Meta-spoiler post (no actual spoilers harmed in the writing of this post)

[mrissa]

The lack of vertigo continues today, hurrah. This is especially good because seagrit, jffgrnfld, and Amber will be over after lunch, so it's nice to be able to bake the cherry-peach crisp and mop the floor and that sort of thing without worrying about falling on my head.

Also I will no longer smell like smoothie today! I had been using up old sample bottles of lotion that didn't smell too offensive, as a stopgap until I could find the time to go buy my usual lotion. Which I did yesterday. Whew. I like citrus, but I was pretty ready to be done feeling like I'm an Orange Julius stand.

For obvious reasons, I'm pondering spoilers this week. In the last year I had my first experience of a situation where spoilers would really bother me: Veronica Mars. (Do not tell me what happens in Season 3; don't wanna know until I see it.) Otherwise I am pretty much completely unmoved by spoilers. So I'm trying to sort out why that and not other things. I think for people who are always or never bothered, the answer is fairly obvious -- either that they just plain don't want to know what happens in advance, or else that they don't care if they find out. Is anyone else out there selectively bothered? And if so, what book/movie/series would bother you or would have bothered you to hear spoilers about? and can you form theories about why?

(Let's call it a ten-year statute of limitations on spoilers in the comments on this post, shall we? And if you're going to be really, really upset at finding out that Ilsa goes home with Luke's father's sled, this would be a good comments section for you to skip.)

Comments

[markgritter.livejournal.com]

One thing that's been bothering me about spoilers this year is that there is obviously a lot of trolling going on. But why should anybody believe trolls? I mean, I read an entry that suggested turning of LJ notifications so you didn't get spoilers embedded in LJ account names of accounts that friended you!

Suppose on Monday you get a LJ notification that "hermione_dies" has friended you. Should one feel spoiled? Why?

Then on Tuesday you get another LJ notification that "hermione_lives" has friended you. Are you now more spoiled or less?

On Wednesday the message "hermione_marries_viktor" gets through your filter. After reading the book on Saturday morning you discover this not to be the case. Are you still spoiled?

From the troll's perspective, bad information has got to be just as good as true information in terms of upsetting people who don't want to be spoiled. Why should any information coming from a troll be trusted? It is only effective if you believe it. Perhaps one's friends should provide a covering barrage of made-up spoilers so that trolls are lost in the noise.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

It's not so much a matter of believing as it is writing on a clean slate. Once you've written on it, it can be erased, but there's that damn mark. Even washing a black board won't make it new again. Maybe Hermione's survival hadn't entered my head at all as a place the book might go. After receiving the hermione_lives line, then when I read the book a part of my brain will constantly look to see if that is true or not. It's distracting.

I should mention that I am the most spoiler-sensitive person I know. I'm way off the bell curve and annoy all my friends. But I find being told, "But this isn't a spoiler," constitutes being a spoiler, since I then know that whatever it is that I've been told doesn't have a significant connection to the main storyline. And for me, this includes something that happens in the first three minutes of a film, and is just a pretty, and obviously not significant.

Let me put it this way, I am the only person I know who was surprised by Connie Willis' "Domesday Book". Moreover, if someone told me that before I read the book, I would count it as a spoiler.

[markgritter.livejournal.com]

I see your point, but I think many of the people who are very vocal about not wanting to be "spoiled" have also engaged in heavy speculation.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

I regularly listen to a movie review podcast called "Spoiler Specials" which is supposed to be listened to by people who have seen the movies in question. So far, I have only listened to reviews of movies that I have not seen. In most cases these are movies I wasn't planning to see anyway, but was curious about. However, in a few cases the reviews were positive enough that I am now considering seeing the movie in question. I haven't heard anything in any of these reviews that actual "spoil" the movie.

There are really only a few movies where the effectiveness of the whole experience hinges on one big surprise ("The Crying Game," "Usual Suspects" and "Sixth Sense" come to mind). IMHO, "Crying Game" really wasn't a particularly good movie and didn't have much going for it besides the Big Surprise. The other two are good enough that I've watched them more than once, and they are still excellent on 2nd viewing.

I think that a really well-written book or movie will meet that criteria: while it may be more enjoyable if you don't know too much about it in advance, it doesn't ruin the experience if you do know the key plot points.

I'm reminded of an "Arlo and Janis" cartoon I found hilarious. Arlo's son comes home with the movie "Apollo 13" and gets mad at his Dad for "spoiling" the ending. ("Oh, yeah, I remember that! We all thought they were going to die!")

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I was not surprised by the ending of "The Sixth Sense." For a long time I thought it was because I read too much fantasy, but other fantasy readers were surprised, so I don't know what it was.

