Plot Twist: Spoilers actually a thing
December 11, 2015 10:08 AM Subscribe
In a plot twist to the 2011 study that said that spoilers are not a thing (previously) comes a new study from VU Amsterdam showing that spoilers totally are a thing.
I hate getting spoiled. The explanation about "surprise being registered as cognitive failure" read like hogwash to me way back when this originally came out. The most entertaining stories I have have encountered, and ASOIAF is is on that list, are the stories that are unpredictable without relying on cheap tricks. Like a magician the author exploits all that pattern recognition, hides things in plain site, and still blows your mind. Spoiling is like revealing how that trick is done before the audience sees it. It changes how they watch.
Now, some great stories don't need all that, but for the stories that rely on it you ruin a lot of the journey by showing the destination out of context. But really, I don't know if a story will be ruined by spoilers or not until I read it. So don't spoil anything when it's reasonable to avoid it!
posted by Drinky Die at 10:21 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Now, some great stories don't need all that, but for the stories that rely on it you ruin a lot of the journey by showing the destination out of context. But really, I don't know if a story will be ruined by spoilers or not until I read it. So don't spoil anything when it's reasonable to avoid it!
posted by Drinky Die at 10:21 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
There's something really gross about responding to somebody saying "I don't want thing!" with "oh please, science says you want thing."
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:26 AM on December 11, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:26 AM on December 11, 2015 [22 favorites]
Despite the second article basically saying "people who don't mind spoilers are people who don't like thinking about things or having strong feelings", I contend that there are various reasons to be okay with spoilers. This could just be self-serving except that one of the smartest people I know - a very adroit reader of difficult texts, and certainly no slouch in the 'having feelings' department - told me about her preference for spoilers. For her (and I admit, for me) spoilers reduce anxiety and allow preparation for horrible things - you really care about a plot concern or a character, for instance, and you have to brace yourself if the story is going to be all rapey or someone is going to die suddenly. Worry about the story suddenly being horrible itself spoils the enjoyment of characterization, language, landscape, etc.
While I would never spoil something for people who don't like spoilers, I never mind them myself because I'm a really anxious person and it can get me down for days if a story ends up being horribly tragic or grotesquely violent or super homophobic, etc. I have to make sure that I'm ready, basically.
Also, perhaps because I'm a big old dumbo dummy, I kind of like knowing the beginning and the end and then wondering about how things get from the start to the finish.
posted by Frowner at 10:29 AM on December 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
While I would never spoil something for people who don't like spoilers, I never mind them myself because I'm a really anxious person and it can get me down for days if a story ends up being horribly tragic or grotesquely violent or super homophobic, etc. I have to make sure that I'm ready, basically.
Also, perhaps because I'm a big old dumbo dummy, I kind of like knowing the beginning and the end and then wondering about how things get from the start to the finish.
posted by Frowner at 10:29 AM on December 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
I would have to ask what level of spoiler we're talking about here. There's the "He was dead all along!" type of spoiler, which changes our viewpoint on the entire movie. Then there's the Red Wedding type of spoiler, which doesn't change our viewpoint on things that came before but is a major plot point. And finally, there's the "Tom Hanks gets together with Meg Ryan at the end" type of "spoiler", which is really only barely a thing but is still technically "giving away" something that you presumably want to see the story earn.
My personal enjoyment of a spoilt thing could vary greatly depending on just what "level" of spoiler we were talking about.
posted by Etrigan at 10:30 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
My personal enjoyment of a spoilt thing could vary greatly depending on just what "level" of spoiler we were talking about.
posted by Etrigan at 10:30 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
"We found that people who have a low need for cognition prefer their stories to be spoiled, because it makes the plot easier to follow," said Judith Rosenbaum (Albany State University, Associate Professor of Mass Communication, Ph.D. in Trolling Metafilter)
posted by roystgnr at 10:30 AM on December 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by roystgnr at 10:30 AM on December 11, 2015 [19 favorites]
It's almost as if a single study needs to be replicated and confirmed, and should never be taken as conclusive evidence of anything!
posted by escape from the potato planet at 10:31 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by escape from the potato planet at 10:31 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
I really wish 'a thing,' wasn't a thing.
posted by jonmc at 10:32 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 10:32 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Are either of these broken down by gender? There was something a little while ago about how trailers revealing more of movies' plots these days is because women prefer it (for some reason that I can't recall.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:34 AM on December 11, 2015
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:34 AM on December 11, 2015
I'm just going to take a moment to pull an extreme frownyface at the bullshit this article tries to pull.
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on December 11, 2015
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on December 11, 2015
Can't you also say there are different levels of spoilers? I mean, I felt like would've enjoyed The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde more if I hadn't known the secret going in, but it is literally impossible to not know. Whereas nothing about Dracula is improved by not knowing that the weird old count is a vampire.
It just seems really weird to me, because classics are already spoiled in advance. I mean, has anyone in the history of ever gone into a production of Hamlet expecting him to do in Claudius, reclaim the throne and live happily ever after with Ophelia? Or are you going to honestly say that no, new spoiler-free thing is better than Hamlet? Or that you engage with it more, or enjoy it on a deeper level, or whatever you want to say – Hamlet is probably better than the TV show you are binge-watching.
posted by graymouser at 10:35 AM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
It just seems really weird to me, because classics are already spoiled in advance. I mean, has anyone in the history of ever gone into a production of Hamlet expecting him to do in Claudius, reclaim the throne and live happily ever after with Ophelia? Or are you going to honestly say that no, new spoiler-free thing is better than Hamlet? Or that you engage with it more, or enjoy it on a deeper level, or whatever you want to say – Hamlet is probably better than the TV show you are binge-watching.
posted by graymouser at 10:35 AM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'd say we have a different experience of Dracula or Hamlet than anyone experiencing them for the first time when they were fresh. Could be they were fucking amazing and that is denied to us forever now.
posted by Artw at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Dude, way to spoil the study in the title. Too soon.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 1:18 PM on December 11
Yes, but you totally spoiled the comment I was going to make.
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2015
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 1:18 PM on December 11
Yes, but you totally spoiled the comment I was going to make.
posted by TedW at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2015
Frowner: "Despite the second article basically saying "people who don't mind spoilers are people who don't like thinking about things or having strong feelings", I contend that there are various reasons to be okay with spoilers. This could just be self-serving except that one of the smartest people I know - a very adroit reader of difficult texts, and certainly no slouch in the 'having feelings' department - told me about her preference for spoilers. For her (and I admit, for me) spoilers reduce anxiety and allow preparation for horrible things - you really care about a plot concern or a character, for instance, and you have to brace yourself if the story is going to be all rapey or someone is going to die suddenly. Worry about the story suddenly being horrible itself spoils the enjoyment of characterization, language, landscape, etc.
While I would never spoil something for people who don't like spoilers, I never mind them myself because I'm a really anxious person and it can get me down for days if a story ends up being horribly tragic or grotesquely violent or super homophobic, etc. I have to make sure that I'm ready, basically.
Also, perhaps because I'm a big old dumbo dummy, I kind of like knowing the beginning and the end and then wondering about how things get from the start to the finish."
Welp, it would certainly make discussing certain shows with co-workers SO much easier. If the lazy bastards would EVER get caught UP already!
posted by Samizdata at 10:39 AM on December 11, 2015
While I would never spoil something for people who don't like spoilers, I never mind them myself because I'm a really anxious person and it can get me down for days if a story ends up being horribly tragic or grotesquely violent or super homophobic, etc. I have to make sure that I'm ready, basically.
Also, perhaps because I'm a big old dumbo dummy, I kind of like knowing the beginning and the end and then wondering about how things get from the start to the finish."
Welp, it would certainly make discussing certain shows with co-workers SO much easier. If the lazy bastards would EVER get caught UP already!
posted by Samizdata at 10:39 AM on December 11, 2015
TedW: "Dude, way to spoil the study in the title. Too soon.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 1:18 PM on December 11
Yes, but you totally spoiled the comment I was going to make."
Dude.
DUDE!
Don't spoil the plot twist already!
posted by Samizdata at 10:40 AM on December 11, 2015
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 1:18 PM on December 11
Yes, but you totally spoiled the comment I was going to make."
Dude.
DUDE!
Don't spoil the plot twist already!
posted by Samizdata at 10:40 AM on December 11, 2015
Could be they were fucking amazing and that is denied to us forever now.
Like I said, I think that the original Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde could've been like this. But it's really the only work that I can think of that I feel strongly about in that way, and for the most part I don't find classics are lessened by having known the ending in advance. I mean, maybe it's a quality thing?
posted by graymouser at 10:44 AM on December 11, 2015
Like I said, I think that the original Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde could've been like this. But it's really the only work that I can think of that I feel strongly about in that way, and for the most part I don't find classics are lessened by having known the ending in advance. I mean, maybe it's a quality thing?
posted by graymouser at 10:44 AM on December 11, 2015
Also, with the "spoilers" question, what about re-reading and re-watching? I tend to reread and rewatch stuff - I have a lousy memory, for one thing, and for another I like to be able to concentrate on different stuff each time through. Most of my reading/watching is already "spoiled" because I've seen it before, but I actually think that I get more out of subsequent reads/watches because I'm able to mentally step away from the plot to concentrate on language, camera angles, how gender is handled, etc.
I certainly know people who can have a really rich and complex readerly experience with only one reading - and in general, those people have better memories than I do! - but I don't think that engaging with a "spoiled" text means that your experience of it is dumber or less affecting. Honestly, I think I often have stronger feelings on subsequent readings.
Part of it is, I have to admit, I am not always that good at predicting plot twists - I'm always pleasantly surprised by mysteries, for instance - so when I'm paying attention to plot, it takes up more of my attention.
posted by Frowner at 10:45 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
I certainly know people who can have a really rich and complex readerly experience with only one reading - and in general, those people have better memories than I do! - but I don't think that engaging with a "spoiled" text means that your experience of it is dumber or less affecting. Honestly, I think I often have stronger feelings on subsequent readings.
