September 30, 2006

6:07 PM

Should there be a spoiler alert for this question? I haven't read the book, but it seems to me that talk about the "final scene" on the front page of AskMe might qualify as such. Seems like it could be an easy fix.
posted by smorange to etiquette/policy at 6:07 PM (58 comments total)

I agree -- but as a matter of courtesy, not one of policy.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 6:15 PM on September 30, 2006

I want it as a matter of pleurisy.
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:03 PM on September 30, 2006

It is a good thing I don't read.
posted by TwelveTwo at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2006

I'M ON UR METAF1LTER, SPOILIN UR B00KZ.

The book came out in 1962.

Haven't we had enough discussion about spoilers and when complaining about them goes too far?
posted by mcwetboy at 7:30 PM on September 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

The book came out in 1962.

And yet, still, some people may not have read it.

It's not a big deal, no one is going to die from it, but it would have been better to put bit of info on the inside. Hopefully Matt or Jess will do it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:44 PM on September 30, 2006

- it's a sled
- she used to be a man
- he was dead the whole time
- the thread got closed after about 80 comments, many of them gifs
posted by cortex at 7:45 PM on September 30, 2006

Lame callout. 1962 indeed. Considering that you are both NOOBS, I'll let this one go, and so should you, smorange.

(I thought that was a great question, something I would expect from my best students!)
posted by snsranch at 7:46 PM on September 30, 2006

It would have been easy to warn people of the spoilers in this case and to keep them off the front page. The asker agrees. And you think the complaints go too far? Why? If it's easy to do something, and if it makes a lot of people happy to do it, why not do it?

I take it we're not expected to have read every book published before 1962, are we? And, again, this one could have easily been changed to avoid the spoiler.

*stands aside as the thread progresses as these threads inevitably must*
posted by smorange at 7:49 PM on September 30, 2006

For the record, I don't intend this as a "callout." I assumed good faith and that the asker simply slipped up. I posted this mostly so that Matt or Jess could see and edit it easily. That is, if it's not already chatfilter. I would have simply flagged it, but none of the reasons fit the situation very well.
posted by smorange at 7:52 PM on September 30, 2006

I think spoilers are more offensive the newer the media is. A TV show that's one day old? Don't post the twist ending on the front page. But we can't run around policing every single spoiler in case people haven't read/seen/heard it, especially when it comes to books that are almost 50 years old.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:57 PM on September 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

I changed it because it was easy and the poster seemed to think it would be a good idea, but this is usually well above and beyond what we'd do for a book that is 45 years old.
posted by jessamyn at 8:13 PM on September 30, 2006

smorange, I may be REALLY wrong about this, but my guess is that you would have never even heard of that book were it not for that question being posted. So go read it and then go back to the original AskMe and post a concise answer to the question.
posted by snsranch at 8:18 PM on September 30, 2006

I agree that it's a matter of courtesy. If I click to enter the thread, then I've made a choice. But I should be able to browse the front page without having stories spoiled for me. It would be one thing if it was a major hassle to put the spoiler inside, but it's not.

I don't really get what the age of the book has to do with it. Have most people read all the old books already? Do people only want to be surprised by new books? There are tons of old books that I haven't read and that I hope, when I do read them, I can have the same thrill of surprise as I would have had if I'd read them when they first came out.
posted by grumblebee at 8:19 PM on September 30, 2006

Reading books that are past their sell-by date can give you mood poisioning.
posted by flabdablet at 8:22 PM on September 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't really get what the age of the book has to do with it.

I don't either. I don't get why people feel something is ruined just because they hear the end. I keep up with all my favorite TV shows during the week, and then I watch them on Saturday. It doesn't "ruin" my enjoyment of the piece as a whole to know what happens.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:35 PM on September 30, 2006 [1 favorite]

snsranch, you're hunch is wrong, I heard of the book long before the question. It was the first PKD book I heard about, actually. I've never got around to reading it, that's all.

Personally, I wasn't particularly bothered by the question because it'll be awhile before I do read the book, and by that time I'll have forgotten the spoiler, but I knew others would be bothered by it. And what grumblebee said.
posted by smorange at 8:43 PM on September 30, 2006

It doesn't "ruin" my enjoyment of the piece as a whole to know what happens.

