surprise, startle, unfold

[mrissa]

When I was a small kid--early grade school, say--some of my playmates discovered that I startled easily. They took great delight in grabbing me from behind, jumping out at me, making loud noises suddenly, etc. More frustrating, they went on and on about how I was scared, how easily scared I was, how they could always scare me. This seemed to me wrong, and my mother put her finger on the semantic difference I was seeking: "You're not scared, you're startled," she said. And that was just it. I was not likely to burst into tears or have other stress-reactions to being startled. I was not experiencing heart-pounding, lasting fear reactions. I was just jumping. (I am not, perhaps, the least high-strung person of your acquaintance.) And all this came to an abrupt and happy stop around the third or fourth grade, when my reflexes were trained enough that instead of jumping when someone grabbed me from behind, I rammed a sturdy little shoulder into her chin, and suddenly someone was scared, it just wasn't me, so they gave it up.

But it gradually became clear to me that some* of these people thought it was fun because they liked to be startled. They liked the jump. They liked to try to prolong any heart-pounding reaction to this sort of thing as long as they could; they thought it was neat. It felt good to them. I think there was more genuine fear, but safe fear, the haunted house kind of fear rather than the kind that comes from being pursued by a genuine attacker. I went to a haunted house once, because it was a fundraiser for a Boy Scout troop a friend of mine helped with in college. It bored me for about nineteen minutes and startled me in the remaining one. Others loved it. I want to make it clear throughout here: I am not saying that my reaction is good and theirs is bad, or mine is smart and theirs is dumb, or anything like that. I'm saying that it looks like there is a bit of hard-wiring that varies from person to person, and that's okay.

I was watching the end of West Wing S1, and there was an event that made me wonder if that's part of why some people care more about spoilers than I do (and some care less). I knew going in that there was going to be an assassination attempt at the end of S1. Why do I know this? Well, because rmnilsson lent me the first three seasons on DVD when I had nothing else but the DVD booklets to read in the car on the way home, and I have, as the fella said, a 'satiable curtiosity. It was printed matter. I had no other printed matter. I will further admit that "on the way home" is not "on the way home from Omaha" or even "on the way home from the north suburbs," but rather "on the way home from Nokomis area," so, like, 15 minutes tops. But did I not say the bit where the DVD booklets contained printed matter and I had nothing else to read?

So. I knew there would be an assassination attempt. Even if I hadn't read the DVD booklets, I think I might have; they were not being subtle about the foreshadowing. And it took place very near the end of the episode, so it was not as though I had any doubt about when in the show it was coming, by then; there wasn't any time left except when they did it. There was barely that. What I'm saying here is that all of the startle factor was removed from this event. It would not be humanly possible to make a loud and violent fictional event any less startling than the assassination attempt at the end of S1 of West Wing was for me.

And still when I saw C.J. get shoved to the ground, when I saw Toby's head hit the barricade, my hand went to my mouth and I said, "No no no oh no." (Toby is my character in this show. Hands who couldn't predict that? Yah, okay, so sometimes I'm obvious. I also like C.J. Sometimes I am pretty good with Josh or Charlie, and there were several moments in 2.1 where I really think I might have started to love Leo. The first one was when he came into the President's hospital room when the President was about to go in for surgery, and the first thing out of his mouth was asking Zoe how she was doing. That was perfect. That was so well-done. I said, "Okay, you can stay."** But from the very first episode, I knew that the equation was going to be "more Toby = happier mrissa." Toby is the reason I kept going until 1.13, which is where I fell in love with the show a little bit.)

But here's my point: if they couldn't make me react that way at that moment, knowing it was coming, fully prepared for it, if they couldn't get an involuntary no out of the scene then, I am not at all sure the show would be worth watching in the first place. It certainly wouldn't be worth watching twice. What they are doing as storytellers is giving me the particulars. The concrete bits. What is happening and how, and what it's doing to the people it's happening to when it does. If the specificity of characters I liked being shown in that situation didn't move me, there would be no point to it. I might as well listen to a listing of events--"and they try to get Admiral Adama put on the Supreme Court and there's something about a panda"--and watch Desk Set or Sneakers again instead.

For me, what's left when you're no longer startled is what's worthwhile. The way the events unfold, not what the events are. I know it's not like that for other people, because the startling itself has more value for them.

When I was watching Veronica Mars--at least the first two seasons of Veronica Mars--I thought I finally had an emotional understanding of what some people were so adamant about when they begged others to avoid spoilers in descriptions of fictional series. But I haven't felt like that about anything else since, even things that supposedly have mystery to them. For example, I knew who the four Cylons were who would be revealed at the end of S3 well before I watched the end of S1 of Battlestar Galactica, and I was fine with that. I think what happened with Veronica Mars is that the narrative unfolding--the bit that makes it worthwhile to read book one first or watch episode seven before episode eight instead of the reverse--was really tied up in the pace of revelation of clues. I don't find it this way with all mystery plots, but mystery plots are more prone to it than non-mystery plots. The other thing was that I trusted the people who made Veronica Mars to make the revelations worth my emotional energy/risk, and I don't trust very many TV teams that much.