Part of it is, I have to admit, I am not always that good at predicting plot twists - I'm always pleasantly surprised by mysteries, for instance - so when I'm paying attention to plot, it takes up more of my attention.
posted by Frowner at 10:45 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
I really don't like spoilers in one-watch kind of things. Like TV shows where the whole point is the narrative. I like that sort of thing to come as a surprise, because really, that's the whole point.
But not everything is totally dependent on straight narrative plot. So spoiling, say, Citizen Kane or Hamlet or something probably wouldn't make a difference. (Although pretty much everyone already knows that both Kane and Hamlet move to Alaska and become lumberjacks, so we never get to experience them unspoiled.)
posted by ernielundquist at 10:48 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
But not everything is totally dependent on straight narrative plot. So spoiling, say, Citizen Kane or Hamlet or something probably wouldn't make a difference. (Although pretty much everyone already knows that both Kane and Hamlet move to Alaska and become lumberjacks, so we never get to experience them unspoiled.)
posted by ernielundquist at 10:48 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Lars Von Trier's movie Melancholia is a good example to me of a movie that demonstrates how much more important storytelling and atmosphere-setting can be than keeping something hidden. Right in the beginning of the movie, the entire plot is spelled out for you. You know that everything is going to go horribly south, you know that the world is going to end. Instead of spending two hours wondering "is the rogue planet going to pass? Is it going to hit?" you *know* it's going to hit, so instead you can focus on how.
Obviously that doesn't work in every movie, but in certain instances like that, the movie is unspoilable.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:54 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Obviously that doesn't work in every movie, but in certain instances like that, the movie is unspoilable.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:54 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sometimes I don't want spoilers. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't much care either way.
But I, you know, do know which one it is, and am able to say so. I'm not LYING.
posted by kyrademon at 10:54 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
But I, you know, do know which one it is, and am able to say so. I'm not LYING.
posted by kyrademon at 10:54 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'd say we have a different experience of Dracula or Hamlet than anyone experiencing them for the first time when they were fresh. Could be they were fucking amazing and that is denied to us forever now.
When I saw Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet in the theater back in 1996, there was a small gaggle of excited teenage girls a few rows ahead of us who, judging by their comments, were clearly here just because it was a Leonardo DiCaprio movie, who didn't know anything about the source material (except, presumably, that it was supposed to be romantic).
They were devastated at the ending. Did not see it coming, were crying inconsolably. My friends were making mean comments about how ignorant they were -- kids these days, amirite? But I walked out of the theater envying them a little. They'd just had an experience of this timeless classic that no one I know ever got to have.
posted by webmutant at 10:56 AM on December 11, 2015 [48 favorites]
When I saw Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet in the theater back in 1996, there was a small gaggle of excited teenage girls a few rows ahead of us who, judging by their comments, were clearly here just because it was a Leonardo DiCaprio movie, who didn't know anything about the source material (except, presumably, that it was supposed to be romantic).
They were devastated at the ending. Did not see it coming, were crying inconsolably. My friends were making mean comments about how ignorant they were -- kids these days, amirite? But I walked out of the theater envying them a little. They'd just had an experience of this timeless classic that no one I know ever got to have.
posted by webmutant at 10:56 AM on December 11, 2015 [48 favorites]
I used to think I didn't care about spoilers, until I happened to see Cabin in the Woods, unspoiled. I had no idea what was coming, and it was pretty great.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:56 AM on December 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by paper chromatographologist at 10:56 AM on December 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
I was going to make a joke about Kane being dead "the whole time!" but he actually does die about 60 seconds into the movie.
As do JFK, Ghandi, and Lawrence of Arabia.
posted by TedW at 10:57 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
As do JFK, Ghandi, and Lawrence of Arabia.
posted by TedW at 10:57 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was going to make a joke about Kane being dead "the whole time!" but he actually does die about 60 seconds into the movie.
Fucking chestbursters.
posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Fucking chestbursters.
posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
My spouse recently saw "The World's End" completely not knowing what to expect and spent a good-sized chunk of it thinking it wasn't anything other than a male-bonding buddy comedy. Sometimes being unspoiled is awesome.
(On the other hand, once there was a book where I really, really wanted to know the ending but really, really did not want to read it, and every review and summary was like, "Obviously I won't spoil the amazing twist at the end!", and I was like, SPOILERS ARE IN FACT THE ONLY THING I WANT FROM YOU RIGHT NOW, INTERNET, WHY ONLY NOW DO YOU FAIL ME IN THIS, YOUR PRIMARY PURPOSE OTHER THAN CATS WITH AMUSING CAPTIONS BENEATH THEM?)
posted by kyrademon at 11:10 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
(On the other hand, once there was a book where I really, really wanted to know the ending but really, really did not want to read it, and every review and summary was like, "Obviously I won't spoil the amazing twist at the end!", and I was like, SPOILERS ARE IN FACT THE ONLY THING I WANT FROM YOU RIGHT NOW, INTERNET, WHY ONLY NOW DO YOU FAIL ME IN THIS, YOUR PRIMARY PURPOSE OTHER THAN CATS WITH AMUSING CAPTIONS BENEATH THEM?)
posted by kyrademon at 11:10 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'd prefer not to have spoilers for a first watch, in pretty much everything except for opera.
There are certainly times where the creators give certain things away early (the aforementioned Melancholia, Citizen Kane, JFK, Gandhi, and Lawrence of Arabia), but this is an artistic decision (by someone who has all the information!), not a malicious or careless one.
Not everything in this world is as good as the best things, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth a single viewing. It's also difficult to know what's worth a second viewing without that first viewing. People have different tastes, and that calculus also depends on what's available.
posted by mountmccabe at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2015
There are certainly times where the creators give certain things away early (the aforementioned Melancholia, Citizen Kane, JFK, Gandhi, and Lawrence of Arabia), but this is an artistic decision (by someone who has all the information!), not a malicious or careless one.
Not everything in this world is as good as the best things, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth a single viewing. It's also difficult to know what's worth a second viewing without that first viewing. People have different tastes, and that calculus also depends on what's available.
posted by mountmccabe at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2015
I was going to make a joke about Kane being dead "the whole time!" but he actually does die about 60 seconds into the movie.
The Kane spoiler is what Rosebud means. It adds a dimension to the story after it's been told that, if they didn't know, might cause the viewer to rethink their interpretations of things.
I mean, I knew going in that Rosebud was his lumberjack axe and that he'd only imagined all that newspaper stuff after his head got chopped off and was rolling down that hill in that scene symbolized by the falling snowglobe, but maybe not knowing that would have enhanced the experience.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
The Kane spoiler is what Rosebud means. It adds a dimension to the story after it's been told that, if they didn't know, might cause the viewer to rethink their interpretations of things.
I mean, I knew going in that Rosebud was his lumberjack axe and that he'd only imagined all that newspaper stuff after his head got chopped off and was rolling down that hill in that scene symbolized by the falling snowglobe, but maybe not knowing that would have enhanced the experience.
posted by ernielundquist at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also, with the "spoilers" question, what about re-reading and re-watching? I tend to reread and rewatch stuff - I have a lousy memory, for one thing, and for another I like to be able to concentrate on different stuff each time through. Most of my reading/watching is already "spoiled" because I've seen it before, but I actually think that I get more out of subsequent reads/watches because I'm able to mentally step away from the plot to concentrate on language, camera angles, how gender is handled, etc.
Yes! They're totally different, and I think equally emotionally valid, experiences, but re-watching or re-reading always gives me a much deeper and nuanced technical sense of the work. With reading especially. I tend to read really fast, and if I'm in that anxious-mode of "What happens next? What happens next? What happens next?", I tend to almost skim. Getting the plot payoff of "Here's what happens!" is satisfying, but I prefer the second or third reading where I can pay more attention to how the author is building up to those plot payoffs. And a couple times recently, I went back and restarted a novel immediately after finishing it, so that I could experience both. (This is all assuming a talented author. I wouldn't bother trying to decipher the inner artistic architecture of something that's written just as a page-turner.)
posted by jaguar at 11:17 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yes! They're totally different, and I think equally emotionally valid, experiences, but re-watching or re-reading always gives me a much deeper and nuanced technical sense of the work. With reading especially. I tend to read really fast, and if I'm in that anxious-mode of "What happens next? What happens next? What happens next?", I tend to almost skim. Getting the plot payoff of "Here's what happens!" is satisfying, but I prefer the second or third reading where I can pay more attention to how the author is building up to those plot payoffs. And a couple times recently, I went back and restarted a novel immediately after finishing it, so that I could experience both. (This is all assuming a talented author. I wouldn't bother trying to decipher the inner artistic architecture of something that's written just as a page-turner.)
posted by jaguar at 11:17 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
there's the "Tom Hanks gets together with Meg Ryan at the end" type of "spoiler"
But will it be the secretary, the flibbertigibbet or the boat captain?
posted by soelo at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
But will it be the secretary, the flibbertigibbet or the boat captain?
posted by soelo at 11:20 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's almost as if a single study needs to be replicated and confirmed, and should never be taken as conclusive evidence of anything!
These "studies" are indistinguishable from opinion polls and market research.
We don't have the methodology of this thing yet, but the first study that this one "refutes" asked a few undergraduates to read some literary stories (which may have been over their heads) and found that a very slim majority enjoyed the stories more if they were told the ending ahead of time.
By that logic, box office results "prove" Jurassic World was a more enjoyable movie than Mad Max: Fury Road.
posted by straight at 11:25 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
These "studies" are indistinguishable from opinion polls and market research.
We don't have the methodology of this thing yet, but the first study that this one "refutes" asked a few undergraduates to read some literary stories (which may have been over their heads) and found that a very slim majority enjoyed the stories more if they were told the ending ahead of time.