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

You're probably just more alert than most people. I was surprised because I am exceedingly susceptible to the type of redirection used in stage magic (borderline ADD, doncha know). My reaction at the end was, "Whoahhh... of course! Why didn't I see THAT coming?" I then sat down and watched the entire movie again, just to see how he did it. As I immediately realized when I saw the denouement, the movie is filled with clues, some of them pretty obvious. But the scene changes and visual distractions were so perfectly paced (at least for me) that every time my mind started to follow one of the clues to a conclusion, I got caught up in something else and forgot about the clue. When the secret is revealed, it makes perfect sense, because ... there were all those clues. I had a similar response to "The Usual Suspects."

Both of these movies would have been significantly less enjoyable for me if I'd known the final plot twist going in. For me, a lot of the pleasure in watching these movies a second time is enjoying the craft with which the viewer is simultaneously presented with a coherent story and misled to the wrong conclusions.

If you weren't fooled the first time, I don't know if movies like that are still fun. Did you like "Sixth Sense?"

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

It was okay. I wasn't wowed, but it was fine.

I enjoy some mystery novels even when I have a fairly strong notion of whodunnit and how they'll prove it.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I generally agree that one-trick stories aren't generally terribly worthwhile anyway.

On the other hand, the original Lensman books had this great structure where, at the end of each of the 4 books, it looked like things had been all wrapped up, problem solved; and at the start of the next book you discovered that you had just chopped off one tentacle of the *real* monster, which now had to be faced. Seems like you'd miss something going through that not knowing.

However, when they were published in hardcover in the 50s, the first two books added to the series *did* reveal the true background villains from the very beginning, so apparently Doc Smith didn't think it was that bad.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Also, more than four books of that pattern could get pretty annoying pretty fast. "Look, a still-bigger, still-badder big bad thing!"

[laurel]

Sensibilities on this issue vary widely. I err on the side of caution with the TV picks and try to avoid posting anything remotely spoiler-y; I seem to be more careful than the people who write up descriptions for TV listings or who make the commercials for TV shows and movies.

Kevin doesn't mind spoilers, except for things like sporting events. I see how it can kinda ruin the experience of watching a ballgame if you find out how it turned out. He doesn't get livid about it, just disappointed, and understands if he waits to watch a game, there are good odds he will be spoiled.

I don't care for spoilers, but I don't usually get all worked up if I run across them. But I imagine there are some shows I'd be more sensitive about them. Shows with season-long mysteries (like Veronica Mars) or overarching mysteries (like Lost) are ones where you really don't want spoilers (unless you do).

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I've never waited to watch a game that I can recall, probably for that very reason.

[kemayo.livejournal.com]

Snape kills Trinity with Rosebud.

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

Congratulations (and knock wood) on the lack of vertigo so far. I hope that continues.

On spoilers: I think it depends on how much I am enjoying being in suspense. I remember in the middle of Babylon 5, how delicious each cliffhanger was. I was mad to find out what happens next, but I would not have wanted a spoiler for all the flarn on Minbar.

Or Hustle--do you watch Hustle? Grifters in London? (Worth watching, fyi. Especially on DVD) The extreme joy of this show, at least in my opinion, is knowing how they pull off whatever they pull off, and a spoiler would completely destroy half the fun.

For Lost, on the other hand, the suspense is not as tasty. I could see a spoiler without too much grief.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I do not watch Hustle, at least not yet.

[wshaffer.livejournal.com]

I never mind spoilers for things where I'm not yet engaged with the characters or continuity. I've been cheerfully letting people spoil me on Battlestar Galactica - not having watched a single episode yet, all of the "OMG, so-and-so is a Cylon!" means nothing to me, and I'll probably have forgotten it all by the time I actually watch it.

In a lot of cases, even when I am engaged, I find that knowing what happens isn't nearly as important as finding out why or how it happens. So I'm not bothered by spoilers of the simple form "X happens." Also, I'm not bothered by spoilers related to things that have been really heavily foreshadowed - if my reaction to "X happens." is likely to be "Whew! Finally!", then I'm not bothered by finding out in advance.

I have been (not completely successfully) avoiding spoilers for the last 4 episodes of Series 3 of Doctor Who, because I was spoiled on something (via a clip on YouTube) for the Series 2 finale that I think I would rather have been surprised by.

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

Is knowing that [actor] is leaving [show] a spoiler, if you don't know what's happening to the character?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think that's a question with personal answers rather than a universal answer.

Sometimes for me it's a totally necessary spoiler. Season 2 of Murder One was good fun, but if I'd gone in expecting that Teddy was still the main character, I would have spent the first three episodes absolutely crushed, and I might not even have watched beyond that. Whereas knowing that that actor was no longer part of the series meant that I took it on its own terms rather than having expectations it was literally impossible to fulfill.

[jenett]

Selectively bothered.

There are things where I don't care what happens nearly as much as *how* it happens. (I used to completely puzzle the ex by playing through X-Box games and computer adventure games with a walkthrough - because I didn't care about solving the puzzles nearly as much as seeing how they were put together and what the spread of choices was.)