*Others were mildly sadistic or power-hungry. Yes, at the age of 6. Especially at the age of 6; do you know 6-year-olds?

**Yes, I talk to the TV a lot, particularly when it's just me watching it. I have a general sense of how tolerant markgritter and timprov are of which kinds of comment, so I talk to the TV some when they're with me. With other people I really try not to because I don't want to interfere with their enjoyment. Talking to the TV is one of the ways in which I am totally my grandpa all over again.

This weekend we discovered--and by we I mean I, because my folks and timprov apparently already knew it and markgritter was out of the room for it--yet another way in which I am totally my grandpa all over again. Some of you know the face I make when I totally disagree with you and refuse to argue or pretend to agree or anything like that, I just make the face for a few seconds and then I go on with the next thing. I discovered this because Mom was telling a story about Grandpa and she did the face he did, and it suddenly looked very familiar, like I had felt it once or twice before. Apparently everybody else already knew this was my Stubborn Like Grandpa Face. People do not give me all the memos I'm supposed to be getting, I don't think.

Comments

[jbru.livejournal.com]

I am a bit like you, sort of, in that spoilers aren't a big deal to me the way they are to other people. I get as much enjoyment out of reading or seeing how something is done as I do out of the thing itself. This frustrates me a bit as an author, because it gets in the way of my telling a story. I haven't done the thing I want to well enough for my aesthetic standards. It all seems too obvious while I'm doing it. But it doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the work of others.

[kchew.livejournal.com]

I knew about the event you're referring to as well, even though I was being very careful about avoiding spoilers (I made it through to the end of season 7 that way on DVD), and it still left me gasping and saying "WTF?! WHO? WHO?"

I've watched Season 1 four times, and the Christmas episode with Toby makes me cry every damn time, and I just don't cry watching television. I love that show.

[daharyn.livejournal.com]

I have watched the end of S1/beginning of S2 arc repeatedly and I still startle every time.

Um, I was given all seven seasons as a gift, and have watched the whole thing through at least twice. (With many touchstone eps I watch once in a while.) The Toby quotient just gets better and better.

Did you see any of the show while it aired? I want to be spoiler-free, I'm just thrilled that someone else is enjoying the series because I adore it so very much and want to make everyone I care about sit down and watch all seven seasons. I might allow for food, sleep, and personal care, but otherwise... WW is not unsuited to marathon viewing.

[ellarien]

I can relate to a lot of this. I sometimes jump out of my skin when people come into the office when I'm focused on the computer with my back to the door -- not really scared, yes, but definitely startled. The really weird bit is that I sometimes do the jumping after I've greeted them normally.

I also don't mind spoilers most of the time. In fact, I tend to skip ahead a lot when I'm reading a complicated book, sometimes to the point that I'm reading most of the whole thing two or three times before I get to the end. There is a certain kind of book that I enjoy much more second time around, when I know who is going to betray the protagonist and who isn't and can relax enough to follow the rest of what's going on.

[prettymuchpeggy.livejournal.com]

My mom and I watch TV differently. She flicks between three different shows and is fine with the cliff notes version of TV when you watch TV that way. She gets really upset at spoilers. Personally, I watch TV for the story and verbal interaction of the characters. I do prefer to see things spoiler-free; but if I hear a spoiler, it is not the end of my interest in any particular show and sometimes it perks my interest in the show even more.

As for cliffhangers I find them frustrating in both TV shows and books. I used to love when the end of the TV season meant the resolution of most of the storyline...now most are steeped in cliffhangers. {For books I have a tendency not to buy trilogies (when I know that they are trilogies) until the last book is out} I find this frustration as it interrupts the flow of the story and it is aggravating to wait months {or years} for the missing piece to be resolved.

[elsue.livejournal.com]

First--my haunted house freakout--I went to a haunted house in the small college town where I lived, and a serial murderer character re-murdered his wife (who was about 16, but whatever) then grabbed me and started to threaten to kill me BY NAME. I was FREAKED. (I figured out who it was pretty quickly, but seriously...person you assume is a stranger grabs you and threatens you BY NAME?) It was freaky, but in a seriously silly way.

Second--I HATE HATE HATE suspense. Much prefer spoilers. Always read the ends of books before the middles, sometimes before the beginnings; lately I've realized that isn't really enough. So I've been reading a bit here and a bit there throughout the book until I really and truly know what the story is, *then* I read it straight through. It works soooo much better.