By that logic, box office results "prove" Jurassic World was a more enjoyable movie than Mad Max: Fury Road.
posted by straight at 11:25 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think the comments in here about there being different types of spoilers is spot on. So I am working on a taxonomy of spoilers.
There are certain movies and stories where we know how they will end (rom-coms: they will end up together; action-adventure: the good guys win; Titantic - the boat sinks), but I want to see how the story being told achieves that end. Did it earn it? Does it feel deserved? Was the outcome emotionally satisfying, or was it just a formulaic exercise? So that's one type of spoiler, the "how we get there" type.
Then there are the "plot twists" - I think of things like the Sixth Sense or the Usual Suspects, where a reveal of something changes your perspective on everything about the story or a character in the story. I would argue that there is a delight in not knowing these the first time through, but that you can also enjoy them a second time through to see it from a "how we get there" perspective - is the story cheating? Were there clues and hints?
A third type is what I call the "game changer". These don't change your perspective on the story as much as change the direction in which it is going away from the expected course. Here I think of examples like Game of Thrones; Breaking Bad; I think I would argue that Mad Men would do it at times as well - not in the big dramatic bombshell moments that GoT uses, but in quieter ways and moments that reveal something about a character that the audience didn't know before, that adds a layer of nuance and understanding to a current situation, as well as past ones. I'm not sure, this might be conflating two different types. And again, this type can allow you to go back to a work and revisit it from a "how do we get there" level.
I suspect people's tolerance for spoilers depends on a few factors. One is their level of emotional investment in a particular story; the more emotionally invested, the less likely they are to appreciate spoilers (and I think that might be where this study has mis-stepped with the "low need for cognition"; people who are not as invested in a story won't think deeply about it and therefore may not care as much about spoilers; however, people with high emotional investment are thinking about the work in question and developing theories and predictions). Another factor is the ability of a person to view a work through a different lens, where they want to see how the story achieves and sets up (or doesn't) the surprise moment. I know I've found my ability to tolerate spoilers has gone up since I've decided to view movies and shows that I have been spoiled for with an eye to seeing how those moments I know are coming are being set up and created. And, I think, a third factor is what type of spoiler is being given away.
In summary, the land of spoilers is a complex place.
posted by nubs at 11:26 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
There are certain movies and stories where we know how they will end (rom-coms: they will end up together; action-adventure: the good guys win; Titantic - the boat sinks), but I want to see how the story being told achieves that end. Did it earn it? Does it feel deserved? Was the outcome emotionally satisfying, or was it just a formulaic exercise? So that's one type of spoiler, the "how we get there" type.
Then there are the "plot twists" - I think of things like the Sixth Sense or the Usual Suspects, where a reveal of something changes your perspective on everything about the story or a character in the story. I would argue that there is a delight in not knowing these the first time through, but that you can also enjoy them a second time through to see it from a "how we get there" perspective - is the story cheating? Were there clues and hints?
A third type is what I call the "game changer". These don't change your perspective on the story as much as change the direction in which it is going away from the expected course. Here I think of examples like Game of Thrones; Breaking Bad; I think I would argue that Mad Men would do it at times as well - not in the big dramatic bombshell moments that GoT uses, but in quieter ways and moments that reveal something about a character that the audience didn't know before, that adds a layer of nuance and understanding to a current situation, as well as past ones. I'm not sure, this might be conflating two different types. And again, this type can allow you to go back to a work and revisit it from a "how do we get there" level.
I suspect people's tolerance for spoilers depends on a few factors. One is their level of emotional investment in a particular story; the more emotionally invested, the less likely they are to appreciate spoilers (and I think that might be where this study has mis-stepped with the "low need for cognition"; people who are not as invested in a story won't think deeply about it and therefore may not care as much about spoilers; however, people with high emotional investment are thinking about the work in question and developing theories and predictions). Another factor is the ability of a person to view a work through a different lens, where they want to see how the story achieves and sets up (or doesn't) the surprise moment. I know I've found my ability to tolerate spoilers has gone up since I've decided to view movies and shows that I have been spoiled for with an eye to seeing how those moments I know are coming are being set up and created. And, I think, a third factor is what type of spoiler is being given away.
In summary, the land of spoilers is a complex place.
posted by nubs at 11:26 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
In all honesty, I think if I'd known from the start that Rosebud was the name of Kane's sidekick during his crimefighting years as costumed crusader "The Florist", I would have understood the movie better.
posted by kyrademon at 11:28 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 11:28 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]
I feel the same way about road trips: if I know where I'm going to end up, then there's no point in going.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:30 AM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 11:30 AM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I tend to fall more on the side of not caring about spoilers -- there are times I went to a deliberate effort to be unspoiled (Harry Potter), but generally if a work is so dependent on being surprised that it loses a lot without the surprise, it wasn't that great in the first place (also Harry Potter). But I feel like the trend toward "don't spoil anything" is actually getting in the way of good criticism.
A review of a Star Wars book in Kirkus:
posted by Jeanne at 11:31 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
A review of a Star Wars book in Kirkus:
In other words: Dark Disciple is utterly fantastic and everything I could have dreamed of and hoped for...until the book’s final pages.Is this a satisfactory compromise for anybody? It's too spoilery for those who are against spoilers (you can at least figure out that it fits into the general pattern of sacrificing female characters to make male characters sad), but if you don't mind spoilers... "this is bad but we're not going to tell you the bad thing!" is just a critical cop-out. Put a spoiler warning there and engage with it! Or say nothing at all, but then it's not much of a review.
I will not directly spoil what happens here, but I will say that this ending ranks among the worst possible endings of any television show, book, or film one could imagine (we’re talking Dexter levels of bad). It’s emblematic of the worst and most odious parts of the prequel era (remember Padme dying because she has lost the will to live after popping out Luke and Leia?), and continues the misogynistic tradition of sacrifice female characters at the altar of making male characters feel pain and thus giving them purpose.
posted by Jeanne at 11:31 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
In summary, the land of spoilers is a complex place.
No you're vastly overthinking a very simple topic. You just need two questions.
1. Might x be a surprise?
2. Some people enjoy surprises. Do you care about their enjoyment?
posted by straight at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
No you're vastly overthinking a very simple topic. You just need two questions.
1. Might x be a surprise?
2. Some people enjoy surprises. Do you care about their enjoyment?
posted by straight at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2015 [8 favorites]
> Also, with the "spoilers" question, what about re-reading and re-watching? I tend to reread and rewatch stuff - I have a lousy memory, for one thing, and for another I like to be able to concentrate on different stuff each time through. Most of my reading/watching is already "spoiled" because I've seen it before, but I actually think that I get more out of subsequent reads/watches because I'm able to mentally step away from the plot to concentrate on language, camera angles, how gender is handled, etc.
Well, sure, but what does that have to do with not wanting to have it spoiled the first time? That's like saying "A relationship gets better as you get to know each other and get past the first superficial impressions, so I'd rather just skip the initial excited madly-in-love phase." Two good things are better than one.
posted by languagehat at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
Well, sure, but what does that have to do with not wanting to have it spoiled the first time? That's like saying "A relationship gets better as you get to know each other and get past the first superficial impressions, so I'd rather just skip the initial excited madly-in-love phase." Two good things are better than one.
posted by languagehat at 11:32 AM on December 11, 2015 [10 favorites]
"Psycho" is the poster child of this phenomenon for me. I think it's a great movie, but I don't get the gushing from my parents' generation, and I have to conclude that not knowing who Mother was was a big part of their enthusiasm. So the best I can do is appreciate it as a pretty good murder tale that's really well put-together.
Knowing where the line is drawn on spoilers is tricky. Aside from the "how long before we can talk about this" question is, as nubs points out, the question of whether a specific movie can be spoiled. I got dinged once for talking about Pacific Rim a week or two after it came out. Normally I am Mister Everyone Shut Up With The Spoilers, but I blabbed freely because PR struck me as spoiler-proof: you knew the second you saw the trailer what the general arc of that movie was going to take and more or less how things were going to resolve. It was formulaic as hell. I was really surprised to find out that others didn't share my view there and had to recalibrate.
It seems like there's a kind of natural division between reviews/discussion threads about these stories and places like Twitter where even with a robust set of Tweetbot filters in place you still can't avoid spoiler talk. In the former it seems as appropriate to discuss plot points as it is easy to avoid them. On Twitter the "OMG VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER!!!11!" isn't just weird (can't you just express your excitement without the book report?), it fucks things up for people who like a surprise and want to follow along the emotional arc of the story.
But if you say that, you get a lot of "real fans watch opening day" (sure, my job and family obligations should take a back seat there) or "just stay off the internet until you see it" (okay, that's a thoroughly workable strategy).
posted by middleclasstool at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Knowing where the line is drawn on spoilers is tricky. Aside from the "how long before we can talk about this" question is, as nubs points out, the question of whether a specific movie can be spoiled. I got dinged once for talking about Pacific Rim a week or two after it came out. Normally I am Mister Everyone Shut Up With The Spoilers, but I blabbed freely because PR struck me as spoiler-proof: you knew the second you saw the trailer what the general arc of that movie was going to take and more or less how things were going to resolve. It was formulaic as hell. I was really surprised to find out that others didn't share my view there and had to recalibrate.
It seems like there's a kind of natural division between reviews/discussion threads about these stories and places like Twitter where even with a robust set of Tweetbot filters in place you still can't avoid spoiler talk. In the former it seems as appropriate to discuss plot points as it is easy to avoid them. On Twitter the "OMG VADER IS LUKE'S FATHER!!!11!" isn't just weird (can't you just express your excitement without the book report?), it fucks things up for people who like a surprise and want to follow along the emotional arc of the story.
