![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've been mystified for most of my life by the way in which people object to spoilers. And over the last couple of days, I've seen some fine examples of giving out, complaining, and outright temper tantrums over Serenity spoilers. It's becoming clear to me that other people don't watch films - or plays, series, novels, or anything else like that - in the same way I do. And, to be perfectly honest, I'm starting to think they're missing out.
I take on anything that has a narrative in a non-linear - or at least multi-dimensional - way. I sit there, and I suspend disbelief at the same time as I take note of everything. The order that elements arrive in my mind is not as important as the gestalt - and there's definitely a gestalt. I'll flip forward in a novel, then go back a few pages and read a segment again. I'll read the entire script of a movie - and two fan-written alternates - before I see it. I'll listen to a recording of a symphony before I go to hear it played live. I'll happily read up on the history of a set-designer before I see a play (ok, haven't done that last in years, but the principle's there).
There's the argument that the event should be arrived at without prejudice, so that you see it all as the author intended it. Which I have to label nonsense, because there is no work in existence that is perceived as the author intended. You can't do it. You enter any work with your own pre-conceived ideas, stereotypes, archetypes, and concepts. The tragic figure may be amusing to you. The comic relief may be tragic in your mind. The awe-inducing scene at the beginning may bore you. You may hate the theme music, and think it anachronistic, even as the author thinks it sets the scene perfectly.
And I have to ask, if the linear arrival of the elements in your mind is so important, what about preludes, cut-scenes, flashbacks, multiple points of view? There are plenty of fantastic books and films out there that tell you the ending in the first scene. The obsession with remaining spoiler-free, as far as I can see, does nothing but inhibit the enjoyment of the event itself, and give you all sorts of hassle in the process.
About the only place where I can see the argument for remaining spoiler free is the first-person experience - the videogame, the RPG, the LARP, where the very point is that you don't know what's happening next. In any other case, you reduce your experience of the event by not preparing for it.
Although as it happens, I don't yet know the spoilers for Serenity. I'm not going to go looking for them, because I've done my speculating and am now content to wait, but if someone tells me, I won't be in the least worried - and I'll be reading transcripts of Firefly and Buffy, and interviews with Joss and the crew between now and then.
I take on anything that has a narrative in a non-linear - or at least multi-dimensional - way. I sit there, and I suspend disbelief at the same time as I take note of everything. The order that elements arrive in my mind is not as important as the gestalt - and there's definitely a gestalt. I'll flip forward in a novel, then go back a few pages and read a segment again. I'll read the entire script of a movie - and two fan-written alternates - before I see it. I'll listen to a recording of a symphony before I go to hear it played live. I'll happily read up on the history of a set-designer before I see a play (ok, haven't done that last in years, but the principle's there).
There's the argument that the event should be arrived at without prejudice, so that you see it all as the author intended it. Which I have to label nonsense, because there is no work in existence that is perceived as the author intended. You can't do it. You enter any work with your own pre-conceived ideas, stereotypes, archetypes, and concepts. The tragic figure may be amusing to you. The comic relief may be tragic in your mind. The awe-inducing scene at the beginning may bore you. You may hate the theme music, and think it anachronistic, even as the author thinks it sets the scene perfectly.
And I have to ask, if the linear arrival of the elements in your mind is so important, what about preludes, cut-scenes, flashbacks, multiple points of view? There are plenty of fantastic books and films out there that tell you the ending in the first scene. The obsession with remaining spoiler-free, as far as I can see, does nothing but inhibit the enjoyment of the event itself, and give you all sorts of hassle in the process.
About the only place where I can see the argument for remaining spoiler free is the first-person experience - the videogame, the RPG, the LARP, where the very point is that you don't know what's happening next. In any other case, you reduce your experience of the event by not preparing for it.
Although as it happens, I don't yet know the spoilers for Serenity. I'm not going to go looking for them, because I've done my speculating and am now content to wait, but if someone tells me, I won't be in the least worried - and I'll be reading transcripts of Firefly and Buffy, and interviews with Joss and the crew between now and then.
From:
no subject
You misspelled "Horrible". ;-P
Sorry.
From:
no subject
I'm like our host in that I can approach a work from any direction and take roughly the same level of satisfaction from it. I've tended not to lately, because the linear approach takes less time and is totally valid in itself.
In a film, I pay more attention to the characters and visuals and get more from those aspects of it when I come across it half-way through; to understand the plot isn't necessarily possible at that point, so I only try it intermittently, and this gives more time to develop affection for the characters, to be charmed at a beautiful shot, etc.
But that people (women more than men, I suppose?) could routinely care enough about the characters in a novel--this is fiction, ffs! they are not living people!--that they wouldn't buy a book with a sad ending, that you say that you would have deprived yourself of reading an excellent book if you had known what a wrenching ending it has--wow, that surprises me. And emotion isn't absent for me when reading a book--there's a scene near the end of Zafón's _The Shadow of the Wind_ that brought tears to my eyes, from pity and anger at its inhumanity, for example--it just, evidently, is less routine and strong than for you and for these Mills & Boons readers.
As a counterpoint, I love Neal Stephenson's endings; I think they're true to life, I love that nothing ties up all the loose ends, I like seeing this mirroring of my own experience. Most people hate them, and I suppose this is out of strong affection for the characters involved? That "we" want to see them happy?
Also, that a chunk of the population avoids unhappy endings because of their emotional investment in the characters does make their near absence from Hollywood's productions sensible--personally, I'm often struck by the thought "The hero's going to survive, why should I care what happens in this fight scene? Or this chase scene? I feel like tuning out," and I'd enjoy movies in general more if there were more sad endings.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I thought about RPGs for a couple of weeks in first year in college, but encountered Dave Kearney and sundry other gamers, went drinking with them, really enjoyed it, and realised that if I took it up seriously I would probably fail college, or at least a few years of it. So I didn’t start, and made it through TCD in four years.
But sure, I’d be happy to give it a shot. Won’t be back in Dublin long-term until the first few months of next year at the very earliest, however.