The Sword and Laser discussion

196 views
Spoiler expiration dates

Comments Showing 1-50 of 67 (67 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Dara (new)

Dara (cmdrdara) | 2693 comments What do you think it's okay to spoiler things? Well, not okay but a spoiler is past it's statute of limitations. For me, on TV is when it's on DVD. If its available to you and you haven't watched it and haven't said you didn't see it, then you shouldn't get mad if it gets spoiled by someone.

Don't know about books on the other hand. What do you think?


message 2: by Phil (last edited Jun 08, 2013 09:22AM) (new)

Phil | 1125 comments I agree with you about movies and tv shows. Otherwise we could never openly talk about The Empire Strikes Back, The Sixth Sense, Fight Club or The Crying Game.
Books are trickier though. It might be a hundred years or more after a book is written that you get to read it so they have longer shelf-life and smaller audiences than visual media. So if you blurt the surprise in The Empire Strikes Back in a crowd, you only spoil it for the one percent who hasn't seen it but if you do the same for Ender's Game (until the movie comes out anyway) you spoil it for the 99% that hasn't read it.
That being said, a study came out last year that showed if you only see/read something once then you get more enjoyment if you already know the secrets ahead of time even if you think you'd rather not know. The theory is that you get pleasure from anticipating the reveal and seeing how it unfolds.


message 3: by Rob, Roberator (new)

Rob (robzak) | 6668 comments Mod



message 4: by Neil (new)

Neil | 165 comments Rob wrote: ""

Wait a minute? Jesus dies? People need to stop getting up in GRR Martins grill for killing popular characters if they let the guy that wrote the bible get away with that shit.


Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth | 1840 comments There are times when it's okay, I guess, but I think people should at least try to keep it buttoned if the spoiler is important to the enjoyment of the film, such as a mystery or some such thing. I watched a show way back that was talking about films (probably there had been a vote for fav film or something of that sort, and the usual host of celebs had been dragged in to share their memories) and there was a massive fuss because they completely spoiled the whole mystery from 'The Usual Suspects'. And as one of the people who had never seen the film, I was among the annoyed group. I had been wanting to watch that film for such a long time, and now I still haven't, and probably never will. The celebrities shared their memories of wondering who it was, seeming so excited about it, then robbed me of having my own experience of this. It doesn't seem worth watching the film now.

Phil wrote: "That being said, a study came out last year that showed if you only see/read something once then you get more enjoyment if you already know the secrets ahead of time even if you think you'd rather not know. The theory is that you get pleasure from anticipating the reveal and seeing how it unfolds.
"


I completely disagree with this. When I was a child, my mum told me that she always liked to read the last page of the book. A friend told me she did the same. I tried it. All the way through the book, I was aware of the end. I normally fully invested in a world I was reading about, but this time, it just became a rush to the end to see why what happened, happened. Whenever I think about that book, I can only remember the end. The end became the whole point of the book, and I didn't like that. I have desperately avoided spoilers ever since.

In spite of that, Sixth Sense still got spoiled for me the night I was going to see the film in the cinema. I still enjoyed the film; there was fun in connecting the dots, like the study suggests. But none of my family knew the spoiler, so when they watched it again, they enjoyed it just as much; second time around they got "pleasure from anticipating the reveal and seeing how it unfolds". I was bored.


message 6: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Phil wrote: "That being said, a study came out last year that showed if you only see/read something once then you get more enjoyment if you already know the secrets ahead of time even if you think you'd rather not know. The theory is that you get pleasure from anticipating the reveal and seeing how it unfolds. "

I think the basis of that idea is that we're so busy paying attention to the plot that we don't get the chance to take in all of the nuanced stuff which enhances the pleasure of a movie or book.

Maybe for average people, sure.

I would suspect that most of us who seek out challenging literature like science fiction are processing stories on a higher level than most people, which is why many of us hate spoilers. We can take in the plot *and* the artistic nuance.


message 7: by Michele (new)

Michele | 1154 comments If a work has been available for more than a year, then I believe anyone going to a public forum and clicking on a topic about that work should not be surprised about spoilers. But randomly giving away the ending or major plot twist about anything should be avoided when possible (like in a forum about one book, giving away the end of a different book), because whatever a study says, many many people will get all bent out of shape about getting spoiled.

Since the end of a story is not the reason I read a book, I can deal with spoilers, and generally do not even remember them while I'm reading since I'm focused on the story itself as it happens. Also I love rereading or rewatching favorites, so I guess I'm more about the journey than the destination.