But if you say that, you get a lot of "real fans watch opening day" (sure, my job and family obligations should take a back seat there) or "just stay off the internet until you see it" (okay, that's a thoroughly workable strategy).
posted by middleclasstool at 11:39 AM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
But also, why are people spoiling things in the first place? That kind of matters.
There are those who are buttheads and just want to ruin things, but they're trying to ruin things. They're not going to stop doing it just because it works.
But sometimes, like that one Jeanne just quoted, where something is such a shit ending that you could argue that you should spoil it to dissuade people from it. (That movie Little Boy would come to mind, too. I mean, if you're an OK person, you deserve to know this is shit; and if you're a shit person who would like that sort of thing, then ha ha, glad I ruined it for you.)
Another reason, and a thing that I worried myself about recently, was a Lars von Trier example, where someone was talking about one of his movies (The Idiots) and they'd hated it so much that they stopped watching somewhere in the middle, and subsequently missed what I thought was some pretty important nuance that casts the story in a totally different light. I think I ended up just saying that there was a spoiler that might change their perspective or something like that.
And then there's the stuff that's old enough and considered common knowledge enough that you just talk about it, like Shakespeare plays. Those spoilers often come up in casual conversation even divorced from plot discussions, as generic cultural references.
Are there people who are naively going around spoiling things because they think people don't care?
posted by ernielundquist at 11:49 AM on December 11, 2015
There are those who are buttheads and just want to ruin things, but they're trying to ruin things. They're not going to stop doing it just because it works.
But sometimes, like that one Jeanne just quoted, where something is such a shit ending that you could argue that you should spoil it to dissuade people from it. (That movie Little Boy would come to mind, too. I mean, if you're an OK person, you deserve to know this is shit; and if you're a shit person who would like that sort of thing, then ha ha, glad I ruined it for you.)
Another reason, and a thing that I worried myself about recently, was a Lars von Trier example, where someone was talking about one of his movies (The Idiots) and they'd hated it so much that they stopped watching somewhere in the middle, and subsequently missed what I thought was some pretty important nuance that casts the story in a totally different light. I think I ended up just saying that there was a spoiler that might change their perspective or something like that.
And then there's the stuff that's old enough and considered common knowledge enough that you just talk about it, like Shakespeare plays. Those spoilers often come up in casual conversation even divorced from plot discussions, as generic cultural references.
Are there people who are naively going around spoiling things because they think people don't care?
posted by ernielundquist at 11:49 AM on December 11, 2015
I always grit my teeth at the inevitable variation of "If a work can be ruined by having a spoiler revealed, it probably wasn't worth experiencing in the first place" that gets trotted out whenever spoilers are discussed. Having spoilers revealed doesn't irrevocably ruin a piece of art, but it can take away an additional layer of pleasure.
For example, Great Expectations is my favorite book by a wide margin. Being a classic work, I went into the novel already having a few major plot points spoiled in advance, including the identity of Pip's benefactor. It didn't ruin the reading experience for me; I think it is the best book ever written. I still would have preferred to have gone in unspoiled though, because as much as I loved the book, there was an element of surprise, joy, and shock that I missed out on that would have further enhanced my enjoyment.
posted by The Gooch at 11:50 AM on December 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
For example, Great Expectations is my favorite book by a wide margin. Being a classic work, I went into the novel already having a few major plot points spoiled in advance, including the identity of Pip's benefactor. It didn't ruin the reading experience for me; I think it is the best book ever written. I still would have preferred to have gone in unspoiled though, because as much as I loved the book, there was an element of surprise, joy, and shock that I missed out on that would have further enhanced my enjoyment.
posted by The Gooch at 11:50 AM on December 11, 2015 [9 favorites]
Well, sure, but what does that have to do with not wanting to have it spoiled the first time? That's like saying "A relationship gets better as you get to know each other and get past the first superficial impressions, so I'd rather just skip the initial excited madly-in-love phase." Two good things are better than one.
No, no, it has to do with the "people who don't mind spoilers r dum and can't cognition" stuff in the second link. My point was only that there's no reason to believe that having a work "spoiled" means your interaction with it is stupid and shallow.
posted by Frowner at 11:51 AM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
No you're vastly overthinking a very simple topic
I don't want to spoil anything, but you are aware what website we are having this discussion on?
posted by nubs at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
I don't want to spoil anything, but you are aware what website we are having this discussion on?
posted by nubs at 11:55 AM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
graymouser: I mean, has anyone in the history of ever gone into a production of Hamlet expecting him to do in Claudius, reclaim the throne and live happily ever after with Ophelia?
I have been present at multiple readings/showings/retellings of Hamlet during which audience members have genuinely gasped at (most memorably) the poisoning of Gertrude, among other reactions that indicated that yes, lots of people don't know how Hamlet goes.
posted by tzikeh at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have been present at multiple readings/showings/retellings of Hamlet during which audience members have genuinely gasped at (most memorably) the poisoning of Gertrude, among other reactions that indicated that yes, lots of people don't know how Hamlet goes.
posted by tzikeh at 11:56 AM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I was one of those. I knew the general story of Hamlet but not the final act when I first saw it, and I was blown away.
posted by middleclasstool at 12:06 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by middleclasstool at 12:06 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
.... Man, I need to rewatch Citizen Kane. I clearly don't remember it at all.
posted by webmutant at 12:07 PM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by webmutant at 12:07 PM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think it's useful to remember that yeah, there are always people for whom a thing you think is totally well known is actually unknown. I guarantee you there's Shakespeare plays outside of the most popular few of his works that I don't know the ins and outs of. Sure, they're old, and no, I'm not expecting that they be left undiscussed forever. However, if you mentioned one and I said I hadn't read it / seen it, it would be kinda dickish of you to just blurt out the ending and be like "what, it's hundreds of years old, that's your fault!"
I sometimes think it's a bit sad, how hard it will be for most kids growing up today to actually be surprised by any film they don't see opening weekend. Maybe, as content continues to expand at rates that no one person can keep up with, this will stop being so prevalent (e.g. there'll be so much to spoil you couldn't possibly be spoiled on everything), but right now it seems like any moderately good piece of film from the last 50 years would be tough for a high schooler to see without someone having already told them all about it.
posted by tocts at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I sometimes think it's a bit sad, how hard it will be for most kids growing up today to actually be surprised by any film they don't see opening weekend. Maybe, as content continues to expand at rates that no one person can keep up with, this will stop being so prevalent (e.g. there'll be so much to spoil you couldn't possibly be spoiled on everything), but right now it seems like any moderately good piece of film from the last 50 years would be tough for a high schooler to see without someone having already told them all about it.
posted by tocts at 12:09 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
My favorite spoiler is that Richard Dreyfuss was an alien all along. I feel that it really adds something to the story. In every movie.
posted by surlyben at 12:12 PM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by surlyben at 12:12 PM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm just going to take a moment to pull an extreme frownyface at the bullshit this article tries to pull.
That's one of Screen Rant's "10 x that did y" videos. They're horrible.
(and probably intentionally bad, to trigger the "something is wrong on the Internet" reflex in anyone who's seen more than one film in their life.)
posted by effbot at 12:30 PM on December 11, 2015
That's one of Screen Rant's "10 x that did y" videos. They're horrible.
(and probably intentionally bad, to trigger the "something is wrong on the Internet" reflex in anyone who's seen more than one film in their life.)
posted by effbot at 12:30 PM on December 11, 2015
Man, I need to rewatch Citizen Kane. I clearly don't remember it at all.
To be fair, a lot of the alien invasion bit is mostly subtext.
posted by nubs at 12:34 PM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
To be fair, a lot of the alien invasion bit is mostly subtext.
posted by nubs at 12:34 PM on December 11, 2015 [3 favorites]
Here is my "Richard Dreyfuss was an alien all along" story:
Long ago, I had never seen My Neighbor Totoro, which is a charming film with a happy ending. [SORT OF SPOILERS AHEAD].
I was watching it with a friend, who said reflectively, knowing that I don't really mind spoilers, "This is a great movie, but it's really sad at the end when the mother dies." So there I was, bracing myself, looking at the whole plot with the understanding that the mother dies at the end, getting really sad, finding everything so poignant, etc. [And it's a movie with sad and poignant elements anyway.] And then - spoiler!!! - the mother doesn't die and there is a happy ending! It was great - I'd been dreading this really sad ending, sad like I expect life to be, and then everything was fine! I mean, it was a real boost to the old spirits - I've had contact highs and glasses of wine that didn't do nearly as much for me.
But - "What the hell," I said to my friend. "You told me the mother dies! Why did you do that? That was really upsetting!!!"
To this day, he maintains that he was just confused rather than fucking with me, but I don't believe him.
posted by Frowner at 12:36 PM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Long ago, I had never seen My Neighbor Totoro, which is a charming film with a happy ending. [SORT OF SPOILERS AHEAD].
I was watching it with a friend, who said reflectively, knowing that I don't really mind spoilers, "This is a great movie, but it's really sad at the end when the mother dies." So there I was, bracing myself, looking at the whole plot with the understanding that the mother dies at the end, getting really sad, finding everything so poignant, etc. [And it's a movie with sad and poignant elements anyway.] And then - spoiler!!! - the mother doesn't die and there is a happy ending! It was great - I'd been dreading this really sad ending, sad like I expect life to be, and then everything was fine! I mean, it was a real boost to the old spirits - I've had contact highs and glasses of wine that didn't do nearly as much for me.
But - "What the hell," I said to my friend. "You told me the mother dies! Why did you do that? That was really upsetting!!!"
To this day, he maintains that he was just confused rather than fucking with me, but I don't believe him.
posted by Frowner at 12:36 PM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also the whole discussion of the other virtues a work has that are unrelated to surprises in the narrative is completely besides the point.
