not a step

Yes, Regis, that's my final answer

When balancing the unlikely prospect of correctly answering enough questions to win a million dollars versus the potential for crushing embarrassment, I choose to err on the side of caution. Sure, the idea of taking home big bucks on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" has some appeal, but only when you forget to consider the downside.

In exchange for the chance to compete for more money than anyone who isn't a 22-year-old running his own Internet startup makes in a year, contestants on "Millionaire" risk humiliation in front of the American people. In terms of how many people are watching, giving a wrong answer to Regis is an awful lot like having your pants fall down during the Super Bowl.

In some ways it's worse, because in the pants-falling scenario, you're at the whim of gravity, and you're likely to elicit some sympathy. Even if it's entirely your fault-perhaps you abhor belts and forgot to pack your rainbow suspenders-you're still a more sympathetic character than some guy who doesn't know that John Lennon was in the Beatles.

What makes "Millionaire" a wonderful television program for viewers makes it a terrible gamble for contestants. Anyone, even someone with an impressive knowledge of trivia, stands one mistake away from losing. That suspense keeps viewers watching. But for the people playing the game, it means that not knowing the 98th element in the periodic table carries exactly the same weight as forgetting that Charlie Brown's dog's name is "Snoopy."

Luckily, because of the success of "Millionaire," prospective contestants have a number of other shows they can appear on for a chance at fabulous cash and prizes. It's so easy to win money on "Twenty One" that NBC recently lowered the prize money. A sort of trivia version of blackjack, this game lets you pick the difficulty of the questions you answer. That way, even if you get everything wrong, you look more daring than stupid.

The rest of the game-show lot includes two programs that make so little sense, it's hard to figure out if you should be embarrassed for losing. On "Greed," it actually appears as if host Chuck Woolery makes up the rules as the game goes along.

Apparently, "Greed" lets contestants eliminate people who were previously on their team, thereby taking their money. This seems to happen at random times, and instead of pitting the two smartest members of the team against each other, it invariably sets a 20-something brainiac against the most doddering, meek old lady.

The rest of "Greed" involves impossible questions along the lines of, "According to a survey in Good Housekeeping, what are the most popular colors of paint for living room walls?" Winning, assuming no one eliminates you, involves a pretty random series of lucky guesses, and nearly every team pushes its luck too far and goes home empty-handed.

The last of the game shows, Dick Clark's "Winning Lines," has an impossibly confusing set of rules that I'm not sure even Clark understands. Having watched this program twice, I have no idea how you win and what, if any, control an individual contestant has over the outcome.

With all these game-show options, it seems likely that everyone who wants to appear on one will get a chance. When my turn comes around, I'll stay home. I'd rather keep private the fact that I'm not quite sure "Which of these colors is not on the American flag?"

Check back every Friday for a new column
Not a Step Archives
About the Author
Acquiring this Column for Your Publication