But if you don't know Luke's father is a ewok by now, then you don't know who Luke is and shouldn't give a damn. And that dude in The Crying Game...Stephen Rea is kinda fugly and I don't wanna think about him having sex.


message 8: by Serendi (new)

Serendi | 820 comments I thought Luke's father was C3PO. I'm shocked!


Sean Lookielook Sandulak (seansandulak) | 429 comments Phil wrote: "...a study came out last year that showed if you only see/read something once then you get more enjoyment if you already know the secrets ahead of time even if you think you'd rather not know. The theory is that you get pleasure from anticipating the reveal and seeing how it unfolds. "

Please keep in mind that the San Diego study was 1) a single study that got a lot of press; 2) a small study, in some instances using as few as 30 people; and 3) measuring something that is completely subjective. It would be unwise and bad science to draw any sweeping conclusions from one study.

I hate all spoilers. It's rare when I haven't figured out what's going to happen by the second act, so I'm delighted when anything actually surprises me. I don't even like trailers that give away too much. When it comes to spoilers, it is just good manners to work in what you are going to talk about before you drop a huge spoiler. For instance you don't just blurt out "When so-and-so died...". Preface it with something like "Do you remember in the third season of insert-favorite-show-here when...?". It gives people enough time to stick their fingers in their ears.
That being said, if you're not up-to-date on popular culture, it's on you to catch up, walk away, or stop complaining about spoilers. If you get involved in a conversation about a book or movie, people are going to assume that you've seen it.


message 10: by Tassie Dave, S&L Historian (new)

Tassie Dave | 3429 comments Mod
I hate all spoilers. One of my pet peeves is TV shows that pre-roll with spoilers for the show that I'm about to watch.

I avoid spoiling media for other people by asking them first if they've seen or read it, before discussing it.


message 11: by Darren (last edited Jun 09, 2013 03:27AM) (new)

Darren If you don't want to be spoiled, engaging in or reading discussion threads or reviews of a given work of fiction, you only leave yourself to blame. Expecting people who want to talk about a book or a film to do so without talking about anything that actually happens in said work is beyond selfish.

Furthermore, if spoilers bother us so much, why do we rewatch our favourite films, even learning the lines?* Why do we re-read books so often that we wear out our copies? Yes, surprises are nice, but knowing a character will die can make the scenes before that death more poignant.

Why do we watch remakes of our favourite films or plays. Having read King Lear only increased my appreciation for Kurosawa's Ran. Same with Macbeth and Throne of Blood, or my favourite work adapted from Shakespeare Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. The title is a spoiler!








*We even do this for comedies! Surely more than anywhere, knowing the punchline kills the joke, right? Monty Python fans prove not.


message 12: by Neil (new)

Neil | 165 comments Tassie Dave wrote: "I hate all spoilers. One of my pet peeves is TV shows that pre-roll with spoilers for the show that I'm about to watch."

That is one of the reasons I don't watch much live TV anymore and stick to recording things on my DVR box. I've seen quite a few trailers for films and TV shows that give away more than I want to know about the plot. Watching recorded stuff means I can skip trailers completely.

I don't like it when shows have that "Next time on..." at the end of each episode giving away what happens next time. Still not as annoying as Battlestar Galactica which had little snippets of the rest of the show at the end of the main title sequence. Always struck me as an add choice.


message 13: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: "Furthermore, if spoilers bother us so much, why do we rewatch our favourite films, even learning the lines?* Why do we re-read books so often that we wear out our copies? Yes, surprises are nice, but knowing a character will die can make the scenes before that death more poignant."

Experiencing something for the first time engages a different part of the brain than repeating experiences. Most humans seek out new experiences, because the pleasure of the new is more powerful than the pleasure of the same.

That's why people get bored and say they're "stuck in a rut". People are continually chasing that high they got the very first time they experienced something. That's why no love compares to your first love, no kiss is as exciting as your first kiss.

That said, repetition of the familiar does bring its own pleasure with it. Not as intense, but often just as satisfying in its own way.


Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth | 1840 comments Darren wrote: "Furthermore, if spoilers bother us so much, why do we rewatch our favourite films, even learning the lines?* Why do we re-read books so often that we wear out our copies? Yes, surprises are nice, but knowing a character will die can make the scenes before that death more poignant."