It ruins mine, especially if there is a big twist. That's great that it doesn't have the same effect for you though.
posted by smackfu at 8:48 PM on September 30, 2006

Kudos to you smorange, I've never heard of it but you can be sure that I'll be checking it out from the library this week. And most likely, I'll be wondering about the same thing that tabulem asked about.
posted by snsranch at 8:54 PM on September 30, 2006

Its a great question and not "offensive." Poster could have put spoiler alert on there, but frankly, how can there be a spoiler when the book is written about a reality which is the opposite of ours and the so called spoiler is that our reality is actually right?
posted by Ironmouth at 9:02 PM on September 30, 2006

172,000 books (new titles) were published in the United States last year. How many of these did you read? To a first approximation, zero. Rounded off, zero.

Any given book that you're talking about, there's almost a zero chance that any given person will have read it or will ever read it.

Spazzing out over discussing a book that came out in 1962 = idiotic.

Hamlet DIES at the end. POISONED. And the Yankees won the 1962 World Series, 4-3. SORRY FOR SPOILING IT, ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO WERE ABOUT TO WATCH THAT SERIES.
posted by jellicle at 9:04 PM on September 30, 2006

I don't get why people feel something is ruined just because they hear the end.

Spazzing out over discussing a book that came out in 1962 = idiotic.

Well, I'm not spazzing out, and I can understand why not everyone cares about this. Some people don't care all that much about plot -- or at least about being surprised by plot twists.

I do.

For me, being surprised is one of the main reasons I read fiction and reading fiction is one of the greatest joys of my life.

You don't have to understand my feelings, but it would be nice if you'd respect them -- especially when doing so involves something really really simple.

On the flip side, I realize that in the heat of the moment, a polite person (who agrees to keep his spoilers in places where people can choose whether or not to read them) might screw up and forget from time to time. So I'm out of line if I jump all over people who accidentally spill the bean.

Bottom line: let's respect each other.
posted by grumblebee at 9:19 PM on September 30, 2006

Any given book that you're talking about, there's almost a zero chance that any given person will have read it or will ever read it.


I've re-read this about 10 times, and I still don't get it. I feel like I'm missing something really simple. But surely if I'm handing out with people who read a lot of books, and I discuss any Harry Potter book, "To Kill a Mockingbird", "1984", "One Hundred Years of Solitude," or "Lord of the Rings," there's a really good change and some of them will have read some of these books.

Almost everyone I know has read "Catcher in the Rye."

Sure, if I close my eyes and point to a random book in the library, most people won't have read it, but there are some books that are widely read.
posted by grumblebee at 9:25 PM on September 30, 2006

Does anyone remember the metatalk thread where people kept posting spoilers without alluding what they were posting the spoilers to? I remember it as being hilarious and want to see if my memory is any good.

I think it was metatalk...or maybe metafilter? I want to read it again, in any case...
posted by iconomy at 9:32 PM on September 30, 2006

iconomy writes "Does anyone remember the metatalk thread.."

How did it end?
posted by peacay at 9:42 PM on September 30, 2006

The butler did it, iconomy.
posted by cortex at 10:00 PM on September 30, 2006

Dammit, cortex, I just found it too!
posted by onlyconnect at 10:06 PM on September 30, 2006

Now I just going to skip that thread. Spoiled.
posted by pointilist at 10:08 PM on September 30, 2006

Thank you, cortex! It was driving me crazy. That thread's a classic.
posted by iconomy at 10:11 PM on September 30, 2006

I answered the AskMe question. You can now close that thread and this one.
posted by Eideteker at 10:52 PM on September 30, 2006

Bottom line: let's respect each other.

and that's what we generally try to do, with nsfw indicators and with spoilers, though we're much more responsive when the spoilers are relatively recent [i.e. last night's soccer game] and less so with older novels.
posted by jessamyn at 7:45 AM on October 1, 2006

I'm desperately trying to understand a mindset that is radically different from my own (not to fight with people, honestly! To better connect with them). But I fear that doing so here will pervert this thread into something that will get closed really fast. So I invite any interested parties to join me over at MetaChat, where I've started a thread.

