Worst, Evilest or Most Prolific?

Yesterday afternoon, during discourse with a friend about reality TV, she alerted me to an intriguing program within the genre titled ‘The World’s Worst Serial Killers’. This broadcasting ‘gem’ a televisual offering her husband apparently deems as ‘must see’ fare.

Upon hearing the show’s label I highlighted the misleading use of the adjective ‘worst’ within the title. A strategy, I ventured, suggesting those profiled in the broadcast displayed an ineptitude for successfully undertaking murderous acts.

Adding, if this show’s remit was presenting the most prolific homicidal maniacs (which I believe it is) surely it should be titled The World’s Most Prolific Serial Killers’. A nomenclature indicating more accurately the sheer evil within individuals being profiled.

Arguing further a programme featuring individuals with empty homicide back catalogues, which is thankfully ordinarily mankind’s default behaviour, would render the show overly subjective due to the sheer numbers involved.

If undertaken from a fictional angle, I can understand the potential comedic value of abject failures at murder en masse if consequential of woeful marksmanship or the shooters cursed bad luck. Especially if played out in the slapstick vein of Inspector Clouseau’s boss Dreyfus’ failed attempts at eliminating his subordinate in the Pink Panther movies.

His numerous efforts at murdering Peter Sellers’ character all failing miserably for one of the reasons mentioned above. These unsuccessful attempts making Herbert Lom’s character (below) a shoe-in as a contestant of The World’s Worst Serial Killers’.

That being said, as far as I know Dreyfus only intended killing his chief tormentor Clouseau. So by definition he couldn’t be classed as a serial killer even if he’d have succeeded in eliminating his bumbling nemesis; ruling him out of inclusion in the absurd clambake.

With further contemplation I pondered whether, if ‘The World’s Worst Serial Killers’ wasn’t relating to notorious mass murderers, was this documentary perhaps tales of incompetent killers disrupted by habitually turning up at the kill site bereft of a weapon, sedative or rubber gloves. Or perhaps consequential from foolishly getting lost on the outbound journey.

Chief Inspector Dreyfus

I’ve never witnessed ‘The World’s Worst Serial Killers’. However, I like to think if its remit was highlighting inept mass murderers, the end titles came complete with a continuity announcer seeking applicants for future series….. This announcement perhaps playing out as follows “If you suck at serial killing and wish to take part in future episodes, apply via http://www.my5.com/takepart.”

As never killing a fellow human applies to most of the human race, I suppose you must have a uniqueness of incompetency at serial killing to make your story documentary worthy.

My own existential plot line certainly doesn’t sit beneath that umbrella. Therefore, regardless of the show’s remit I’ll (thankfully) never get to star on ‘The World’s Worst Serial Killers’……. Well, unless I did actually become a mass murderer, in which case all bets would be off!

You can relax, though, as like the masses I’ve never murdered anyone (unless you class jokes as anyone) and confidently predict I’d be rubbish at mass slaughter. The poor money and severe reputational damage from being jailed as a homicidal monster doing little to sell me the role as a desired career path.

Of course, despite tongue in cheek ramblings to the contrary, ‘The World’s Worst Serial Killers’ clearly doesn’t relate to people who suck at mass murder. Undoubtably the show’s content is a commentary of the lives of a section of the evilest individuals who’ve ever lived

In conclusion, evilest or most prolific are far better adjectives to utilise within the shows title than worst…… Why call them the worst?….. After all, the shows subjects were incredibly adept at it!

Leave a Reply