Re: Spoilers

My dad is someone who feels, more strongly than anyone else I know I think, that he does not want to be told anything about a story (literature, movie, television show, etc.) that he will read/watch in the future. Not even the classic "spoiler" thing of giving away the ending per se; he wants to be told absolutely nothing. Matt Yglesias, on the other hand, writes a post today called "The Case for Spoilers." It's an interesting point: he argues that one sign of a good story is that it can hold up to having been spoiled, that even if you know what's coming you still just appreciate the way the story moves toward that conclusion. The main point I would make in response is to emphasize the last line of his piece: "There’s no storytelling machinery that sets them ["it was all a dream" endings] up that can be appreciated on re-viewing."



In other words, I think that Yglesias is absolutely correct that a plot you can enjoy just as much if not even more when you experience it a second or third time is a prime marker of a great story. But that doesn't mean that spoilers are fine and dandy! There's something you get out of experiencing a great story whose ending you know a second or third or fourth time, especially if there are additional layers of detail you can pick up on with each subsequent trip through, but there is something else you get out of experiencing a story, and especially a great story, where you really don't know what's coming. And there's no reason you can't do both! Watch something the first time without any prior knowledge, and then, if it's really good, watch it again. I've always been a re-reader/re-watcher; after I read the Amelia Peabody series of novels, I read them all again. Likewise, after recently being introduced to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, I've now watched almost every episode more than once, and many of them three or four times. And when the last Harry Potter book first came out, I read it all in one day because of the overwhelming suspense of finding out whether or not Harry dies (which, since this is an anti-spoiler piece, I won't reveal), but my subsequent readings of it have not dispelled the sense that it is a great book. And reading the entire series multiple times, knowing exactly how it ends, yeah, I pick up on all the little ways that the plot weaves every single thread together, how tiny details from the first novel come roaring back at the end to become meaningful, how certain character's actions make a little bit more sense when you know their true motivations, etc. But none of that means that the experience of reading the books the first time through, of being kept in suspense about everything, was a bad thing, or that it would've been better without the suspense.

So yes, the very best stories do not rely on the element of surprise to make themselves enjoyable. But by the same token, experiencing a gripping, suspenseful story whose ending you don't know is very powerful; that's what a spoiler destroys. And since you can then go back and view the best stories again, appreciating every layer of detail and the artistry of the story arc, there's no need to choose between the spoiled and the unspoiled approach.