In brief, I want to understand two things that I'm too dense to get:

1) Why the newness of a work is meaningfull, since if you haven't yet read it, "it's new to you"?

2) Why do people get so upset when asked to add a spoiler warning?

I don't want to fight. I don't want to win. I want to understand. Thanks.
posted by grumblebee at 8:12 AM on October 1, 2006

and that's what we generally try to do, with nsfw indicators and with spoilers, though we're much more responsive when the spoilers are relatively recent [i.e. last night's soccer game] and less so with older novels.

...which makes sense, since most mefi readers are 1000 year-old vampires who have been steadily absorbing every work of fiction in chronological order.
posted by bingo at 8:19 AM on October 1, 2006

Why do people get so upset when asked to add a spoiler warning?

One of the great mysteries of the ages.
posted by mediareport at 9:05 AM on October 1, 2006

Why the newness of a work is meaningfull, since if you haven't yet read it, "it's new to you"?

grumblebee, I think the issue can be cut in twain:

1. Spoiler warning are a general courtesy regarding works of fiction.
2. The newer the media, the more likely it is that folks enthusiastic to watch/read/hear the work haven't had a chance yet.

I believe that your position regards mainly (1), which is a reasonable argument. A lot of people in this argument are focusing on (2), which is also reasonable.

So while, if I have not seen Citizen Kane, I would prefer that folks not spoil it for me re: (1), I'm going to have less social weight behind such a request than someone who has not seen, say, the season premiere of Lost in a week's time.

Both are important. Folks mocking (1) in favor of (2) are not being considerate of this fact; ignoring the added significance of time-sensitivity of (2) is a bit stubborn.
posted by cortex at 9:09 AM on October 1, 2006

3. Given the easy convention of not spoiling books/movies/etc. on MeFi's front pages, where folks don't have the opportunity to avoid the info, the copyright date of the book/movie should not be relevant to the decision to move spoilers to inside the thread.
posted by mediareport at 9:25 AM on October 1, 2006

I watched "The Usual Suspects" this weekend for the first time. Previously, I've read about what happens in the last couple of minutes dozens of times in online discussions.

Didn't spoil the enjoyment of the movie at all for me. Just sayin'.
posted by gimonca at 10:52 AM on October 1, 2006

Didn't spoil the enjoyment of the movie at all for me. Just sayin'.

Again, that's wonderful for you, but that doesn't mean others feel the same way.
posted by smackfu at 11:20 AM on October 1, 2006

3. Given the easy convention of not spoiling books/movies/etc. on MeFi's front pages, where folks don't have the opportunity to avoid the info, the copyright date of the book/movie should not be relevant to the decision to move spoilers to inside the thread.

Yes, but the newness explanation specifically addresses grumblebee's request for clarification. Courtesy in general is good, and folks ought to take the tiny bit of extra effort to ensure they don't needlessly spoil, but the freshness of the media in question is relevant to the perceived appropriateness of a complaint.
posted by cortex at 11:34 AM on October 1, 2006

Didn't spoil the enjoyment of the movie at all for me. Just sayin'.

What that means is that you didn't see the same movie that the director made. Because the surprise ending is supposed to be part of the enjoyment.

You're also welcome to watch the movie backwards and upside-down, with the contrast turned way up, if that's what you want, and it's possible that you may still enjoy it then, according to your own standards.

But really, if that's your attitude, there's no point in discussing the meaning of the work with other people to begin with, because the movie you enjoyed really isn't the same movie that was released.
posted by bingo at 11:39 AM on October 1, 2006

I watched "The Usual Suspects" this weekend for the first time. Previously, I've read about what happens in the last couple of minutes dozens of times in online discussions.

Didn't spoil the enjoyment of the movie at all for me. Just sayin'.

I'm sure that I would have enjoyed it, too, seeing it the way you saw it. This is because there's more to the movie than just surprise twists.