I think I need the armature first so I can enjoy the details, the process, the interpersonal bits that make the book my kind of fun. I like knowing how process works, and this probably relates to that. And books, for me, are so often richer when you're seeing how all the pieces fit together; how this sighting of, say, a scarf is going to mean so much come the end of the story; how that conversation will be echoed--and have added significance--later. It gives anticipation. (Which may be the point--suspense doesn't give me anticipation, it gives me tension and discomfort and wanting to be anywhere but there. So I need something to replace it? Dunno.)

This reading of ends first really baffles a lot of people I know. But hey, it works for me....

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I'm in both camps.

There are a couple of songs I listen to that have "startling" moments in them -- in one case, the singer's voice suddenly leaps upward in a phrase that throughout the song had been a downward interval; in another, a live performance, they just stop for four beats and then pick up again -- and man, nothing will ever re-create the experience of hearing those for the first time. The sudden surprise got me right in the gut, and it was awesome. It's still awesome now, of course: I love those bits of the songs. But I love them in the way that I anticipate them coming, and enjoy them when they arrive, and that's not the same thing.

So in that sense, I'd rather not be spoiled, because you only get one chance to be caught off-guard, and after that the enjoyment changes.

But the good stuff holds its merit even once the surprise is gone. My favorite data point for this, though it's less a "startlement" thing and more a "omg are they gonna be okay" thing, is Apollo 13. Not only have I seen the movie a bunch of times, it's based on history! I know how it's gonna end! And yet every time, I'm holding my breath, hoping they make it home okay.

After a while, I figured out the reason why this works. Sure, I the viewer know how it's going to end -- but the characters don't. And a good enough story will have me empathizing enough that I'm terrified for the safety of characters who will come through okay, I'm grieving for the loss of characters who aren't dead after all, I'm startled by things I know are about to happen. Because I'm not thinking as me; I'm thinking as the people in the story. That can't be spoiled. In fact, sometimes the enjoyment is heightened by knowing what's coming -- I start grinning or biting my nails or sniffling long before the characters do.

(I, for the record, am a highly jumpy person, and retaliatory in my jumping. I had excellent reflexes in high school owing to the game wherein friends would surprise me or kurayami_hime -- or sometimes we did it to each other -- and then tried to get out of range of the inevitable claw-strike.)

[writingortyping.livejournal.com]

Sure, I the viewer know how it's going to end -- but the characters don't. And a good enough story will have me empathizing enough that I'm terrified for the safety of characters who will come through okay, I'm grieving for the loss of characters who aren't dead after all, I'm startled by things I know are about to happen. Because I'm not thinking as me; I'm thinking as the people in the story.

Ahhh... That makes a lot of sense. I'm the same way.

I've also never understood the desire to be scared - I don't seem to be wired for the "pleasurable" kind of scared. A friend was talking recently about "Alien" being a good date movie, and my initial reaction was, are you out of your everlovin' mind?!. I would consider someone who subjected me to "Alien" a sadist.

Loud noises still startle the heck out of me - occasionally, when I'm a bit late getting on the Metro, the light rail train behind me will blast its horn (my station has an outdoor platform) and I will nearly jump out of my skin.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I'm not fond of being scared by books or movies, either -- again, it's the empathy thing, and I seem to be lacking the wiring for enjoying it. I don't get the endorphin rush; I just get twitchy.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I occasionally have an "ooh, I like how I did that" moment when reading an old story, but it's more often "oh, is that all I managed to do?".

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I loved the Christmas episode with Toby. (more Toby = happier mrissa! It's math.) But the one that made me cry was 1.13, when the parents of the gay Minnesotan kid who was killed by people who hated him for being gay got there, because they got the dad so right. They play fair with my people. I didn't expect them to. When the dad said, "I'm not ashamed my son was gay. My government is," in that I-have-been-quiet-to-avoid-murdering-you-people Minnesotan dad way, that's when I cried.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I didn't see the show while it aired. I have gotten more and more careful about not watching fiction on broadcast. It's just not worth it to me when I can watch the DVDs and get the show unfolding the way it's supposed to.

rmnilsson has the other seasons and has promised to lend them to me when I'm through with the first three.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

For me the kitchen is the dangerous place for being spooked, because it's full enough of smells and noises that I neither smell nor hear people coming as well, and I rely on those things.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I don't really like end-of-season cliffhangers, either. I am in the middle of an end-of-season cliffhanger for Criminal Minds, since I don't watch broadcast and am waiting for the S4 DVDs. As much as I loved Veronica Mars S1, it left me on an end-of-season cliffhanger, and I didn't like that much.

On the other hand, if everybody waits to buy books until the third one is out, the third one will never come out; they will cause the thing they feared. But I don't think there's much danger that a meaningful subset of everyone will, so I don't think there's any harm if you do.

