The faithfuls in The Celebrity Traitors have had mixed fortunes so far: they’ve banished two traitors, but also sent two faithfuls home. Now, after Hannah Fry’s banishment, her explanation of why certain players become targets may give them another clue to work with. Last year’s ‘Big Dog’ theory is now the ‘Big Brain’ theory – and Hannah Fry’s warning to the faithfuls should not go unnoticed.
The celebrity version has an extra complication: players arrive with public reputations already attached. In the first series, the ‘Big Dog’ theory focused on whether one of the biggest names in the castle – Jonathan Ross or Stephen Fry – would be a traitor. This time, Hannah’s intelligence and reputation as a mathematician helped make her a target.
But her argument before she left points to a wider pattern in how the faithfuls are judging each other. Here’s what the ‘Big Brain’ theory means, why it may have backfired on Hannah and how her parting words could help the faithfuls look more carefully at the players still in the castle.
What is the ‘Big Brain’ theory?
The ‘Big Brain’ theory is a twist on the ‘Big Dog’ theory from the first series of The Celebrity Traitors. That theory focused on the idea that one of the biggest stars in the castle would be a traitor: Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross were seen as natural leaders who could influence the group. Jonathan was a traitor; Stephen was a faithful.
This time, the focus shifted from fame and influence to intelligence. Hannah’s reputation as a mathematician made her seem like a threat to the traitors, but also someone who would be good at playing as one, even before she was actually recruited. As King Kenny put it: ‘ As a traitor, you would be extremely good because you’re very smart.’ At the round table, Hannah summed up the thinking behind the ‘Big Brain’ theory: ‘In this game, it doesn’t matter how good you are at playing the game because it’s the perception of how good you will be at playing it that’s really important’.
The clue Hannah Fry left behind
Hannah’s intelligence made her seem like an obvious target for the traitors, but when she survived, the faithfuls began to suspect she had been recruited. She described the double bind, saying she was doomed to be ‘either […] killed by the traitors, or, as has happened, if I don’t get killed by the traitors, the faithful are going to be suspicious of me’. Jerry Hall said, ‘I’ve gone for the Big Brain theory,’ before voting her out. In Hannah’s case, they were right – and that theory helped the faithfuls catch a traitor.
But Hannah’s wider point was that this way of thinking can become a trap. Joanne McNally voiced a similar concern: ‘I feel like we’re getting into the habit of punishing vocal faithfuls’. The faithfuls have already lost Julie Hesmondhalgh after suspicion settled on her simply because she stuck her head above the parapet more than most. If they keep concentrating on the most noticeable players, they risk missing the quieter ones – and voting out more faithfuls in the process.
Was Hannah trying to help the faithfuls by pointing out the pattern, or get back at the traitors who recruited her? Either way, James Acaster and Maya Jama are exactly the kind of quieter players she is suggesting should be examined. James is as sharp and strategic as Hannah, but tends to keep a calm profile; Maya has stayed out of the spotlight and let others lead the discussion. Both fit the kind of player who could benefit while the faithfuls focus elsewhere. But were they listening to Hannah’s warning closely enough?
Who should the faithfuls be looking at now?
Hannah warned that ‘anybody who stands out in any direction, in any way, is getting punished’ by both sides. Her point is that the faithfuls shouldn’t focus only on the loudest or most obvious players. James Acaster, like Hannah, is sharp and strategically minded on paper, even if he comes across as calm and relaxed in the castle. Maya Jama has attracted far less attention at the round table and has allowed other players to lead the discussion. Both are worth examining for what they do in the game, not simply for how noticeable they are.
The faithfuls should also ask whether they’re being drawn back to the biggest personalities because they’re easy to discuss. Hannah may have been defending herself, trying to leave the faithfuls a clue – or both. Either way, her warning gives them a useful question: who is attracting suspicion and who is benefiting from staying out of it?