I re-watch and re-read things because I like them. Plain and simple. But I will never EVER get the chance to experience them for the first time again, no matter how much I might want to. That is why the first viewing or reading, spoiler free, is so important to me. I can watch a film a million times if I want (wait, can I? How long would I have to live for that?) but I can only watch it for the first time once.


message 15: by Darren (last edited Jun 10, 2013 10:13PM) (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "That's why people get bored and say they're "stuck in a rut". People are continually chasing that high they got the very first time they experienced something. That's why no love compares to your first love, no kiss is as exciting as your first kiss."

I can't agree with this. I honestly prefer relationships to one night stands.

Ruth wrote: "I re-watch and re-read things because I like them. Plain and simple. But I will never EVER get the chance to experience them for the first time again, no matter how much I might want to. That is why the first viewing or reading, spoiler free, is so important to me. I can watch a film a million times if I want (wait, can I? How long would I have to live for that?) but I can only watch it for the first time once. "

Was that the point I made? Because it seems to me I made a very different one.


Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth | 1840 comments Darren wrote: "Was that the point I made? Because it seems to me I made a very different one. "

The point you seemed to be making was that people don't mind spoilers because if they did, they wouldn't bother to watch or read something multiple times.

My point was that whilst it is true people enjoy watching and reading things multiple times, this does not mean they are not bothered by spoilers. They might still want their first experience of something to be unspoilt.


message 17: by Darren (last edited Jun 11, 2013 04:41AM) (new)

Darren Ruth wrote: "My point was that whilst it is true people enjoy watching and reading things multiple times, this does not mean they are not bothered by spoilers. They might still want their first experience of something to be unspoilt."

Right, and I understand that, even though I don't agree with it. Which was why I wrote:

"If you don't want to be spoiled, engaging in or reading discussion threads or reviews of a given work of fiction, you only leave yourself to blame."

Anything else is wanting it both ways. One wants to see what people are saying about something, but then gets upset when they really talk about that thing. Which is ridiculous.

"Hey, I just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I didn't actually want to find out what all the fuss was about!"


message 18: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: ""If you don't want to be spoiled, engaging in or reading discussion threads or reviews of a given work of fiction, you only leave yourself to blame."

Anything else is wanting it both ways. One wants to see what people are saying about something, but then gets upset when they really talk about that thing. Which is ridiculous."


If someone knowingly enters a thread, forum, news report or whatever seeking information about a particular work, then sure, it's their fault.

But for random spoilers people just drop like bombs into conversations or stick into headlines/headers, that's assholery of the highest order.

I saw a headline the other day about the Game of Thrones finale which actually listed the people who die. The fact that there was a "Red Wedding" *alone* is probably not much of a spoiler if you've been watching the series -- you know someone is going to get killed or maimed in any given episode -- but giving away the actual plot points? That's being a douche. You aren't even protected if you've read the books, either, because some of the victims are different from the ones killed off in the novel's wedding.

So it's qualitatively different to click on Spoilers for Game of Thrones Finale! than it is to see So-and-so plus So-and-so Die in GoT Red Wedding!


message 19: by Kathryn (new)

Kathryn Weis | 126 comments Trike wrote: "Phil wrote: "That being said, a study came out last year that showed if you only see/read something once then you get more enjoyment if you already know the secrets ahead of time even if you think ..."

That.

Also- Maybe that's why we love to re-read books, and re-watch movies?


message 20: by Brandon (last edited Jun 12, 2013 07:00AM) (new)

Brandon Johnston (d20dad) | 6 comments I think interacting with the internet when you're trying to avoid spoilers is like playing Russian roulette with yourself. Sure, you're going to avoid the bullet a couple times, but there's a 0% chance of escaping the fact that you're on a course to ruin your own day. It's pretty crappy to automatically assume that someone is out to spoil something for you when in reality, they're probably just operating under an assumption that you're both on the same page.

That said, if it's a discussion among people in a physical environment, there should be some safe questions asked like, "Where are you in 'X'?" And as the unspoiled, you have an obligation to make KNOWN that you haven't seen or read the latest book/issue/episode/movie.

Are there those dickheads out there that live to spoil stuff? Sure. And there's a special circle of Hell waiting for them along with social network spambots. But they are an exception, not the rule. When people are passionate about a thing they often blunder ahead without thought, because they just can't wait to discuss it. It's not coming from a place of malice; it's coming from a place of joy. It can be inconsiderate when they don't tread with caution, but it's just as much your responsibility to protect yourself.


message 21: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments What I find interesting is that everyone I know who reads A Song of Ice and Fire never spoiled any of the twists to their friends whom they knew were getting into the books or tv show. They were also careful nor to spoil anything for people hadn't begun, unless they had been told explicitly that those people had zero interest in ever reading/watching.

