Am I unusual for not caring very much about "spoilers" in movies and books?
I've never felt that a movie is "spoiled" because you know what's going to happen. If that was the case, rewatching a movie (or re-reading a book) would be a diminished experience, whereas it's generally an enhanced experience (if it's worth watching in the first place).
If I know I'm going to watch a film in the very near future, or if I'm trying to decide whether I should, then I will avoid reading plot summaries. Usually.
But if it's simply a film I might see in the future, I don't go to any such efforts.
I've frequently found myself having conversations of this kind:
"And then his face is all burnt by acid and he disappears for years and...well, I won't tell you what happens in case you want to watch it some day."
"No, it's fine, tell me." (My immediate curiosity is piqued.)
"No! You might watch it some day."
I can't help thinking that surprises and twists are the cheapest tools in the storyteller's toolbox. Necessary, but far less important than dialogue and characterization and the stuff that never ceases to please.
i very much agree. and interesting timing as this topic also appeared to me on monday and i wrote this, which is almost precisely what you said: "i'm never sure how much i should share from my novels because i know there are people who really really really hate every kind of spoiler. unfortunately all the best bits spoil one thing or another as the ideas are quite intertwined with the story. it would be like trying to talk about Noah without ever mentioning the flood. personally i really don't mind spoilers. all the good stories are worth rereading. a story that depends on twists and is only good for that hit of dopamine is weak."
ReplyDeleteLaeth
Wow, that timing is amazing. And I think you put it better than I did!
DeleteI sometimes reflect that, back in the day, people were already familiar with the legends, mythology, and folklore which was being told, so the telling was the only thing that counts. But that's probably an overstatement-- probably there were lots of lesser stories, aside from the main corpus of folkore, that still gave you that dopamine hit!
I've thought of this in relation to the word 'novel'. I hate it a little bit, and then I tried to understand why it was used instead of some other word, since it just means new. and the reason I think is that, for the first time in known history, there were actually new stories. with the printing press any schmuck could make them up. whereas before you more or less had the same stories. this is a simplification but I think true nonetheless.
Deleteyet despite this, at least for myself, I always feel more inclined to read something I already have read. and the same is true of movies and music and everything else. and with people too (I always tell my wife how lucky she is in this, and she replies that I too am lucky because she is the same way, and indeed I am aha).
I do read and watch and listen to new things, but I like the ones I know more... because I already know them. and usually if it's something I like, i'll like it even more the second time, and then the third time, and on and on. novelty as such brings me no joy, and I would even say that the things I like that I encounter for the first time, seem like I am actually finding them again. like I have known them before in some way. so maybe this appreciation for 'repetition' is ingrained, at least in some of us. or maybe it just means that, despite the word 'novel', there are actually no new stories, just new ways of telling them.
Laeth
It's rare that there is a completely new story, but I think it sometimes happens. For instance, with A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens.
DeleteI'm much like yourself with regard to previously-experienced things, especially music.