Again, a limited study that uses students reading short stories. Short stories are very, very dissimilar to novels, novel series, seasons or series of TV shows, and most other long-form fiction. They are close to feature movies in terms of story complexity, but by almost every measure, the reader/audience reaction and emotional impact of a short story just can't be compared to other lengths and forms of fiction.
Get back to me again when a study comes out where someone is told the entire plotline of a 7 season TV show, including the major twists and who lives and dies by the end, and then make them watch the entire thing. And a control group, of course.
Long book series and TV shows rely on people starting watching them before the end has been written or produced, and getting them invested in the characters and stories without it being possible to...
Oh shit, I'm getting into a debate with Scott. Better stop now. This way frustration lies.
I have very well formulated arguments about experiencing emotional responses (shock, surprise, intelligence, stupidity, etc) that I posted in other threads, all of which you completely ignored.
Again, I see no point in debating with you, someone who continually denies the validity of experiencing emotions in this and other areas, about how I value experiencing emotions that you don't even bother acknowledging in your arguments.
I have very well formulated arguments about experiencing emotional responses (shock, surprise, intelligence, stupidity, etc) that I posted in other threads, all of which you completely ignored.
Again, I see no point in debating with you, someone who continually denies the validity of experiencing emotions in this and other areas, about how I value experiencing emotions that you don't even bother acknowledging in your arguments.
When questioned, most doctors say that they are not in any way influenced by money and gifts from prescription drug manufacturers. When we look at what drugs they prescribed it turns out they are.
People say that they don't want to be spoiled, and that spoilers decrease enjoyment. When we actually take a look it turns out people don't know themselves, and they do like being spoiled even though they report otherwise.
An anecdote of a human being about their own feelings is not in any way reliable evidence. People do not know themselves. That includes you because you are people.
I can't remember a time that a movie spoiler ruined the experience for me. I had The Sixth Sense twist revealed to me. I read pages upon pages of Episode I spoilers every day before that movie came out. When my ass hits the theater seat, all of that stuff tends to leave my mind and I just enjoy the film.
The concept of having an entire 7-season television show spoiled is an interesting one though. I won't claim to know how my mind would react. I'd probably still enjoy it.
However, when it comes to judging me, and if I would like something spoiled or not, or if I would like something more if spoiled or not, there is no expert than me. Myself. You are not the greater expert, nor is any scientific study, nor any psychologist.
Also, when it comes to "scientific" studies, they are based on statistics. Even if 700 out of 900 people in the study said they enjoyed spoiled stories more, that is still 200 people who didn't. What if I am in the 200 and not the 700?
Finally, the short stories used in this "second" study seemed similar, so I checked out your first link again. It turns out it is the same study as before. You don't have two studies, you have the same study being reported on twice. Well done, Scott! You've just made it even easier for me to dismiss your opinions about this and other subjects. You rely on science to deny the experience of emotions, and don't even bother to check out the science yourself.
Again, if you want to address my points (which are NOT based on anecdotal evidence, if you care to read) and not just dismiss it outright, I'll continue. But you won't, because you're the most robot-like human being I've ever known, and every comment you make from now on can be just as easily dismissed by your own "humans don't know humans" line of argument.
There is big difference between "enjoying it anyway" or even "enjoying it more" when something is already spoiled and the basis of my own argument that is based upon the range of emotions available when something has been spoiled versus not spoiled. Scott has never addressed that point, nor does the one study he has now cited twice.
The concept of having an entire 7-season television show spoiled is an interesting one though. I won't claim to know how my mind would react. I'd probably still enjoy it.
I feel like the impact of the spoilers would be even lessened, because a show that long, for me, is all about the enjoyment of the characters. Telling me the ending of Buffy the Vampire Slayer doesn't wreck what is the real core of the show, which is the dynamic between the main characters. Besides, anything that long that you can only derive enjoyment from via plot twists probably sucks anyway.
I'm callous in regard to spoilers, in that this is a world where they are unavoidable (and the Harry Potter spoiling was pretty funny).
But I also do believe that spoilers can fundamentally change the way a work is perceived or experienced.
For example, I spoiled Evangelion for myself by watching the end movie before I even knew it was a show. Knowing every single character was going to die from episode one substantially impacted my experience.
For example, I spoiled Evangelion for myself by watching the end movie before I even knew it was a show. Knowing every single character was going to die from episode one substantially impacted my experience.
For example, I spoiled Evangelion for myself by watching the end movie before I even knew it was a show. Knowing every single character was going to die from episode one substantially impacted my experience.
I watched the Serenity movie before watching the TV shows in order. My girlfriend at the time watched them the other way around. In this case, the shock of one character who might not make it through to the end of the movie had far less impact because I hadn't spent another 14 episodes with him. The second time I watched the movie, after seeing all the episodes, it wasn't a surprise, and I didn't feel the same sense of loss as I would have, because I knew from the start of episode 1 what his ultimate fate would be.