The night of The red Wedding episode? Spoilers everywhere are immediately plastered all over Facebook, tumblr, twitter, etc.

For some reason people seem to think that the minute an episode airs on network television, it's fair game, while readers think that it's best to be careful about decade-old spoilers.


message 22: by Rick (new)

Rick | 2750 comments But at some point even in casual face to face conversations people need to be able to talk about a work without treading so lightly. It's one thing if you know someone is currently reading a series, etc but should I really have to work around the fact that Darth Vader is Luke's father? Of the twist in the Sixth Sense? Sure, there will always be people new to these works, but if you're watching a 20 year old movie or a 60 year old book is on your To Read pile, I think it's unrealistic of you to not expect spoilers to be out there and that you might run across some.


message 23: by Robert of Dale (new)

Robert of Dale (r_dale) | 185 comments Rick wrote: "But at some point even in casual face to face conversations people need to be able to talk about a work without treading so lightly. "
Why? What's so damned hard about "Have you seen/read _____?" before you blurt out the ending/big reveal?


message 24: by Rick (last edited Jun 17, 2013 02:42PM) (new)

Rick | 2750 comments Every time I'm talking about the work? In every context? Look, if I'm consciously going to talk about the end of something I will ask that. But I'm sorry, if it's 20 years after a work was released and especially if it's well-known, (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc) then it's fair game. Also, a lot of times the spoiler isn't explicitly the focus on the conversation - "... yeah, that's about as shocking as Luke finding out that Darth Vader is his dad... " etc.

It's just not reasonable to expect everyone else to check about spoilers with every other person in every conversation about a creative work forever and ever. The exception to this, for me, are the explicit cases like talking about a book in a conversation where the topic IS the book and even then I put some responsibility on the person who's not read it to pipe up and say "hey guys, I've not read this one yet..."

Let me give you a personal example. I've never seen The Sixth Sense. I know the big reveal, so I can't ever have the same experience as someone who say it that first night and found out in the movie. But you know what? That's on me. I could have rented it or seen it at some point long ago... but for whatever reason I chose not to do that. I bear the responsibility for that, not every person who's seen it.

Finally, keep in mind that some conversations aren't in person and so, no, you cannot ask "Have you seen/read _____?" and get everyone's reply. All you can do, in those cases, is to put "Spoilers!" in the thread title.


message 25: by Scott (new)

Scott | 312 comments Personally, I don't care about spoilers unless it's something big (i.e. Red Wedding, end of Empire Strikes Back) so take it for what it's worth. But, I think, after a few years things no longer are soilers, especially in this ever increasingly digital world. Either people are going to read it, see it, play it, etc. or they're not. I'll agree the expiration date for print media is longer.

But, at some point the Skywalker family tree becomes about as spoilery as (view spoiler)


message 26: by Shaina (new)

Shaina (shainaeg) | 165 comments If we go by some of these rules, we could spoil every S&L read because they've been published for a while. When talking to face to face it's easy to check if a person knows something or has read/seen something. Online that's much harder.

I think when in doubt, if posting something isn't part of the general knowledge base use spoiler tags/give some warnings in a heading or within a post. Reading a forum about anything online is a potential for spoilers, but those of us posting can try to help. If you would ask/check with someone in person before commenting, you should warn people online.

I think one of the tricky things is when dealing with kids, I know that I didn't watch the Star Wars movies until I was 10 or 11 and I already knew the family tree spoilers from pop culture. I really wish now that those hadn't been spoiled for me, but there wasn't much I could have done about it.


message 27: by Rick (new)

Rick | 2750 comments Shaina,

I think the S&L reads are like a face to face conversation in that we know some people are reading things for the first time and because the discussions are, as I noted above, conversations explicitly about a given book. In those cases it's only reasonable to add spoiler warnings, use the tags, etc.

But in general conversations, especially that aren't focused on a work, it's easy for spoilers to slip out - my example above is one, a quick, wide ranging conversation on favorite movies could be another ("oh man, The Usual Suspects is the best especially when you find out... "). All I'm saying is that it tilts things too far to expect people to always and in every case check to see if anyone in earshot has seen a movie, read a book, etc.

