avianado.8m.net Blood, sweat and tears: “Survivor” is real, raw television.

Brothers, sisters, fellow believers in the promise of television’s underemployed potential: “Survivor” is here. It arrived not a moment too soon, igniting last year’s inert summer TV season with its exciting televisual blend of wild fantasy and harsh reality. We owe thanks to the visionaries who created this invigorating concept, finally offering weary TV viewers something nearly extinct in today’s primetime program-ming: a genuinely new idea. And it was a good new idea. So good, in fact, that “Survivor” not only became last year’s most popular show, but it spawned this year’s current hit, “Survivor II: The Australian Outback.” Now just two episodes away from finishing its Thursday-night run on CBS, “Survivor II” is more than a fleeting phenomenon, it’s the best show to conquer American airwaves in years.

For those who are hunting for the hidden sarcasm in this glowing assessment, give up. Let’s face it, “Survivor II” is a great show, and not just because it’s better than other shows, but because at this point it’s one of the only reasons to turn on a television at all anymore. Many viewers have already given up on the prospect of quality programs coming from the major networks, and these people will probably never appreciate the value “Survivor” provides. For so many of us, TV has disappointed too often for too long. Increasingly educated and constantly busy, we approach television viewing as an ambiguously desirable distraction. We see little reason to take television seriously, an attitude largely justified by the dismal programs which proliferate the airwaves. The networks have done little lately to earn our respect, and the tasteless primetime line-ups seem to be drowning in their own lack of potent, creative material. We’re left with TV that provides an adequate means of killing time, but, unlike films or music, rarely inspires us to invest much of our personal interest in it.

With “Survivor,” however, the more interest you invest, the more personal it gets. “Survivor” has transformed the standard viewer-to-show apathy into genuine excitement, emotional involvement, and suspense among its loyal audience. Unlike most TV shows, which feature fictional characters with whom most viewers have little in common, “Survivor” stars real people who are deeply identifiable in ways actors can never be. Viewers see the cast members not as characters, but as actual individuals involved in real situations that just happen to be made-for-television. As the “survivors” encounter difficult skill challenges, interact amid convoluted group dynamics and endure the harsh environment, we get a strong sense of these people’s personalities. The intimacy between the viewers and the cast members is intense.

Because of this perceived intimacy, the show’s unique gimmick of voting someone “off the island” - takes on much more suspense for regular viewers. We love to see the cocky, annoying or lazy people finally get the boot, but we are constantly fearful that the group will soon turn against one of our favorites. Take heart though; the unpleasant lesson we learned with the crowning of Richard Hatch—the universally-despised but undeniably clever castaway who won the first “Survivor”—will not be repeated on “Survivor II.” Now down to the final four, the cast of “Survivor II” has mercifully eliminated all of its most offensive members, so the final champion will inevitably be someone to whom we can give our consent.

But the suspense of narrowing down the field to the eventual million-dollar-winner is not what makes “Survivor” worth watching week after week. Anyone who’s been following the developments in the Outback knows that the 41-day ordeal we’re witnessing absolutely transcends the gimmicky game-showmanship that exemplifies many “Survivor” copycat competitors. These people—real, ordinary Americans—are legitimately starving, they’re being drenched by rainstorms every night, they have no shelter and their entire camp has just been washed away by a flash flood. It’s no time for cynicism, because for these people, it is very real. People are so hungry that they’re dividing up a grasshopper for a meal. A few weeks ago, one tribe member had to be helicoptered out when he fainted and fell right into the fire-pit, suffering third-degree burns on his hands and chest. On top of all this, the games they compete in every other day for rewards and immunity remain rigorously physical. Although they are competing against each other in the prize-money game, the primal ordeal they endure together in the game of survival is essentially collaborative. The relationships they develop don’t seem so superficial when they have to depend on one another just to stay alive. No one would have made it this long on their own and the way they’ve helped each other keep going in the midst of some absolutely devastating circum-stances makes a powerful emotional impact rarely felt via television. On “Survivor,” real life is what we’re seeing, and the sheer human spirit displayed to keep it going, to survive, has been nothing short of awesome.

It all comes together so perfectly, it’s sometimes hard to believe how well everything plays its part. The creative minds behind “Survivor” deftly blend planned elements such as games and supplies with uncontrollable elements like group dynamics and nature into one seamless experiment. In the process, they provide the American public with a truly stimulating television program; one that creatively presents not just entertainment, but integrity as well.

In other A&E...