I'm the same way about books. I'll often read mystery series (even series I don't know well) out of order. I do it less with fantasy and SF, but I think that's because the character development works a little differently there, often.

With HP - I don't have a copy on order, and I'm not worrying about avoiding spoilers (it's a case of energy, for both.) I make the decision for big-deal things (movies that admit to a twist that I don't want to spoil before I see them, big name books, etc.) and then I'm fine with it. If I really want ot read it fresh, I avoid spoilers (this is maybe 10% of the time?) Otherwise, I click through, read reviews, and all that.

[todfox.livejournal.com]

I am not bothered by spoilers that I can recall. I don't seek them out actively for things I am actually interested in consuming, but if I happen across one it doesn't bother me. The outcome is just a small piece, most of the fun is in how we get to the outcome, and how masterfully the writers (actors/illustrators/sfx people/etc) crafted that path. Part of the reason I may not mind spoilers is because I am a writer and can redirect my attention to the craft of a piece once the plot is known.

OTOH, one of the best movie-going experiences I have had was going to this little movie called the Matrix purely because a friend invited me, having absolutely no idea what it was about -- I had read no hype, heard no reviews, and had not watched a single trailer. Even though the idea that 'reality is all an illusion' is hardly novel to me (hello, I'm a psychedelic drug user :) it was still a really fun experience to go into with no clue what was coming.

[ysabel.livejournal.com]

I regularly read books backwards (or otherwise significantly out of front-to-back sequential order).

This makes the entire concept of spoilers somewhat...out of place to me, I think.

[garunya.livejournal.com]

I did get the ending of The Sixth Sense spoiled for me. No-one actually came out and said what the twist was, but from all the little snippets I'd heard, I was able to figure it out before I even watched the film. So when I finally watched it, everything seemed incredibly obvious to me and I wasn't able to enjoy it very much (and even worse, don't know if I would have felt otherwise if I had gone in unaware).

Twin Peaks, on the other hand, I had Laura Palmer's murderer spoiled for me prematurely (I had only seen season one at the time, and you don't find out until a few episodes into season 2). But that viewing experience held up much better, probably helped by the fact that there was a lot more to it than just who killed her.

Babylon 5 was a great mix of surprise and foreshadowing, but I wouldn't have wanted to lose out on that great feeling of anticipation the first time I watched it.

Smelling of Smoothie (sans Spoilers)

[jymdyer.livejournal.com]

=v= You no longer smell like a comic-strip cop (http://comics.com/comics/jumpstart/archive/jumpstart-20070717.html)?

Re: Smelling of Smoothie (sans Spoilers)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Different fruits! But happily not any more!

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

It seems to me the HP-spoiler thing is getting a little out of hand. Leaky Cauldron's now got a letter-writing campaign to the NY Times, because of their review of HP7 that, in Leaky's words, "goes against the author and everyone who cälls themselves a true Harry Potter fan." That kind of groupthink bothers me anyway; I'm pretty sure lots of people on the communities that exist specifically to discuss spoilers also consider themselves "true fans"(whatever that is) and are there specifically so they can have the discsussion without upsetting others who don't want to know.

But the NYT article doesn't strike me as unfair, for a book review. To avoid spoilers here, I'll work by analogy. If Pride and Prejudice came out tomorrow and I were to review it, I would probably talk about the relationship between Elizabeht and her family, the pressures on E. and jane to marry well, the offers and dilemmas put before them. I might mention Darcy and Wickham and Mr. Collins as suitors for Elizabeth's hand. I wouldn't do is to mention that Elizabeth and Darcy end up together.

I think the NYT review has done the equivalent; they've talked about choices and dilemmas in the book, but not given away the ending. I do think it's fair to talk a bit about the plot of a book; how else would anyone be able to read a review and recognize if the book is something they'd enjoy? If reviewers are not allowed to give away *anything*, they're reduced to using only adjectives in their descriptions (because even comparisons to other works could give away too much plot) and I don't think that's sufficient to convey the flavor of a book.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I don't know; I think that this is a pretty special case, because, really, who is going to read the NYT review to help them determine whether to buy this book or even check it out from the library? Why go out of your way to do something the publisher has specifically asked people and publications not to do, when it's not going to change who buys or reads the book in the first place? If you want to discuss stuff about it critically*, go for it, but why bother with a review?

*Critically in the technical sense rather than the assumed-negative sense.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

That's true. I was thinking that still, it wasn't fair because other publishers don't get to make that kind of request, but then I realized no one else wants to: for any lesser-known new book (which is just about *any* new book) they'd want bits of the plot described, for selling purposes.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, exactly. Publishers send out ARCs for a reason. I suspect that if someone from a small press sent the NYT a letter saying, "Please for the love of all that is holy, do not review my book!", they'd be like, "Err...done! No problem!"