I never meant to imply that I can only enjoy a story if it surprises me. If that were true, I wouldn't re-read books and re-watch movies. In fact, there are some stories that I've revisited hundreds of times. Sometimes I even enjoy them more after I know what's going to happen.

But that doesn't change the fact that there's a kind of experience that you can only have the first time you encounter a story -- and you can only have that experience ONCE (assuming no one has spoiled it for you). Some of us value that virgin experience more than others.

There's a problem with the word "spoiler," because the truth is that knowing plot details rarely spoils a story for me. It just spoils that "first time" encounter. But I deeply value that encounter.

It's similar to my relationship with my wife. If someone erased our first meeting from my mind, I'd still have all the rest of our years together, so the relationship wouldn't be "spoiled." But that's not to say I don't value that first meeting. It's something I'll always remember and cherish. And I'm glad it's NOT erased from memory.

In real life, you never know what's going to happen next. This is also true when you experience some stories (if they're not too predictable) for the first time. I LOVE this; some other people don't or are indifferent to it. On a second reading, a story becomes like a memory of a real-life event. And you're more aware of the author's hand manipulating events. This is interesting and even entertaining -- but it's a distinct experience from the first time.

gimonca, I totally believe that you enjoyed the movie, but you can't tell me whether your experience was better or worse (or different in interesting ways) from that of someone who didn't know the ending before seeing it. You can never know what that would have been like. And it's fine if you don't care.

I think another issue here is how important stories are to you, and here I'm treading on dangerous ground. I risk sounding like my experience is somehow purer or better than others, and I don't mean to do that.

But if your goal is to be entertained, then no doubt you'll be okay with knowing or not knowing the plot. Either way, you'll be entertained. Well, I'm a fan of being entertained, but I want a lot more than that. For me, being entertained isn't enough. I want to FEEL! That's why I read and watch stories. And surprise deepens feeling.

In fact, I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance because they hate it when movies/stories make them feel too much.
posted by grumblebee at 12:13 PM on October 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

In fact, I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance because they hate it when movies/stories make them feel too much.

Really? I'm right with you on your motive for reading and watching stories. And I think you're right that surprise does, or at least can, deepen the pathos of a story. If I know that a sympathetic character is going to die in the end, I don't feel the same sense of shock and injustice when it happens. Furthermore, if I know about their death ahead of time, I don't invest as much emotional energy into that character throughout the story. In either case, I think I've missed out. I'm surprised that anyone would want to avoid those feelings.
posted by smorange at 12:23 PM on October 1, 2006

In fact, I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance because they hate it when movies/stories make them feel too much.

Did they actually say that? Or is that your critique?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:35 PM on October 1, 2006 [1 favorite]

In fact, I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance because they hate it when movies/stories make them feel too much.

Please come off your high horse. You're making yourself too easy of a target up there.
posted by Stynxno at 12:41 PM on October 1, 2006

Please come off your high horse.

Can you explain? What sort of high horse am I on. I don't claim to feel or feel that I'm better than anyone else. I've discussed my emotional responses and other people's emotional resonses -- and that's ALL I've discussed. ANYONE who claims his emotions are superior to someone else's emotions is an idiot. That's not what I'm claiming.

I said, "I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance" because I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance. I know this because they've TOLD ME SO for the exact reasons I've stated.

In fact, one of my best friends has asked me to tell him dozens of plots because he enjoys movies better if he knows what's going to happen beforehand. He's so powerfully affected by stories and his fears about the fates of characters that he can't enjoy himself if the outcome is a mystery. He's too worried about the characters.

I don't know why this should strike anyone as odd. Or why anyone should think I'm looking down on someone like this. I actually admire his passion greatly.

I'm baffled by the high-horse comment.
posted by grumblebee at 1:30 PM on October 1, 2006

This is why I only read Metafilter when drunk, so that I don't remember the spoilers that various assholes demand the right to post on the front page. Sadly, it means that unlike the staff of PC Magazine, I don't learn anything. A spoiler-free front page would mean so much for my education (and do my liver a world of good too). Oh please won't somebody think of the livers?
posted by nowonmai at 1:35 PM on October 1, 2006

I'm thinking of the livers right now, IYKWIM.

