Oddly controversial statements

[womzilla]

Here's one I still consider to be innocuous: "I like to encounter stories in the order that their authors intended them to be told." When I said this in the comics shop yesterday, everyone laughed and agreed.

Okay, phrased that way, it doesn't seem particularly controversial. But if you rephrase it as "I don't like spoilers", it apparently attracts the type of asshole who then reels off as many spoilers as possible before you shut them up. Back in Usenet days, I killfiled at least one person whose posts I otherwise enjoyed once he made it clear that he actively enjoyed spoiling stories for people who hate spoilers.

You can re-read a work many times. But you can only read it the first time, once. And surprise is a valid reaction to artistic works that, unlike most responses, can be taken away.

(Have I mentioned recently that I have seen Kevin Spacey more times on stage than on film? By which I mean, I've never seen The Usual Suspects, but I've had it spoiled for me at least a dozen times. Which reminds me of the time I was talking with supergee and he revealed that he knew that Spacey was gay but didn't know he was an actor. Now that's a different way of slicing the information of the world.)

Comments

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I hate spoilers and am very careful to put such behind a cut or couch in vagueness. This was hard when reviewing movies/etc. on Shockwave Radio, but we were careful.

Too many movie trailers tell the whole story. "Well, here's another movie we don't have to see" is a common comment. I've given up reading the back jacket of any book, since the probability is high that it will give away important plot points up to and including the ending. Sometimes, after I've finished the book I'll read the blurbs and am very happy I waited. (Sometimes I'm merely confused; the blurbs have little or no relation to the story.)