I saw a production of Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston and enjoyed his performance. Is Henry V still a great play without Hiddleston? Of course, but that's completely irrelevant to whether I enjoyed anything about his performance in particular that I would have missed without him.
posted by straight at 12:38 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
I saw a production of Henry V starring Tom Hiddleston and enjoyed his performance. Is Henry V still a great play without Hiddleston? Of course, but that's completely irrelevant to whether I enjoyed anything about his performance in particular that I would have missed without him.
posted by straight at 12:38 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
straight: for the spoiler thing it's different, because it's like you can only see Hiddleston once and every subsequent time the role will be played by Kenneth Branagh, and if you tell anybody about Hiddleston they only ever get to see Branagh. Which is a really weird idea if you think about it.
posted by graymouser at 1:03 PM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by graymouser at 1:03 PM on December 11, 2015 [7 favorites]
I have been present at multiple readings/showings/retellings of Hamlet during which audience members have genuinely gasped at (most memorably) the poisoning of
Dang it!
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 1:03 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Dang it!
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 1:03 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don’t understand spoiler people at all.
I don’t want to know ANY of the details. Not just the ones you think are surprising or important, ANY. Any discussion of a book, movie, etc. should involve no more than a one or two line synopsis of the main setting, and then what you liked or didn’t like about it.
There are so many things to talk about other than recounting the plot; writing, pacing, characters, etc. I don’t get it. If we both know the story then why repeat it? If we don’t then why ruin it? Recounting the plot reminds me of what children do. "And this guy…Let me just tell you this one part…"
I think everyone appreciates different things about stories. I don’t really care about whether X marries Y, or X falls off a cliff at the end. The details of the narrative are not important to me. I’m not fond of overly embellished detail either. The unfolding and telling of the story is the most important part. To experience it taking shape and discover where it’s going. Without that I’m not really interested.
It’s not that knowing X dies at the end ruins the plot for me, it ruins the experience of watching it unfold. People have stated they get too anxious not knowing, I don’t usually have that kind of investment. I don’t actively want someone to die or not to die, it’s not my story and it’s already written. But knowing the outcome means I’m always seeing or looking for that part of the thread instead of just letting it happen. I’m usually trying hard to NOT figure out where a story is going and just experiencing it.
Knowing the details of a story is like knowing the end of a joke. I don’t understand how people don’t think that’s important. It’s like watching a magic trick from backstage before you’ve seen it from the audience.
posted by bongo_x at 1:30 PM on December 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don’t want to know ANY of the details. Not just the ones you think are surprising or important, ANY. Any discussion of a book, movie, etc. should involve no more than a one or two line synopsis of the main setting, and then what you liked or didn’t like about it.
There are so many things to talk about other than recounting the plot; writing, pacing, characters, etc. I don’t get it. If we both know the story then why repeat it? If we don’t then why ruin it? Recounting the plot reminds me of what children do. "And this guy…Let me just tell you this one part…"
I think everyone appreciates different things about stories. I don’t really care about whether X marries Y, or X falls off a cliff at the end. The details of the narrative are not important to me. I’m not fond of overly embellished detail either. The unfolding and telling of the story is the most important part. To experience it taking shape and discover where it’s going. Without that I’m not really interested.
It’s not that knowing X dies at the end ruins the plot for me, it ruins the experience of watching it unfold. People have stated they get too anxious not knowing, I don’t usually have that kind of investment. I don’t actively want someone to die or not to die, it’s not my story and it’s already written. But knowing the outcome means I’m always seeing or looking for that part of the thread instead of just letting it happen. I’m usually trying hard to NOT figure out where a story is going and just experiencing it.
Knowing the details of a story is like knowing the end of a joke. I don’t understand how people don’t think that’s important. It’s like watching a magic trick from backstage before you’ve seen it from the audience.
posted by bongo_x at 1:30 PM on December 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
.... Man, I need to rewatch Citizen Kane. I clearly don't remember it at all.
I've never seen it, but I feel like having watched the first eight seasons of The Simpsons means I've seen the highlight reel.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:32 PM on December 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
I've never seen it, but I feel like having watched the first eight seasons of The Simpsons means I've seen the highlight reel.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:32 PM on December 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
What was maddening about the first study was not that it might be wrong. I'm totally willing to buy that the average person gets equal or more pleasure knowing the end ahead of time. But what drove me nuts was all the people -- including the authors -- who claimed that because the average effect was significant, therefore *everyone* enjoys knowing spoilers. It's one thing for laypeople to make this error, but for professional science journalists and psychologists to conclude this from the study is really scary, and not an isolated thing. I constantly see people drawing really dangerous policy conclusions from mean-effect studies, and it's particularly dangerous when psychologists do it, because they are prone to conclude these are universal effects and even innate. So actually it's less important to me if another study "disproves" the first -- what's more important is for both sides to understand these are heterogeneous effects, and whichever way the average goes says nothing about whether there is a significant minority in one direction or the other.
And here, as is often the case, this heterogeneity is really important for policy: if policy effects are very different for the two sides, then it really doesn't matter which side of 0 the mean effect is. With spoilers, if you grant that some people dislike them and some people don't care (how do we even need a study to demonstrate this??), then if the policy is spoil everything, a significant minority is very displeased; whereas if the policy is spoil nothing, almost no one is displeased, since those who prefer spoilers can always seek them out. So the mean effect really makes no difference: if you allow that lots of people don't like them (and it takes amazing hubris to conclude otherwise, even if you naively accept all the conclusions from the first study), then the best policy is clear, no study necessary. Don't spoil.
posted by chortly at 1:39 PM on December 11, 2015 [13 favorites]
And here, as is often the case, this heterogeneity is really important for policy: if policy effects are very different for the two sides, then it really doesn't matter which side of 0 the mean effect is. With spoilers, if you grant that some people dislike them and some people don't care (how do we even need a study to demonstrate this??), then if the policy is spoil everything, a significant minority is very displeased; whereas if the policy is spoil nothing, almost no one is displeased, since those who prefer spoilers can always seek them out. So the mean effect really makes no difference: if you allow that lots of people don't like them (and it takes amazing hubris to conclude otherwise, even if you naively accept all the conclusions from the first study), then the best policy is clear, no study necessary. Don't spoil.
posted by chortly at 1:39 PM on December 11, 2015 [13 favorites]
Yeah, rewatching and rereading stuff you enjoyed is such a pleasure, being able to see the moments as part of a whole. Of course spoilers don't "spoil" a great story — the substance of it is still great — but also of course it does, because you forever lock away a certain experience of the moments.
There's an area in the game The Last of Us that, if you pay attention to the various notes and environmental clues placed around, is heavily implied to have a monster lurking inside. After you carefully sneak through the whole dust filled room, it turns out it's actually long gone, but that was ten minutes of completely frightened gameplay that was entirely predicated on the order in which I found things out. On a second play through, there's no reason for me not to just zip blithely, and boringly, in and out – it's just an empty room.
posted by lucidium at 1:41 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's an area in the game The Last of Us that, if you pay attention to the various notes and environmental clues placed around, is heavily implied to have a monster lurking inside. After you carefully sneak through the whole dust filled room, it turns out it's actually long gone, but that was ten minutes of completely frightened gameplay that was entirely predicated on the order in which I found things out. On a second play through, there's no reason for me not to just zip blithely, and boringly, in and out – it's just an empty room.
posted by lucidium at 1:41 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
bongo_x: i am exactly the same way. I prefer to know only the most broad strokes of the book/movie/tv show whatever before I engage with it. I only watch trailers for movies I've seen or know I will never see (e.g., woody allen movies). Otherwise, I get really disengaged from the storytelling.
posted by crush-onastick at 1:41 PM on December 11, 2015
posted by crush-onastick at 1:41 PM on December 11, 2015
Some of you may not know that the Metafilter community has played a role in a separate attempt to examine what spoilers do to enjoyment of short stories. Back in summer 2014, I came hat in hand asking for help in identifying stories to spoil for a project an honors student of mine was working on. She did that project during the 2014-2015 academic year, and just last month we got a paper reporting the results provisionally accepted (pending revisions, which will be done next week; thank goodness classes are now done for the semester) for publication. We discovered within days of completing data-collection last spring (March 13, 2014, when I wrote a sad email to my student) that Johnson and Rosenbaum had done very similar research, beating us to publication. We found much the same thing as Johnson and Rosenbaum, that spoilers did make short stories less enjoyable; the AskMetafilter community is appropriately thanked in the acknowledgements! I'll ask the mods to let me post the accepted manuscript in the AskMetafilter link when the paper is finally accepted.
A few have argued that the original study may have been methodologically unsound and in need of replication. The original paper is available online from the second author's (Nicholas Christenfeld) website, so you can judge for yourself. (Note: It was reported in the journal Psychological Science, which imposes a word limit on some papers. The result is very skimpy details about methodology and no nuance in the conclusions.) It has some weaknesses, but one thing it has as a strength - an unusual one for psychology research - is that the sample size was enormous (over 800). Their results are probably replicable if one were to use the exact same materials and a similar sample. But, as at least a few folks mentioned upthread (Etrigan and Nubs), the big difference between the research published in 2011 and this new research (and my honors student's) is the types of spoilers. I have an honors student working on a project examining different types of spoilers. I'll let you know what happens when we get to our goal of about 250 subjects. That'll take until some time in January.
posted by anaphoric at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2015 [16 favorites]
A few have argued that the original study may have been methodologically unsound and in need of replication. The original paper is available online from the second author's (Nicholas Christenfeld) website, so you can judge for yourself. (Note: It was reported in the journal Psychological Science, which imposes a word limit on some papers. The result is very skimpy details about methodology and no nuance in the conclusions.) It has some weaknesses, but one thing it has as a strength - an unusual one for psychology research - is that the sample size was enormous (over 800). Their results are probably replicable if one were to use the exact same materials and a similar sample. But, as at least a few folks mentioned upthread (Etrigan and Nubs), the big difference between the research published in 2011 and this new research (and my honors student's) is the types of spoilers. I have an honors student working on a project examining different types of spoilers. I'll let you know what happens when we get to our goal of about 250 subjects. That'll take until some time in January.
posted by anaphoric at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2015 [16 favorites]
One can prefer to not have spoilers and simultaneously not think that people who don't mind or prefer spoilers are dumb. I can make a choice and not think others are dumb for making a different choice.