I was thinking about this because people have been talking about it recently, and I was thinking how much more I love single-author collections than anthologies or magazines, and how if nobody buys those anthologies or magazines, authors can't build up a set of stories to sell a single-author collection. Not completely sure what the best course of action is there.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Hey, if it works for you.

I think one of the things is, it's easier--where by easier I mean possible--for a writer to see how a book looks when read in sequence, and there's no way to predict which bits you're going to read out of order. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, just means the author can't tailor your experience.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The Apollo 13 thing yes: I often report to other members of the household, "Well, Inigo slew Count Rugen again this time," or, "It was a near thing, but they did blow up the Death Star," depending on what I've been watching without them.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

My problem with spoilers is that I end up overthinking and missing the moment when it actually happens. I'm taking the incomplete information of the spoiler and wondering about it, is it even true and will they do it well and what will it mean and what do I think about it, and the nowness of it is, well, spoiled for me.

It's not about the startle per se for me -- I don't like roller coasters or horror films -- it is more about the first bite of the new ice cream when you see how all the flavors melt together. If I've already read 5 reviews of the restaurant hotly debating whether the fleur de sal caramel ice cream is a triumph or a disaster, then I'm so busy taking my temperature on this topic that I've got words in my mouth instead of sweetness.

Whereas rewatching or rereading is no problem at all. I agree a good show or book should have stuff in it that stands up once the surprise is removed. I can experience it over and over, but I want my first experience of that information to be *my* experience of it, not once-removed.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

There are also things which remain funny even if you know the joke is coming and have seen them lots of times. It's not just the people who have never seen The Marriage of Figaro before when laughter ripples through the auditorium as the Count uncovers Cherubino, e.g.

And there are things which remain teeth-grittingly suspenseful even if you know it comes right in the end* - e.g. the Buffy episode in which she is being made to undergo the Watchers' Council ordeal, though that may be my particular arrrgh triggers.

This is possibly to do with the work having other things to offer than just A Reveal/punchline.

I'm not mightily bothered about spoilers myself (I reread and rewatch probably a great deal too much to be to concerned about knowing already whodunnit/gets spliced at the end) but clearly quite a lot of people feel differently (porridge shortage Not Imminent).

*This is different from the person who started every reread of Emma in the hope that this time Emma would not be rude to Miss Bates at the picnic.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I forgot to say how absolutely boggled I was to recently meet a child who loves being tickled. I HATED being tickled as a child -- still do but it has become easier to avoid -- and I had not properly processed that some kids actually find that pleasant, until a 6 year old with no reason to lie to me said clearly "that tickles! don't stop!"

[carbonel]

I have been watching Criminal Minds also(via bittorrent), and when I got to the end of S3, I had to start up the first ep of S4, even though it was after 10 pm, and I don't watch TV after 10 pm. I still haven't seen the whole episode, but I needed to know which *spoiler* it was.

[columbina.livejournal.com]

This is the basic data point I have been making for some years now about why M. Nigh Unspellable has forgotten any bits of good story-writing he once had. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable both were Big Surprise movies, but they bear repeat viewing even once you know the Big Surprise because they are either good stories or have good performances or both. (Given what M. Nigh turned out later on, I'm actually inclined to say that Bruce Willis carries both movies - and that there is a Big Surprise of its own.) But once you know the secret in The Village or The Happening, you realize there was never anything there BUT the secret; knowing the secret reduces the rest of the film, as opposed to in a film like Sleuth where knowing it just increases the glee at knowing what's coming. (Mileage does vary; I am divided on The Crying Game, for example.)

[columbina.livejournal.com]

P.S. I always assumed that the userpic you have tagged "Wait - what?" (that I have gotten so many times, either that or the Oh Hell No one) was the Stubborn Like Grandpa Face. But I imagine there are many subtle distinctions. Nuances. Shadings.

[rmnilsson.livejournal.com]

I started watching TWW partway through S2, when it was on Bravo. So I knew what was going to happen at the end of S1, and I still had a strong reaction to it. Sorkin actually talks about playing with what the audience knows and what the characters know, going back and forth in who knows more. I love the moment when the secret service busts in on VP Otter.

For me, some stories are about the characters and their development, in which case knowing what is going to happen doesn't diminish the story, like TWW. But some stories are about the mystery, in which case figuring out what's going on is much of the fun, like Lost or Veronica Mars S1.

But I'd put those both in separate categories than the startle factor. I don't think TWW season 1 finale was intended to startle the viewer. I think it was intended to capture the way that violence intrudes on a moment of happiness. It's not the cat jumping out of the closet.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

That makes sense, and it's interesting to me that you refer to restaurant reviews, because it's a reasonable analogy, and neither one bothers me that way, so the analogy works for the other side of the fence as well.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I guessed the twist of The Village about three minutes in, and spent the remainder of the movie praying I was wrong.

Alas.