or just a bit? if the leader gets it right and can do some math, it does not matter. I guess, sometimes – or often- it’s just a “gut” feeling.

    I was as surprised as you though that tim did not get it. there was a henry IV, 1399-1412 and George IV, the sailor king in the 19th. maybe because I am european and an anglophile it was easier for me. but only AFTER the clue was revealed, then it WAS indeed a no brainer and so tim…..I believe he took just a guess. again the example: you play a terrific game and the last clue trips you up. but andre deserved the win as much as tim would have, both played a very enticing game. if the luck of the draw is against you when it comes to fj then there is nothing you can do. I would have loved to see them as co-champs and go at it again!!

    so, aloha for tonight- it’s only 20.36 here on maui but you might already be asleep since you seem to be in the central time zone (so it would be 01.36 thursday for you) and let’s hope the quality of the games will keep up!!!

  5. VJ says:

    @johnblahuta – I don’t see why the category would have had any effect on Andre’s bet. He knew his only chance to win was if Tim didn’t get FJ, and I don’t think he thought he had much a chance that would happen.

    If the category had really been just British Monarchs, and it could have been any century, I could see that being very intimidating, but narrowed down to the 20th century — nah.

  6. john blahuta says:

    i’m also sure had the category been 20th century monarchs (british or not) andre would have risked more than the 5.000. but 20th century history is somewhat intimidating for some, since it IS a broad subject. the old saying in history in general applies, I guess: what IF….

  7. john blahuta says:

    if the category had been 20th century history then it would have been even easier, since Victoria (I) reigned until 1901 and Elizabeth II was the only monarch NOT mentioned for the 20th started with Edward VII,victoria’s son down the line to today.

  8. VJ says:

    @elijahjt – oh dear, 20th Century History is right. I obviously failed to read the category title closely and obviously just thought it was British monarchs (as is in the clue). Don’t see why that would make it any harder though with British monarchs in the clue. That’s what it was about! :)

  9. elijahjt says:

    So I’m not actually able to watch Jeopardy! when it comes on TV, and I check Fikklefame daily for this summary, so I can’t confirm whether this is correct, but other Jeopardy! forums suggest the category was “20th Century History”, not “British Monarchs”, which would make the FJ! much simpler (and your sentiment about how easy the clue was more understandable). Is that the case?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *