![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Fine, that's you. You like that. That does not mean it is inherently more right or less stupid than those of us who prefer not to do it like that. And we have a right to be allowed experience things the way we would like to experience them, just as you are allowed read a book backwards if you want.
Which I have to label nonsense, because there is no work in existence that is perceived as the author intended.
No, you may not see the point, or understand the desire, but that does nt make it nonsense. It is simply personal preference. And I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly never said "as the author intended it". The argument of nothing ever being perceived "as the author intended it" is limited at best and specious at worst. No, you can't get *exactly* the same message or meaning from something as the creator got from it, and no two viewers are going to get the exact same thing from a film or readers from a book, but the storyline is linear, and you can experience it as it was designed to be experienced. What you get from it, and what it means to you is personal, but it is a clearer, closer experience.
Try watching "Firefly" in the order it was first broadcast on Fox sometime. I imagine it's very, very different and in a lot of ways makes less sense (in fact, I have it from someone who saw it broadcast that it made less sense and that's at least partly why it wasn't getting as high ratings as it could have). And that's not even a directly linear tale, each episode being more-or-less self-contained. Imagine it with something very much linear and serialised, like Lost. It ruins the whole storyline.
I admit that some things I can reflexively react to are a bit silly, but I still have my reasons (for instance, I was not best pleased at Nina's post saying how there was a rumour that one of the main characters died. While realistically speaking knowing that - at least at rumoured level. Knowing for definite that one of the lead characters died would in my opinion be strongly undesirable - doesn't make much difference to the film, nor shoudl it drastically affect one's experience of the film as you still don't know who, or when, or how, or even really if, it's something I would rather not know because then I am constantly expecting something to happen and thus don't get the full value of the shock when it happens. And I like the shock. If a death (for instance) is going to come out of nowhere, half of the impact of the death is how unexpected it was. And I would thus like it to come out of nowhere and be unexpected. It is my prerogative and does not make me in any way inferior to someone who can "assimilate all the variable information in a multi-dimensional, non-linear way". If you like I can mail you and tell you what the spoiler is, and you can then decide if it's something you can accept people might be bothered with knowing - even if it doesn't bother you to know it in advance - if it's something worth validly being upset about.
Incidentally, comparing listening to symphonies and going to see them live, with going to see a film in which something unexpected occurs is plain wrong. A symphony does not require not knowing what's coming, as it's not telling a story, or at least the story is not the primary quality, the primary reason for going. Also, every simgle performance of a symphony - even by the same orchestra - is different, so going to see a performance many, many times doesn't matter. It's like going to see a well-known play - every production is different, so you're going for the production as much, if not more than, the story.
To Be Continued :)