Spoilers are still not good

[sincere]

Scientists investigate spoilers, find that -- SPOILER ALERT -- people who are spoiled have more fun!

I think this is possibly true in the context they studied it in: a book no one cared about. In that case, the spoiler can intrigue you and change your reading experience so you can check and see if you can find the clues. That makes reading more engaging, and can maybe make you want to read something you weren't going to read.

But it's different when you're already engaged in something! When you've read six Harry Potter books, you don't want someone to tell you how the seventh ends when you're halfway through. You want to read it yourself, and it's ruining the experience if someone just tells you before you have the chance to.

So I think spoilers are probably still bad, unless used as a teaser.


An interesting spoiler for Game of Thrones when I'm not watching it, to get me hooked: Good!

Incautiously shouting spoilers for the upcoming episode of The Vampire Diaries before it airs in my timezone: NOT GOOD.

Comments

[oneill]

That was my take on it too--the study was limited to twelve short stories in which the subjects had no personal investment.

Obviously suspense alone is not enough to create a successful narrative, but it just seems goofy to throw your hands up and go, "PLOT DOESN'T MATTER. SPOILERS ARE GOOD THINGS," based on one study drawn from a fairly small sample size in a very specific context. I mean, why the hell do people think cliffhangers work so well at keeping readers hooked?

[sincere]

That conclusion is just completely baffling to me. People don't mind knowing how a story ends = the story doesn't matter? Hardly. My ability to be intrigued by a spoiler does not equal an ability to read anything as long as I know how it ends. Quality of story is not even related. Sorry, scientists! You can spoil me all you like, but it's not going to make me like Gregory Maguire's Wicked any better!

[oneill]

I don't think the conclusion was so much that you'll enjoy anything as long as you know how it ends. Rather, the idea seems to be that people read for the quality of the writing itself, rather than the plot.

Now, it's definitely true that there are writers I will read purely for the . . . texture? of their words, but it works the other way around too. I think Suzanne Collins's writing is sloppy as all hell, but I tend to like her stories (though, admittedly, I've yet to read Mockingjay--Catching Fire did next to nothing for me).

Haha, Wicked.

[sincere]

It's what it boils down to, though. The story is irrelevant; the reading experience is what matters. And that's just plain silly. I definitely read writers who are not amazing if they have good characters and stories, and I definitely don't read writers who are amazing but who have subject matter I am not interested in. For example, pretty much 90% of straightforward fiction -- and nonfiction!

I dare these scientists to explain Twilight. Is it the stellar writing that charms everyone?

[temples]

ELENA IS MADE OF CHOCOLATE.

IN FACT, SHE'S COUNT CHOCULA.



Bam, spoiled.

[sincere]

NOOOO YOU BITCH

I will have to wipe this from my brain

[temples]

Use my hanky, it's clean.

Yeahhh, for me... spoilers are a mixed bag. On the one hand, I usually get into things years after everyone else. I'm like the grandmother turtle at the very end of the race, plodding along as happy as can be. (This visual is getting more and more awesome the longer it's in my head, and fuck now I want to be an elderly turtle. I'd be the happiest thing alive.) Anyway! In that respect, spoilers are unmarked and everywhere. I've accepted it; stumbling upon them doesn't bother me. I know people who scream and throw tantrums over being spoiled for canons that have existed for years and I find that ridiculous. The world does not revolve around me or you, person who commits this act!

On the other hand, when it's something I'm actually following as it moves along, like... Korra. That is literally the only example I have from the past five years. Then spoilers are decidedly less awesome. :( I'm engaged in the canon, let me discover it by myself!

[sincere]

Exactly. Spoilers are fine for things you have no investment in. But when it is something you care about, it can be agitating to lose some of the experience of watching or reading or playing or whatever. Jes is amazing because she is zen and transcends time and space, so spoilers mean nothing to her.

[temples]

If you need me, I'll be chilling out on the ethereal plane.

[dawning_light]

I'm... one of those who likes spoilers, generally. If I lived on the West Coast I would totally take advantage of the time difference and read what happened on X show before it airs for me. I totally respect that many people don't love that, however, and I try to be pretty aware of not spoiling other people.

For me it's just that I haaaaaate anticipation and waiting in general. I hate knowing *something* is going to happen without having it RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW to deal with. I can cope with anything once it's in front of me, but the waiting drives me crazy. There are times I don't want spoilers but most often I really don't mind and it kind of does let me relax and have more fun.

As usual, I'm a freak. :P

[sincere]

Some people just plain like spoilers, that doesn't make you weird! It just makes you impatient, and that's fine. ♥ I know looooots of people who eagerly devour DGM spoilers the moment they're available, but that drives me crazy, so I sit on the sides with my fingers in my ears, because I know if there are spoilers out, I'm going to get the chapter in a day or so, and I'd rather find out by experiencing it for myself!

But it's just a matter of preference, and some people find it more exciting to wait knowing what's in store for them.

[sakusha]

I don't know how I am going to make it to August without getting spoiled for Avengers...