I get that some people are violently allergic to spoilers. But it's pretty self-centered for them to expect everyone else to live only by their rules.


message 28: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Rob wrote: "For some reason people seem to think that the minute an episode airs on network television, it's fair game, while readers think that it's best to be careful about decade-old spoilers. "

That's because book readers are better people than TV watchers. QED.


message 29: by Mike (new)

Mike I care very little about spoilers in general. If I wanted to keep something a secret from myself, I tend to avoid reading anything on the internet about it.

It's almost impossible to have a deep conversation about anything without discussing major spoilers. I generally only avoid talking about spoilers if I know the person I am talking to cares specifically about that show/book, but I do feel that there is a statute of limitations on it. I mean, even though Game of Thrones is a current TV show, the third book was published 13 years ago. Anything that happens on that show could be spoiled at any time, and I feel like if you are watching it, you should know that there are a lot of people that know exactly how the next 3-4 seasons are going to play out.

But I agree that the big media companies purposefully spoil everything in trailers now. I saw the trailer for Ender's Game and it gives most of the book away (but again, that book came out 28 years ago, so I feel that it's past the statute of limitations for spoilers).


message 30: by Shaina (new)

Shaina (shainaeg) | 165 comments I think it partially depends what we're discussing. If we have a thread discussing Song of Ice and Fire that doesn't specifically say it's only about book one, those spoilers seem fair game since that's what's being discussed. But unexpected spoilers about other books may not be as expected. If it reminds you of something in another book feel free to bring it up, but if it's super spoilery a warning never hurts.


message 31: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Mike wrote: "I mean, even though Game of Thrones is a current TV show, the third book was published 13 years ago. Anything that happens on that show could be spoiled at any time, and I feel like if you are watching it, you should know that there are a lot of people that know exactly how the next 3-4 seasons are going to play out."

No you don't. See my post about the Red Wedding above.

Just like True Blood adapting the Sookie Stackhouse novels or the adaptation of The Walking Dead, the Game of Thrones TV series isn't following the books exactly. In the Walking Dead comics Daryl isn't even a character, for instance.


message 32: by Darren (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "No you don't. See my post about the Red Wedding above."

His point still stands. Even if the Red Wedding did not play out exactly as it did in the books (I don't watch the show)the Red Wedding still happened. Maybe different people were killed, maybe more or less, but the basic event is the same. And if it's so different that it could not even be called the Red Wedding? Then anything said would not be a spoiler, would it?


Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth | 1840 comments Rick wrote: "But in general conversations, especially that aren't focused on a work, it's easy for spoilers to slip out - my example above is one, a quick, wide ranging conversation on favorite movies could be another ("oh man, The Usual Suspects is the best especially when you find out... "). All I'm saying is that it tilts things too far to expect people to always and in every case check to see if anyone in earshot has seen a movie, read a book, etc."

I half agree with you on this one. With your example, I think around the time you have uttered the words 'find out' your brain should have caught up with your mouth enough for a pause and a 'wait, have you seen it?'.

But I agree that face to face it's harder to not allow something to slip out. I mean, I'm so anti-spoiler that I usually refuse to spoil things for other people even when they want me to but if someone questions something that is answered later it's so hard not to let my face let something slip, even if my mouth is staying firmly shut.

When talking to others, if conversation slips into a spoiler field, I tend to employ the eyes closed, fingers in my ears, 'LALALALALALALALALA' method of spoiler avoidance. This does two things: One, it stops me hearing or seeing anything about this that and the other that I SO do not want to know, and it also alerts the speaker to shut the hell up! The downside is, you can't actually tell whether or not the speaker has got the message, and if you go on too long, you risk annoying the speaker, who might then choose to spoil you on purpose in anger. It's a risky business.

Lol to the link above. The 'not really a spoiler but...' part especially. Anyone speaking those words to me receives the 'shut up now OR DIE' look.

Back to the point of the thread, I think popularity is a factor alongside time. If something was kind of obscure and never really had that many people WANTING to talk about it, you are less likely to have seen or read that thing, even if it is several years after it's been out. For example, I had to do a HELL of a lot of hiding and internet avoiding to not get Harry Potter spoiled for me. I was successful, but I knew I only had a year or two to read it before references to it became all but unavoidable. That isn't a usual problem I have with books.

It's probably one reason why there are more spoilers for Game of Thrones coming from the t.v. programme. It raised the profile of the books. Also, I think when it comes to a television series, it is assumed that anyone wanting to watch it would have watched it at the time it was shown first, even when that simply isn't possible.


message 34: by Darren (last edited Jun 18, 2013 07:29AM) (new)

Darren To answer the OP: Yes. One week for movies, longer for books. Maybe a month. After that, I am not your babysitter. I'm not saying I'd do a tour of local libraries with the equivalent of a "Snape kills Dumbledore" t-shirt, but if I enjoyed a work, I'd want to talk about it with my friends. And that means if two of three of them saw/read it, that last one is probably going to hear some shit. No one owes you a pristine read of a text. That is something you treat yourself to.

First world problems, really. My older brother used to come home from the movies and re-enact the good ones for me, when I was a kid. Sometimes his stories were better than the actual film when I saw it later, but they never hurt my enjoyment of them. His re-enactment of Chow-Yun Fat in The Killer is permanently etched in my brain.


message 35: by Robert of Dale (last edited Jun 18, 2013 12:57PM) (new)

Robert of Dale (r_dale) | 185 comments Rick wrote: "Every time I'm talking about the work? In every context?
[...]
It's just not reasonable to expect everyone else to check about spoilers with every other person in every conversation about a creative work forever and ever."

Yes, every single time, in every context, forever and ever and ever. Even if you were just talking about that spoiler with the same set of people just 5 minutes ago.

*rolls eyes*

No, I'm talking about being reasonably courteous about big spoilers in everyday conversation; "This reminds me of the wedding scene in Game of Thrones... does anyone care if I spoil that episode? No? Cool. The similarity to ...."


"Look, if I'm consciously going to talk about the end of something I will ask that.
"


That's the kind of reasonable I'm talking about.


"But I'm sorry,"


Are you? Really? ;P

"...if it's 20 years after a work was released and especially if it's well-known, (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc) then it's fair game. Also, a lot of times the spoiler isn't explicitly the focus on the conversation - "... yeah, that's about as shocking as Luke finding out that Darth Vader is his dad... " etc."

What about a week after the release of the movie? And since we're readers here, I have a harder time accepting that it's ever okay to casually spoil a book that someone may have had on their reading list for a long time, or might be catching up on after recently discovering the book/series.

"It's just not reasonable to expect everyone else to check about spoilers with every other person in every conversation about a creative work forever and ever."

Is this really what you think I'm saying? Making a minimal effort is a reasonable thing for courteous people. It happens all the time when I go to parties and the topic of conversation wanders into book, movie, and TV series. Especially now that a lot of people are cutting cable and getting their TV via DVD, or just time-shifting with DVRs. If my drunken friend group can be that courteous, then anyone who isn't an ass can too. I don't expect asinine people to be courteous, but then I don't usually bother exchanging words with that kind of person.

But no, I don't expect all people, everywhere throughout space and time, in all contexts, dimensions or alternate realities, to issue spoiler alerts about 30 year old movies or other culturally ubiquitous stories.

"The exception to this, for me, are the explicit cases like talking about a book in a conversation where the topic IS the book and even then I put some responsibility on the person who's not read it to pipe up and say "hey guys, I've not read this one yet..."

Which is a common sense exception; Of course you don't have to announce you are about to spoil a book once a conversation about that book has already begun.


"Finally, keep in mind that some conversations aren't in person and so, no, you cannot ask "Have you seen/read _____?" and get everyone's reply. All you can do, in those cases, is to put "Spoilers!" in the thread title. "


Once again, I assumed that anyone reading my previous response would use their brain to substitute a contextually appropriate way of doing the same thing (giving warning before spoiling a story). Wherever a conversation (and I'm using that term here to mean any exchange of ideas, in any medium, so consider substituting more appropriate terms where appropriate)* is occurring, I practice and can expect not to be blind-sided with a big spoiler.

* That wasn't tedious at all.**

**that was sarcasm.



message 36: by Robert of Dale (new)

Robert of Dale (r_dale) | 185 comments Trike wrote: "
That's because book readers are better people than TV watchers. QED. "


Especially if they're Sword and Laser club members. Indisputably true, that.


message 37: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: "Trike wrote: "No you don't. See my post about the Red Wedding above."

His point still stands. Even if the Red Wedding did not play out exactly as it did in the books (I don't watch the show)the Red Wedding still happened. Maybe different people were killed, maybe more or less, but the basic event is the same. And if it's so different that it could not even be called the Red Wedding? Then anything said would not be a spoiler, would it? ."


That's some seriously broken logic, man.


message 38: by Darren (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "That's some seriously broken logic, man. "

Nope.


Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth | 1840 comments Darren wrote: "To answer the OP: Yes. One week for movies, longer for books. Maybe a month. After that, I am not your babysitter. I'm not saying I'd do a tour of local libraries with the equivalent of a "Snape kills Dumbledore" t-shirt, but if I enjoyed a work, I'd want to talk about it with my friends. And that means if two of three of them saw/read it, that last one is probably going to hear some shit. No one owes you a pristine read of a text. That is something you treat yourself to.

Wow, a week for films, a month for books seems a bit harsh. Not everyone has the time or money to go see a film right away. I think one should try to be wary of spoiling things at all times, but at least give folk the time to buy something on dvd, preferably time for them to be reduced in price. Same goes for books. I hate hardbacks, so I will always wait for the cheaper, easier to read paperbacks to come out.

So I'm guess what I'm saying is that, if you simply cannot stop yourself from spoiling things for others, at least give folk a decent length of time to catch up, at least two months after a film has become available to buy, and at least a year after a book has been out in paperback. But really, when possibly, try not to spoil at all. Saying 'No one owes you a pristine read' makes it sound like that is something that has to be given. It isn't. It is something that is available to everyone until some jerkface says 'OMG I had no idea he was dead all along' after you have already stated you do not wish to hear any spoilers.


message 40: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: "Trike wrote: "That's some seriously broken logic, man. "

Nope."


So in scenario A, Luke and Friends are escaping the Death Star and Obi Wan gets killed. In scenario B, Luke and Friends are escaping the Death Star and Han Solo gets killed.

And you claim that blurting out the change in scenario B *isn't* a spoiler?

Yeah, that thinking couldn't be more broken if you solidified it and hit it with a hammer.


message 41: by Dara (new)

Dara (cmdrdara) | 2693 comments The newer something is, the more spoiler cautious I am, even if its on DVD. I don't watch a lot of movies anymore but I'm not gonna blurt out the ending to say, Looper without asking whomever I'm talking to if they've seen it.

I try really hard to not spoil a book though. That is far more egregious in my mind. Books are a bigger investment in time and (usually) characters. I want people to experience them unspoiled unless its a bad book and I want to save them time.


message 42: by Darren (last edited Jun 19, 2013 06:18AM) (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "So in scenario A, Luke and Friends are escaping the Death Star and Obi Wan gets killed. In scenario B, Luke and Friends are escaping the Death Star and Han Solo gets killed.

And you claim that blurting out the change in scenario B *isn't* a spoiler?

Yeah, that thinking couldn't be more broken if you solidified it and hit it with a hammer. "


Except that isn't what I said. Way to learn to read.

Using what I said, in your example, the person who viewed Star Wars A would shout: "Obi Wan dies at the end of Star Wars" but they changed that for Star Wars B (per your example), then it's not really a spoiler is it, since you end up leaving pleasantly surprised that Obi Wan made it through, and surprised as all get out that Han died.

Since I was referencing the Red Wedding (as you were... don't try to change the sample you're doctoring), what I said would mean going "Hey, the wedding the Freys throw is a big betrayal and they murder everyone who shows up!" it doesn't matter whether or not someone's former wife attended version B of the Red Wedding and not version A, the basic event is still the same.


message 43: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: "Trike wrote: "Except that isn't what I said. Way to learn to read. ."

Take your own advice and follow the comment trail. What you *thought* you were responding to isn't what you actually responded to.


message 44: by Darren (new)

Darren Ruth wrote: "Darren wrote: "Wow, a week for films, a month for books seems a bit harsh. Not everyone has the time or money to go see a film right away. I think one should try to be wary of spoiling things at all times, but at least give folk the time to buy something on dvd, preferably time for them to be reduced in price. Same goes for books. I hate hardbacks, so I will always wait for the cheaper, easier to read paperbacks to come out.

So I'm guess what I'm saying is that, if you simply cannot stop yourself from spoiling things for others, at least give folk a decent length of time to catch up, at least two months after a film has become available to buy, and at least a year after a book has been out in paperback. But really, when possibly, try not to spoil at all. Saying 'No one owes you a pristine read' makes it sound like that is something that has to be given. It isn't. It is something that is available to everyone until some jerkface says 'OMG I had no idea he was dead all along' after you have already stated you do not wish to hear any spoilers. "


No, it is something that has to be given, and by you to yourself. The spoilers for any material are out there, and are only going to increase exponentially from the time that work is released to the public, unless one assumes that no one who views that work ever discusses it. (Not a good assumption)

Of course people are free to enjoy that work whenever it is most convenient and affordable for them. But all that spoiler math is still happening in the time it takes for the hardcover to come out in paperback, or the film to be released on Netflix. Because all the people who did shell out/sneak in/borrow/steal already to see the film in vainglorious 3D or get that deckle-edged hardcover are going to talk about it, which is also their right as people who have enjoyed a work. Expecting or demanding anything else is expecting the rest of the world to wait for you, and that's crazy.


message 45: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: "Expecting or demanding anything else is expecting the rest of the world to wait for you, and that's crazy."