Pola, on the other hand, didn't know what was going to happen, so was far more shocked and emotionally impacted by the death than I was on either viewing.
This is just an anecdote, but one that no number of studies based on short stories will ever be able to disprove.
As for Buffy, by being alive and young at the end of season 5, it was kinda hard not to know what was happening, despite never seeing an episode. I'm sure that if I was to watch those first 5 seasons I'd have plenty of enjoyment, but not the same kind of enjoyment as those viewers who watched the show as it went out live, where knowledge of the future of the characters was impossible.
I'm a little late reading it, but I loved Film Crit Hulk's recent article about spoilers and the consumption of art. I definitely spend a lot of time in level three myself, a decent amount in level two (minus the spoiler-phobia), and a bit of dipping the toes into one and four. For a lot of serious drama films in particular (mostly ones I know I'll only have time to watch once), I've been looking at the full Wikipedia plot summaries before I watch them lately, just so I can focus more on enjoying the craftsmanship of the movie and its themes rather than getting too caught up in the emotions and plot twists alone. I'm trying to work more on viewing in both modes at the same time, though, and hopefully that'll get easier as time goes on, like the muscle memory Hulk mentions in the article.
My only complaint is that while he says he doesn't mean to imply that certain levels of consumption are superior to others, the way he describes "moving past" lower levels seems to imply that there is a hierarchy. Kind of condescending, but considering how bang-on the rest of the article is about what art does for us and why it's important to think about how we consume it, I'm willing to let that slide a little.
Comments
God that movie was HORRIBLE.
However the original is a classic.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14521627
http://boingboing.net/2012/08/08/spoilers-are-actually-kind-of.html
Get back to me again when a study comes out where someone is told the entire plotline of a 7 season TV show, including the major twists and who lives and dies by the end, and then make them watch the entire thing. And a control group, of course.
Long book series and TV shows rely on people starting watching them before the end has been written or produced, and getting them invested in the characters and stories without it being possible to...
Oh shit, I'm getting into a debate with Scott. Better stop now. This way frustration lies.
Again, I see no point in debating with you, someone who continually denies the validity of experiencing emotions in this and other areas, about how I value experiencing emotions that you don't even bother acknowledging in your arguments.
People say that they don't want to be spoiled, and that spoilers decrease enjoyment. When we actually take a look it turns out people don't know themselves, and they do like being spoiled even though they report otherwise.
An anecdote of a human being about their own feelings is not in any way reliable evidence. People do not know themselves. That includes you because you are people.
The concept of having an entire 7-season television show spoiled is an interesting one though. I won't claim to know how my mind would react. I'd probably still enjoy it.
Also, when it comes to "scientific" studies, they are based on statistics. Even if 700 out of 900 people in the study said they enjoyed spoiled stories more, that is still 200 people who didn't. What if I am in the 200 and not the 700?
Finally, the short stories used in this "second" study seemed similar, so I checked out your first link again. It turns out it is the same study as before. You don't have two studies, you have the same study being reported on twice. Well done, Scott! You've just made it even easier for me to dismiss your opinions about this and other subjects. You rely on science to deny the experience of emotions, and don't even bother to check out the science yourself.
Again, if you want to address my points (which are NOT based on anecdotal evidence, if you care to read) and not just dismiss it outright, I'll continue. But you won't, because you're the most robot-like human being I've ever known, and every comment you make from now on can be just as easily dismissed by your own "humans don't know humans" line of argument.
I'm callous in regard to spoilers, in that this is a world where they are unavoidable (and the Harry Potter spoiling was pretty funny).
But I also do believe that spoilers can fundamentally change the way a work is perceived or experienced.
For example, I spoiled Evangelion for myself by watching the end movie before I even knew it was a show. Knowing every single character was going to die from episode one substantially impacted my experience.
Pola, on the other hand, didn't know what was going to happen, so was far more shocked and emotionally impacted by the death than I was on either viewing.
This is just an anecdote, but one that no number of studies based on short stories will ever be able to disprove.
As for Buffy, by being alive and young at the end of season 5, it was kinda hard not to know what was happening, despite never seeing an episode. I'm sure that if I was to watch those first 5 seasons I'd have plenty of enjoyment, but not the same kind of enjoyment as those viewers who watched the show as it went out live, where knowledge of the future of the characters was impossible.
My only complaint is that while he says he doesn't mean to imply that certain levels of consumption are superior to others, the way he describes "moving past" lower levels seems to imply that there is a hierarchy. Kind of condescending, but considering how bang-on the rest of the article is about what art does for us and why it's important to think about how we consume it, I'm willing to let that slide a little.
I've always known that my preferences are superior to those immersion guys but now I know why. <./sarcasm>
Yeah, that'd get me beat up. Can you imagine that showing up on an RPG blog!?