My own choices also depend a lot on the situation. If I'm reading something for school (which is more or less the basic context for these studies) I'd rather have the spoilers so I can pick up on the foreshadowing and whatnot so I can pass the test (or whatever).
Similarly, I called out opera as an art form where I don't mind spoilers, and often actively seek them out. Opera is terrible about communicating plot and often the joy is in everything else, the other ways the actual emotional story is being told. It's a lot easier to focus on the singing, the orchestration, the sets and costumes, and so on if I can ignore the subtitles.
posted by mountmccabe at 1:57 PM on December 11, 2015
My own choices also depend a lot on the situation. If I'm reading something for school (which is more or less the basic context for these studies) I'd rather have the spoilers so I can pick up on the foreshadowing and whatnot so I can pass the test (or whatever).
Similarly, I called out opera as an art form where I don't mind spoilers, and often actively seek them out. Opera is terrible about communicating plot and often the joy is in everything else, the other ways the actual emotional story is being told. It's a lot easier to focus on the singing, the orchestration, the sets and costumes, and so on if I can ignore the subtitles.
posted by mountmccabe at 1:57 PM on December 11, 2015
P.S. Ben Johnson has preprints of the papers available on his website.
posted by anaphoric at 2:04 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by anaphoric at 2:04 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
One thing I've found is that I don't mind having spoilers for season-long "secrets" in serialized TV shows. In a 22-episode season, latching onto a thread that starts in episode 2 and isn't resolved until episode 19 can make the intervening episodes less enjoyable, because they become filler if all I care about is that narrative thread. I'd rather spoil it for myself because I get more enjoyment out of the storytelling in each individual episode than that longer plotline. But I won't usually spoil a single episode plot. It's a weird dynamic, and spoilers are a nation of contrasts.
posted by graymouser at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2015
posted by graymouser at 2:05 PM on December 11, 2015
middleclasstool: "Psycho" is the poster child of this phenomenon for me. I think it's a great movie, but I don't get the gushing from my parents' generation, and I have to conclude that not knowing who Mother was was a big part of their enthusiasm. So the best I can do is appreciate it as a pretty good murder tale that's really well put-together.
Okay, here's why Psycho was such a phenomenon - the twist wasn't that "Mother" was dead, or that Norman "was" Mother (okay, yes, that was *a* twist, but not the one that blew audiences away.)
For the first thirty minutes, Psycho is a heist film. It's about a woman who embezzles money and runs off with it to meet with her lover. We are following our anti-heroine on her journey of crime and adultery AND THEN SHE GETS STABBED TO DEATH THIRTY MINUTES IN HOLY SHIT WHAT JUST HAPPENED THE LEADING LADY IS DEAD AND THE MOVIE ISN'T EVEN TO THE HALFWAY MARK DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER MASS HYSTERIA.
Nothing like that had ever happened in a movie before. Hitchcock had theaters set up so that no one would be admitted after 30 minutes, because they would miss the whole twist of the film. That's where "twist" comes from - the plot "line" quite literally twisted from being about thieves on the run to psychological horror. That's the part that we'll never experience -- a movie turning into a whole other kind of movie well after you'd gotten sucked into the plot of what you thought you were going to be watching.
posted by tzikeh at 2:47 PM on December 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
Okay, here's why Psycho was such a phenomenon - the twist wasn't that "Mother" was dead, or that Norman "was" Mother (okay, yes, that was *a* twist, but not the one that blew audiences away.)
For the first thirty minutes, Psycho is a heist film. It's about a woman who embezzles money and runs off with it to meet with her lover. We are following our anti-heroine on her journey of crime and adultery AND THEN SHE GETS STABBED TO DEATH THIRTY MINUTES IN HOLY SHIT WHAT JUST HAPPENED THE LEADING LADY IS DEAD AND THE MOVIE ISN'T EVEN TO THE HALFWAY MARK DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER MASS HYSTERIA.
Nothing like that had ever happened in a movie before. Hitchcock had theaters set up so that no one would be admitted after 30 minutes, because they would miss the whole twist of the film. That's where "twist" comes from - the plot "line" quite literally twisted from being about thieves on the run to psychological horror. That's the part that we'll never experience -- a movie turning into a whole other kind of movie well after you'd gotten sucked into the plot of what you thought you were going to be watching.
posted by tzikeh at 2:47 PM on December 11, 2015 [14 favorites]
But what drove me nuts was all the people -- including the authors -- who claimed that because the average effect was significant, therefore *everyone* enjoys knowing spoilers.
Yes. When that study was released there were a bunch of people who were saying stuff closely equivalent to "Well, the fact that 55% of people prefer chocolate to vanilla means that no one will mind and there is nothing wrong with going around and snatching people’s vanilla ice cream and replacing it with chocolate. Because we just proved that people like chocolate better. So stop whining about your stupid vanilla and eat that delicious chocolate I just gave you."
posted by straight at 3:00 PM on December 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yes. When that study was released there were a bunch of people who were saying stuff closely equivalent to "Well, the fact that 55% of people prefer chocolate to vanilla means that no one will mind and there is nothing wrong with going around and snatching people’s vanilla ice cream and replacing it with chocolate. Because we just proved that people like chocolate better. So stop whining about your stupid vanilla and eat that delicious chocolate I just gave you."
posted by straight at 3:00 PM on December 11, 2015 [6 favorites]
> No, no, it has to do with the "people who don't mind spoilers r dum and can't cognition" stuff in the second link. My point was only that there's no reason to believe that having a work "spoiled" means your interaction with it is stupid and shallow.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
> I think it's useful to remember that yeah, there are always people for whom a thing you think is totally well known is actually unknown.
Yes, and it pisses me off that in every thread on the subject somebody feels compelled to "contribute" by giving a spoiler for something that "everybody" already knows. (There's an example above which I won't link to because I've flagged it; I doubt it will get zapped, but a man can hope.) Anyway, what the fuck is the point? Don't do that. It's dumb.
posted by languagehat at 3:40 PM on December 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
> I think it's useful to remember that yeah, there are always people for whom a thing you think is totally well known is actually unknown.
Yes, and it pisses me off that in every thread on the subject somebody feels compelled to "contribute" by giving a spoiler for something that "everybody" already knows. (There's an example above which I won't link to because I've flagged it; I doubt it will get zapped, but a man can hope.) Anyway, what the fuck is the point? Don't do that. It's dumb.
posted by languagehat at 3:40 PM on December 11, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's the part that we'll never experience -- a movie turning into a whole other kind of movie well after you'd gotten sucked into the plot of what you thought you were going to be watching.
There actually is a modern(ish) film that does this- From Dusk Till Dawn.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:47 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
There actually is a modern(ish) film that does this- From Dusk Till Dawn.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:47 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
So I write a blog where I review randomly selected episodes of randomly selected TV shows, and it is rife with spoilers. I think that is partially softened by the fact that I'm only talking about individual episodes and not the show overall, and also by the fact that most of what I write about is aggressively obscure. But my reason for doing this is that so many reviews I read are flaccid reams of summary discussing the first third of the plot, leavened with opaque opinion and a complete lack of justification. This stinks! How can you write a useful critical appreciation of a piece of narrative by doing a coy fan dance around the most crucial chunks of that narrative? And I for one find somewhat nebulously phrased opinions backed up by absolutely nothing to be useless--if I'm going to claim there's strong character development, I want to point out at least one example of that actually happening. Again, though, this may work there a little better than it does in general, since knowing how one specific plot thread in one episode is resolved would hopefully not ruin the show as a whole.
Ironically, I'm somewhat averse to spoilers myself, and in a more extreme way than most--it's not so much the major twists along the lines of "It turns out Cathy was secretly a penguin all along" that bother me, it's any substantial details whatsoever. If I've decided to read a book or watch a movie or what have you, I'd prefer to know the bare minimum--just that people are talking about it, or it's sci-fi, or it's from this director, or whatever. Part of the magic of a story is letting the storyteller tell it their way. This is why I hate movie trailers!
And there are many examples of movies that seem like one thing but then turn out to be something radically different--Cabin In The Woods was already mentioned, but The World's End was also like that. But I didn't see the trailer, and judging by the movie poster it looks like the sudden genre shift was advertised heavily. Apparently, conventional wisdom in Hollywood is that audiences want to know basically the entire story going in.
posted by zeusianfog at 3:52 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ironically, I'm somewhat averse to spoilers myself, and in a more extreme way than most--it's not so much the major twists along the lines of "It turns out Cathy was secretly a penguin all along" that bother me, it's any substantial details whatsoever. If I've decided to read a book or watch a movie or what have you, I'd prefer to know the bare minimum--just that people are talking about it, or it's sci-fi, or it's from this director, or whatever. Part of the magic of a story is letting the storyteller tell it their way. This is why I hate movie trailers!
And there are many examples of movies that seem like one thing but then turn out to be something radically different--Cabin In The Woods was already mentioned, but The World's End was also like that. But I didn't see the trailer, and judging by the movie poster it looks like the sudden genre shift was advertised heavily. Apparently, conventional wisdom in Hollywood is that audiences want to know basically the entire story going in.
posted by zeusianfog at 3:52 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Cabin In the Woods doesn't have a genre shift, it just suddenly goes in a very outrageous direction.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2015
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:56 PM on December 11, 2015
I also take issue with the 'people who don't care about spoilers aren't thinking about the story' assumption. I write for a living, and I consume a lot of media I'm not personally invested in out of curiosity about its construction rather than 'Wow, I really want to see/read/hear that.' That also impacts how I interact with properties that I *am* really interested in: even in a situation where I am annoyed by spoilers, they have less of an impact on my overall experience because there are so many other things to enjoy about genuinely good fiction, or even be intrigued by when I feel that a story falls flat.
