Slashdot Mirror
Do Spoilers Ruin a Good Story? No, Say Researchers
Hugh Pickens writes "According to a recent study at the University of California San Diego, knowing how a book ends does not ruin its story and can actually enhance enjoyment. It suggests people may enjoy a good story as much as a good twist at the end, and even if they know the outcome, will enjoy the journey as much as the destination. 'It could be that once you know how it turns out, you're more comfortable processing the information and can focus on a deeper understanding of the story,' says co-author Jonathan Leavitt. Researchers gave 12 short stories to 30 participants where two versions were spoiled and a third was not. In all but one story, readers said they preferred versions which had spoiling paragraphs written into it. Even when the stories contained a plot twist or mystery, subjects preferred the spoiled versions. 'Plots are just excuses for great writing,' says social psychologist Nicholas Christenfeld. 'As a film director, your job isn't really to come to the conclusion that the butler did it. A single line would do that.'"
I read the article but the summary spoiled it for me.
The only stories ruined by spoilers are the ones which rely on silly twists for effect. I know in any Bond movie that he's going to get the girl and save the day, but I've still watched most of them (OK, maybe that's not true of the most recent one because it was so awful that I couldn't handle more than fifteen minutes of it before I turned off the DVD so I've no idea how it ends).
It's not the destination that's important, it's the journey.
Pretty sure it was the ancient greeks, anyway. They would have a chorus sing the outline of the story before the actual telling. IRRC, that's how Homer's poems start (in an academic/'good' translation).
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
3) That's one theory, but it's intentionally ambiguous. It could be the apartment owners covered it up to avoid losing property value, and as for what's-his-name being alive in Europe, the whole book/movie makes a point of how often these people confuse each other for someone else.
6) Again, that's one theory. An alternate theory is that the Wachowski brothers are frickin abysmal writers who just got lucky the first time.
And screw you for posting #8! It's one thing to post spoilers for old movies, but that one spoils, like, half the scifi movies to come out over the next twenty years!
The funny thing is, Columbo mysteries can be ruined by spoilers as well. Traditional mysteries are in the "whodunit" format. With Columbo, you know who did it, and that they'll be caught (this is Columbo, after all!), but what you don't know is how they will be caught. If someone tells you, "Hey, in Suitable for Framing, Columbo touches the painting while in the murderer's apartment, placing his fingerprints on it to later prove the painting was there", then that episode won't be nearly as much fun.
Whoops, sorry for the forty year old spoilers.
A sample size of 30? Stop the presses, boys! We have a goddamned epiphany of modern science to write about here! Thoroughly researched and everything!
Ooh, let me try: "Hamlet is a melodramatic twit whose indecisiveness leads to the deaths of everyone he loves!"
"and then were asked to rate them on a scale of 1 to 10."
I'm tired of researchers thinking that how someone reports their preference has anything to do with their actual preference. I'm sure that these researchers are correct, that participants say they prefer the spoiled versions. I'm also certain that if you actually checked what they really prefer, you'd get very different numbers.
How? I haven't the foggiest. But I'd be closer to "would they pay for it" or "purchase it for a friend" or do they enjoy the rest of their day, or are they depressed the next day, or do they get a headache a few hours later. Actual life stuff.
To say that a person reports a preference usually leads to very bland, very mediocre, very simple in-this-case-stories.
It always reminds me of the listening tests between cheap and expensive sound systems. Inevitably, people report prefering the cheaper ones, but no one ever measures the headaches hours later. People forget that quality sound reproduction is more than just what you can hear. Try listening to music for ten hours, then tell me if you're in pain, or not -- that's a lot closer to the determining the quality of anything.
So, force participants to read only spoiled stories, or to read only non-spoiled stories. After fifty, I'd be crazy annoyed about yet another spoiled story. I'd never say "damn, how come none of these stories are spoiled?!"
See the difference. Forget "which do you prefer?" and go with "which can you tolerate long-term?" or "which can you live without?".
To make him dead.
bastards.
I think this view is somewhat shortsighted. As an author who enjoys writing stories with a solid twist in them, there is some validity to what you say, but then again, it depends on what you're trying to get out of the book.
I find 98% of my readers don't spot the twist in my story until it's actually put to them and even then I spell it out for about 90% of them. The other 2% see it but only when it's getting really close, despite it being obvious from chapter 1.
The purpose of the twist is to provide enjoyment - to set the reader up so they almost see it coming but can't quite work it out. To give them a chance to keep on guessing and to see how close they got. To achieve this, I use the bias of the reader against them so that they keep second guessing themselves until the final twist is revealed. To make sure all the clues are in plain sight is essential, but I still avoid showing the obvious thread between them.
This also serves the purpose of giving the story re-readability. So that someone can read it a second time while knowing what the twist is and see all the subtle things they missed or misunderstood the first time. Nuances in conversation, tweaks in attitude. In this way the second reading is sometimes more important than the first.
And I think that the missing piece of the research here is to consider whether the reader is reading the story once or twice. If knowing the twist, even one like the sixth-sense twist, helps you enjoy those nuances and you're only going to read the story once or watch the movie a single time, then sometimes knowing can enhance the enjoyment.
I had never considered such before, but having thought about it, it actually makes sense. But I won't be posting any spoilers... Feel free to ask though. :)
GrpA.
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Watch "Triangle" for a nice movie that spoilers itself.
Director M. Night Shyamalan stopped by a McDonalds and offered 30 patrons an advance screening of his next film but the popular response seemed to be "Just tell me what happens."
Seriously, this study is old news. I can remember in history class that those who went to the theater in ancient Greece almost always knew the whole story beforehand. The whole idea was not being surprised by the end, but being entertained by excellent storytelling and acting. Of having the story _told_.
We all knew (except for a few actively ignorant people) that Anakin Skywalker would become Darth Vader, likewise it was a foregone conclusion that Saruman would team up with Sauron, that Boromir would die an epic death and that Denethor was not all right in the head.
Heck, when I started reading tropes on tvtropes I was a bit scared that I would risk spoiling a story and thus ruining it for me - because that was what I had been taught by society would happen - instead it became a great source for finding epic things to read or watch. The very knowing that some major character would pull off a thanatos gambit to secure world peace, after being a rather large douchebag for two whole seasons, made me that much more excited to actually watch it unfold.