AITYD.
posted by dersins at 1:46 PM on October 1, 2006

Considering that you are both NOOBS, I'll let this one go, and so should you, smorange.

Now that's a comment you must have regretted from moment you clicked "Post comment", snsranch.
posted by Neiltupper at 2:17 PM on October 1, 2006

I posted that? Damn.
posted by snsranch at 4:17 PM on October 1, 2006

the freshness of the media in question is relevant to the perceived appropriateness of a complaint.

Sorry, I don't agree that freshness is relevant at all *given the option of only spoiling inside threads.* Since that's such an easy and obvious solution, it's unnecessary and obnoxious not to use it, so I'm having trouble imagining a situation where posting a spoiler to one of the MeFi front pages would ever be "appropriate."

Suggesting that folks only spoil inside threads (and suggesting that moderaters might want to move spoilers inside) is always appropriate, regardless of the publication date of the art in question.
posted by mediareport at 4:29 PM on October 1, 2006

I added a spoiler note to the FAQ entry on nsfw indicators, fwiw.
posted by jessamyn at 4:43 PM on October 1, 2006

please try to be polite and include them inside your post

jess, I think that may be a little unclear. How about "please try to be polite and include them inside the thread, rather than in the post itself"?
posted by mediareport at 4:49 PM on October 1, 2006

(And thanks.)
posted by mediareport at 4:49 PM on October 1, 2006

Cool, changed it. The small difference is that in a MeFi post the spoiler goes in the first comment whereas in AskMe it would go in the more inside portion. I think what I wrote makes sense.
posted by jessamyn at 5:36 PM on October 1, 2006

Yeah, I see what you mean; I forgot about the "more inside" in AskMe. Sorry, the anal technical writer comes out sometimes.
posted by mediareport at 5:47 PM on October 1, 2006

iconomy writes "Does anyone remember the metatalk thread where people kept posting spoilers without alluding what they were posting the spoilers to? I remember it as being hilarious and want to see if my memory is any good. "

dhoyt was the spoilerer which makes it even better: Sorry, again, for the third time, guys. My explanation is in the original thread. I would never knowingly post a spoiler, nor did I have any way of knowing I was spoiling something. Not sure what else to say in my own defense...
posted by dhoyt at 7:54 PM MST on August 31 [+] [!]


gimonca writes "I watched 'The Usual Suspects' this weekend for the first time. Previously, I've read about what happens in the last couple of minutes dozens of times in online discussions. Didn't spoil the enjoyment of the movie at all for me. Just sayin'."

Some movies, like say Fight Club or Snatch, are totally different experiences the second time around.

grumblebee writes "In fact, I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance because they hate it when movies/stories make them feel too much."

An ex used to read the last ten pages of a book first so she'd know how it ended. If she didn't like the ending she wouldn't read the book.
posted by Mitheral at 6:38 PM on October 1, 2006

In fact, I've met some people who like to know the plot in advance because they hate it when movies/stories make them feel too much.

Yeah...I'm just going to go ahead and say that those people shouldn't even be allowed to vote. But since they're moving among us, they can no doubt find the spoilers they seek without infringing on everyone else's right to actually experience a story the way that it was meant to be experienced.
posted by bingo at 8:51 PM on October 1, 2006

Can you explain? What sort of high horse am I on?

I checked the racing form and he's running in the fifth at Pimlico: Three Words Where One Will Do.

You'll want to ease up on the whip around the final turn. He's liable to keep running for a while after the other horses cross the finish line.
posted by MarkAnd at 8:46 AM on October 2, 2006

as the OP, i actually did feel that there should have been no spoiler on the front page. it was a mistake, i'm glad it was fixed for me, and i apologize again for the error. i agree with several posters above who've said the age of the book shouldn't matter that much. i read a lot of old books, and i read them to find out what happens to the characters.

that said, my spoiler gives so little away that anyone who wants to read this great book can go ahead, safe in the knowledge that it's not going to be ruined for them.
posted by tabulem at 9:22 PM on October 2, 2006