I pretty much think nubs has it: whether or not spoilers are problematic depends upon the type of spoiler, how central it is to the narrative, and how interested someone is in experiencing the story fresh. People who are Very Bothered By Spoilers, (my girlfriend is so anti-spoiler she avoids them for movies she doesn't even plan to see), just strike me as being particularly focused on one portion of the experience, and... hey, that's okay too. Everybody can enjoy a different thing about the same recreational activity. Trying to rank which one is better is silly, and this study is pretty useless for assuming everyone is going into a theater for the same reasons or with the same expectations.
posted by mordax at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I pretty much think nubs has it: whether or not spoilers are problematic depends upon the type of spoiler, how central it is to the narrative, and how interested someone is in experiencing the story fresh. People who are Very Bothered By Spoilers, (my girlfriend is so anti-spoiler she avoids them for movies she doesn't even plan to see), just strike me as being particularly focused on one portion of the experience, and... hey, that's okay too. Everybody can enjoy a different thing about the same recreational activity. Trying to rank which one is better is silly, and this study is pretty useless for assuming everyone is going into a theater for the same reasons or with the same expectations.
posted by mordax at 4:11 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Spoilers as an aspect of a work feel qualitatively different to me because it's the only aspect that can be irrevocably destroyed so easily. I'd feel equally hard done by if someone erased all copies of a certain scene and replaced it with written criticisms, but that doesn't often happen.
posted by lucidium at 4:28 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by lucidium at 4:28 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I loved that study because it let other people voice that they too sought out spoilers and I went oh, so I'm not being a Bad Reader? And now I embrace it and enjoy media so so much more. I don't read spoilers for things I have low anxiety over, but I don't have to brace myself for dead children or rape scenes anymore. I can spoil away in books and films, and decide what I want to skip or if the story will hold up. I spoiled all of Jessica Jones and still found it hard going.
Spoilers availability is a massive relief for me. I use recaps to skip intervening shows when something horrible happens in an episode and being able to refuse to engage in the entirety of a work, to get a full critical analysis that includes spoilers and say ok then, not for me, is very very valuable. Goodreads spoiler review options are great for this in particular for books.
I have a few trusted friends who if they pass me media, I will just try it, but it's down to trust. The delight of surprise at a twist or revelation is not worth the risk.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 4:41 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Spoilers availability is a massive relief for me. I use recaps to skip intervening shows when something horrible happens in an episode and being able to refuse to engage in the entirety of a work, to get a full critical analysis that includes spoilers and say ok then, not for me, is very very valuable. Goodreads spoiler review options are great for this in particular for books.
I have a few trusted friends who if they pass me media, I will just try it, but it's down to trust. The delight of surprise at a twist or revelation is not worth the risk.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 4:41 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
I generally don't like spoilers and avoid them when I can, especially for one-off stories, like TV shows I want to watch specifically for the plot. That is, when they're not the sort of thing that I'd probably want to rewatch, so spoiling it the first time spoils it almost completely.
There is a point, though, at which a story becomes a cultural referent. There are lots of things I haven't seen or read where I could probably recount most of the plot just by cultural osmosis, just because of casual references in normal conversations. Not many people would argue that it's not OK to spoil Shakespeare plots, or even more recent culturally significant plots like Psycho or Star Wars or just about any Disney movie. That's a really important role that narrative plays in a culture, providing shorthand references.
I don't know where the line is exactly. I mean, you don't want to spoil a book that was just published or a movie that hasn't come out on DVD yet, obviously, but eventually it should be socially acceptable to casually discuss those things.
posted by ernielundquist at 4:43 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is a point, though, at which a story becomes a cultural referent. There are lots of things I haven't seen or read where I could probably recount most of the plot just by cultural osmosis, just because of casual references in normal conversations. Not many people would argue that it's not OK to spoil Shakespeare plots, or even more recent culturally significant plots like Psycho or Star Wars or just about any Disney movie. That's a really important role that narrative plays in a culture, providing shorthand references.
I don't know where the line is exactly. I mean, you don't want to spoil a book that was just published or a movie that hasn't come out on DVD yet, obviously, but eventually it should be socially acceptable to casually discuss those things.
posted by ernielundquist at 4:43 PM on December 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
There actually is a modern(ish) film that does this- From Dusk Till Dawn.
It intended to, at least. As I recall, the assholes in marketing didn't agree and it was spoiled in the trailer.
posted by rifflesby at 6:02 PM on December 11, 2015
It intended to, at least. As I recall, the assholes in marketing didn't agree and it was spoiled in the trailer.
posted by rifflesby at 6:02 PM on December 11, 2015
webmutant: "When I saw Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet in the theater back in 1996, there was a small gaggle of excited teenage girls a few rows ahead of us who, judging by their comments, were clearly here just because it was a Leonardo DiCaprio movie, who didn't know anything about the source material (except, presumably, that it was supposed to be romantic).
They were devastated at the ending."
I had a similar experience with Titanic. I drove one of my sisters and four of her friends to see the film on opening weekend and two of them either didn't know it was based on a historical event or didn't know the ship sinks. When I picked them up they were both shocked and devastated that the ship sinks and so many people died. At the time I didn't have the right attitude I'm sad to say.
rifflesby: "the assholes in marketing didn't agree and it was spoiled in the trailer."
I got to watch it on late night TV without knowing anything about it. It was quite the experience. Something like Jay in Dogma after God speaks.
posted by Mitheral at 6:41 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
They were devastated at the ending."
I had a similar experience with Titanic. I drove one of my sisters and four of her friends to see the film on opening weekend and two of them either didn't know it was based on a historical event or didn't know the ship sinks. When I picked them up they were both shocked and devastated that the ship sinks and so many people died. At the time I didn't have the right attitude I'm sad to say.
rifflesby: "the assholes in marketing didn't agree and it was spoiled in the trailer."
I got to watch it on late night TV without knowing anything about it. It was quite the experience. Something like Jay in Dogma after God speaks.
posted by Mitheral at 6:41 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Frowner, maybe he got it confused with the movie it was double billed with on its original release...
posted by hyperbolic at 6:46 PM on December 11, 2015
posted by hyperbolic at 6:46 PM on December 11, 2015
I think the problem is that review, discussion, and synopsis are completely different things, yet so many people want to throw them all together. It’s like saying you want to make porn that the whole family can watch together and then arguing about what’s too explicit. The whole premise is flawed.
In a discussion among people who have all read a book there is no such thing as spoilers. But that is not what a review is. A review is specifically written for people haven’t read the book. Those are very different things.
How can you write a useful critical appreciation of a piece of narrative by doing a coy fan dance around the most crucial chunks of that narrative? And I for one find somewhat nebulously phrased opinions backed up by absolutely nothing to be useless--if I'm going to claim there's strong character development, I want to point out at least one example of that actually happening.
Are you writing a discussion (analysis) or a review? Pick one. If it’s an analysis and you know that I’ve read it (by giving spoiler warnings) have at it and make your point, but don’t call it a review. If it’s a review, how can your relating plot points to me possible give me any insight? There should be no dancing around, that should be a warning sign, like "Dear MeFi, how do I tell my best friend her fiancé is ugly without coming right out and saying it?"
A review is your opinion, if you say there’s strong character development I believe that you believe that. You can’t prove that point to me. If you say "Sybil hates cilantro but grows to cherish it when she finds true love" that means nothing to me because I don’t have any context. You can relate the whole plot to me, but until I read I don’t have an opinion. Spoilers in that sense are always for the writer, not the reader. It’s the writer trying to back up his claims, arguing with himself about a subject the reader has no knowledge of. After I’ve read it I may appreciate your analysis of the cilantro question though.
People who are Very Bothered By Spoilers, (my girlfriend is so anti-spoiler she avoids them for movies she doesn't even plan to see), just strike me as being particularly focused on one portion of the experience, and... hey, that's okay too.
The spoiler argument is kind of fascinating because often it’s the same reasoning with wildly different results. I can’t imagine why I would want to know plot points of a movie I don’t plan on seeing, or why you’d be telling me. It’s like strangers telling you about their cousin’s wedding.
Me: I don’t want to see The Bird’s Nest.
X: You might reconsider, it’s very moving, but I did need medical assistance from all the crying.
Me: Thanks, maybe I will.
Me: I don’t want to see The Bird’s Nest.
X: The child dies at the end, eaten by her dog.
Me: In what possible way can that information help me?
posted by bongo_x at 7:07 PM on December 11, 2015
In a discussion among people who have all read a book there is no such thing as spoilers. But that is not what a review is. A review is specifically written for people haven’t read the book. Those are very different things.
How can you write a useful critical appreciation of a piece of narrative by doing a coy fan dance around the most crucial chunks of that narrative? And I for one find somewhat nebulously phrased opinions backed up by absolutely nothing to be useless--if I'm going to claim there's strong character development, I want to point out at least one example of that actually happening.
Are you writing a discussion (analysis) or a review? Pick one. If it’s an analysis and you know that I’ve read it (by giving spoiler warnings) have at it and make your point, but don’t call it a review. If it’s a review, how can your relating plot points to me possible give me any insight? There should be no dancing around, that should be a warning sign, like "Dear MeFi, how do I tell my best friend her fiancé is ugly without coming right out and saying it?"