It's not unreasonable to give people a week to see a film that just came out. Most people have obligations that don't allow them to rush out and see Man of Steel opening night. The movie has been out for 5 days now, so throwing out spoilers randomly would just be douchey.

This weekend, for instance, I was dealing with two of my dogs who have both developed heart conditions. Most of my participation here on GR has been on my iPad as I sit in various veterinarian clinics waiting around. I haven't been able to see or do any of the things I planned. I haven't been reading anything that might spoil stuff I'm interested in, but I don't want to be completely shut off from all my other interactions.

It's basic consideration for others that you don't spoil recent movies/TV shows/books outside of designated threads or forums.


message 46: by Darren (new)

Darren Trike wrote: "Take your own advice and follow the comment trail. "

Trike wrote: "It's not unreasonable to give people a week to see a film that just came out. Most people have obligations that don't allow them to rush out and see Man of Steel opening night."

Darren wrote: "To answer the OP: Yes. One week for movies, longer for books."


message 47: by Trike (new)

Trike | 7930 comments Darren wrote: "Trike wrote: "Take your own advice and follow the comment trail. "

Trike wrote: "It's not unreasonable to give people a week to see a film that just came out. Most people have obligations that don..."


Wrong trail.


message 48: by Michele (new)

Michele | 1154 comments I think its obvious by now that any story, no matter how old, can have plot twists or big reveals that people with common courtesy should try to avoid spoiling when possible. Also that people susceptible to spoiler rash should avoid discussions about stories they don't want spoiled for them. No demanding of excessive spoiler avoidance on either side of the issue. I think most people agree we shouldn't run around public areas shouting out endings and plots twists and who shot J.R. or whatever. A little courtesy and care for what verbal diarrhea is coming out of your mouth should be enough. And if a conversation turns to a show or movie or book you don't want spoiled then a request for no spoilers or simply leaving or sticking fingers in ears and chanting, as fits the situation, is up to you.

This is not a discussion that needs to get ugly.


message 49: by Dara (new)

Dara (cmdrdara) | 2693 comments Basically, don't be a dick. Thanks, Wil Wheaton.


message 50: by Rick (last edited Jun 19, 2013 01:07PM) (new)

Rick | 2750 comments Ruth - 'I half agree with you on this one. With your example, I think around the time you have uttered the words 'find out' your brain should have caught up with your mouth enough for a pause and a 'wait, have you seen it?'.

But that's not always going to work, for example, in a group setting or if I'm at a family gathering talking to person A and my cousin is behind me and overhears what I'm saying. Plus... what's a spoiler? For example, if I simply say "Yeah, The Usual Suspects is an awesome movie especially the ending twist" you now know there's a twist at the ending. Is that a spoiler? After all, I've altered your experience -you cannot have the same experience of the movie as if you'd known nothing at all about it. Almost all spoilers have cases like this ".. especially that scene where Luke finds out who is father is..." etc.

R oF D - I've neither the time nor the inclination to go point by point, but you made a blanket statement initially and that's what I replied to. If I'm talking to a specific group or person about something where it's easy and natural to talk spoilers I'll try to ask. But I disagree with you and others who seem to be arguing that it's the speaker's responsibility to always check about spoilers no matter how long it's been since the work was released. Sorry, but after some period of time if you've not seen the show or read the book, you're the one who's taking the risk that random comments will spoil things.

How long? I'll say a year. I'm not going to be convinced that it's really important for you to have an unspoiled experience if the work has been out for 12 entire months and you've not bothered to read or watch the damn thing.

Dara - Wheaton's law is good, but it's a black and white thing. What we're arguing about is where the line is and what's reasonable on both sides (speaker and listener). To use Michele's example of 'who shot JR', not only is the first Dallas series decades old, the very question reveals that JR gets shot. It's a spoiler in and of itself. Now if you were watching that show in real time you'd have the cliffhanger, then summer, then the first episode of the next season where (I think) we found out the answer. My contention is that a year after that first episode airs is plenty of time to catch reruns, etc. and that if someone hasn't, oh well.


« previous 1
back to top