A review is your opinion, if you say there’s strong character development I believe that you believe that. You can’t prove that point to me. If you say "Sybil hates cilantro but grows to cherish it when she finds true love" that means nothing to me because I don’t have any context. You can relate the whole plot to me, but until I read I don’t have an opinion. Spoilers in that sense are always for the writer, not the reader. It’s the writer trying to back up his claims, arguing with himself about a subject the reader has no knowledge of. After I’ve read it I may appreciate your analysis of the cilantro question though.
People who are Very Bothered By Spoilers, (my girlfriend is so anti-spoiler she avoids them for movies she doesn't even plan to see), just strike me as being particularly focused on one portion of the experience, and... hey, that's okay too.
The spoiler argument is kind of fascinating because often it’s the same reasoning with wildly different results. I can’t imagine why I would want to know plot points of a movie I don’t plan on seeing, or why you’d be telling me. It’s like strangers telling you about their cousin’s wedding.
Me: I don’t want to see The Bird’s Nest.
X: You might reconsider, it’s very moving, but I did need medical assistance from all the crying.
Me: Thanks, maybe I will.
Me: I don’t want to see The Bird’s Nest.
X: The child dies at the end, eaten by her dog.
Me: In what possible way can that information help me?
posted by bongo_x at 7:07 PM on December 11, 2015
I don't care about spoilers at all. When a story is good, I fall into it, and I don't think about the spoilers at all. And if it's not good, I don't care. But I can respect people who feel differently.
posted by Nothing at 7:47 PM on December 11, 2015
posted by Nothing at 7:47 PM on December 11, 2015
spoilers reduce anxiety
YES. As a person who has severe, totally untreated (not voluntarily I assure you) anxiety, seeking out spoilers is so soothing to me. If I don't care about something, I don't seek out spoilers and I enjoy the thrill of trying to figure it out, but if it's something that matters hugely to me (a movie or TV show I am greatly anticipating) I will enjoy it much more if I'm not torturing myself about what might happen.
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 8:38 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
YES. As a person who has severe, totally untreated (not voluntarily I assure you) anxiety, seeking out spoilers is so soothing to me. If I don't care about something, I don't seek out spoilers and I enjoy the thrill of trying to figure it out, but if it's something that matters hugely to me (a movie or TV show I am greatly anticipating) I will enjoy it much more if I'm not torturing myself about what might happen.
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 8:38 PM on December 11, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, bongo, you and I clearly have different opinions about what constitutes a review. Whether or not they should, many contain synopsis, so I ignore reviews beyond a simple yea or nay (ie Rotten Tomatoes, in the case of movies) because like I said I'd really rather have the story told to me by the storyteller.
But I do read reviews! I read reviews after I see a movie or what have you because I'm curious what other people thought and if they had the same impressions that I did. And whether or not you like it, synopsis, discussion and recommendation very frequently fall under the same umbrella, and that umbrella would be a "review." I just wish the balance were different.
posted by zeusianfog at 9:16 PM on December 11, 2015
But I do read reviews! I read reviews after I see a movie or what have you because I'm curious what other people thought and if they had the same impressions that I did. And whether or not you like it, synopsis, discussion and recommendation very frequently fall under the same umbrella, and that umbrella would be a "review." I just wish the balance were different.
posted by zeusianfog at 9:16 PM on December 11, 2015
Bongo, the problem is that most people who want to write about art don't want to just do some kind of Consumer Reports analysis of how to get the best value for your art dollar this weekend. They want to write critical analysis of art, to discuss
what's good about it and why.
Unfortunately, the audience for art criticism is much smaller than the people who are just looking for a recommendation of what movie to see this weekend. So a lot of writers end up trying to shoehorn a little bit of the kind of writing they want to do into thw product reviews they can get paid to write.
posted by straight at 3:34 AM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
what's good about it and why.
Unfortunately, the audience for art criticism is much smaller than the people who are just looking for a recommendation of what movie to see this weekend. So a lot of writers end up trying to shoehorn a little bit of the kind of writing they want to do into thw product reviews they can get paid to write.
posted by straight at 3:34 AM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
Many years ago a group of us were in the US for a few months and decided to go to the cinema. I was reading the reviews in the local paper to pick one, and one looked very good - a film about an American arrested for drug trafficking in a foreign country and sentenced to death, and the fight to free him (I think it was a true story). At the end of the review there were warnings - I'm not sure if this is a usual thing over there? - like Language: Some, coarse; Nudity: several instances, that kind of thing. And then Death: One, hanging. And birds flew from trees as I fell to my knees, rending the paper in two and wailing. We went to see it and I didn't mention this at all to my friends because I wouldn't do that, and the whole film they were really gripped by the "will he get off?" narrative and the courtroom scenes and the appeal scenes and the impact of the shot of him ascending the gallows, while I had no experience of that pleasurable tension whatsoever because I knew he was done for before my bum hit the seat. It was a good film but my enjoyment of the story was totally spoiled by knowing how it ended. I don't know who you are, review-writer from long ago, but I will never forgive you.
posted by billiebee at 4:02 AM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 4:02 AM on December 12, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm not a big fan of spoilers, but I hate being cheated by a fraudulent volume of work that goes nowhere and does nothing, other than fill up space and ending with an advertisement for the next installment of the series. As books that end incoherently as a setup to an even more incoherent opening to the next volume seems to be a standard practice within genre lit, I'm forced to rely on spoilers or reviewers willing to comment on whether the book in question actually does have an ending rather than trailing off into recursive babble like someone deeply stoned...
The other side of the story is warnings. Although I admit that half the time I just avoid certain genres of cinema. Previews these days are often terribly misleading as to what the story is actually about.
And another facet of the story is that anti-spoiler people can be damn aggressive in demanding that no one else can discuss a story until they've read it. And while I put my blogging of Jessica Jones reactions under a cut (now a few weeks after everyone else has binged it), I'm not all that fond of the argument that I shouldn't be blogging it all until my fellow time-shifting media consumers have caught up. The same is true for Dr. Who, where I usually end up getting the episode a few days after everyone else, and don't feel especially entitled demand that everyone else wait until I catch up.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:42 AM on December 12, 2015
The other side of the story is warnings. Although I admit that half the time I just avoid certain genres of cinema. Previews these days are often terribly misleading as to what the story is actually about.
And another facet of the story is that anti-spoiler people can be damn aggressive in demanding that no one else can discuss a story until they've read it. And while I put my blogging of Jessica Jones reactions under a cut (now a few weeks after everyone else has binged it), I'm not all that fond of the argument that I shouldn't be blogging it all until my fellow time-shifting media consumers have caught up. The same is true for Dr. Who, where I usually end up getting the episode a few days after everyone else, and don't feel especially entitled demand that everyone else wait until I catch up.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 7:42 AM on December 12, 2015
> So I write a blog where I review randomly selected episodes of randomly selected TV shows, and it is rife with spoilers.
Sure, that's great, as long as you include a standard spoilers warning up front. The point is not that nobody should ever discuss plot under any circumstances but that there's a difference between after-the-fact criticism, where no holds are barred and you know going in that the whole artwork will be discussed, and a before-the-fact review/recommendation, which should limit itself to basic premise and general discussion of good and bad points.
posted by languagehat at 8:21 AM on December 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sure, that's great, as long as you include a standard spoilers warning up front. The point is not that nobody should ever discuss plot under any circumstances but that there's a difference between after-the-fact criticism, where no holds are barred and you know going in that the whole artwork will be discussed, and a before-the-fact review/recommendation, which should limit itself to basic premise and general discussion of good and bad points.
posted by languagehat at 8:21 AM on December 12, 2015 [3 favorites]
That's the part that we'll never experience -- a movie turning into a whole other kind of movie well after you'd gotten sucked into the plot of what you thought you were going to be watching.
I accidentally got that experience with Cloverfield, actually. I was at the theater with some friends, I vaguely remembered hearing something about that name, turns out it was opening day for it and the advertising hadn't switched to "THIS IS A MONSTER MOVIE" (and none of us had seen any advertising for it anyhow).
So it starts off looking like some sort of indie romcom or the like, and then bam monsters.
But in general, I avoid watching too many trailers for a film (I love trailers as their own art form, but I hate the recent trend towards revealing *everything* in the trailers), but I hate the "Never talk about any plot points of things I haven't seen" reaction more, so I'm kinda reflexively spoiler-friendly,
because I would rather ruin everything you love and get into the weeds of Metal Gear Solid's plot twists and turns than have to listen to "But I didn't know Darth Vader was Luke's father!" one more time.
posted by CrystalDave at 7:30 PM on December 12, 2015
I accidentally got that experience with Cloverfield, actually. I was at the theater with some friends, I vaguely remembered hearing something about that name, turns out it was opening day for it and the advertising hadn't switched to "THIS IS A MONSTER MOVIE" (and none of us had seen any advertising for it anyhow).
So it starts off looking like some sort of indie romcom or the like, and then bam monsters.
But in general, I avoid watching too many trailers for a film (I love trailers as their own art form, but I hate the recent trend towards revealing *everything* in the trailers), but I hate the "Never talk about any plot points of things I haven't seen" reaction more, so I'm kinda reflexively spoiler-friendly,
because I would rather ruin everything you love and get into the weeds of Metal Gear Solid's plot twists and turns than have to listen to "But I didn't know Darth Vader was Luke's father!" one more time.
posted by CrystalDave at 7:30 PM on December 12, 2015
What’s so hard about announcing "spoilers ahead"? Trigger warnings are reasonable and polite, but announcing spoilers is infringing on your right to tell people things they don’t want to hear?
posted by bongo_x at 9:22 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by bongo_x at 9:22 PM on December 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm pleased to report that our paper was accepted this weekend. Here's a link to the accepted version of the manuscript, which is still subject to copy-editing, layout, etc.
posted by anaphoric at 9:01 AM on January 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by anaphoric at 9:01 AM on January 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
« Older C'est mon plaisir! | Two new "shots" prevent bleeding out Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 10:18 AM on December 11, 2015 [5 favorites]