21st Century Literature discussion

There seems to have been a lot of discussion in different groups on GR lately about spoiler alerts. I loved this article as it pretty much sums up how I feel:

http://lithub.com/spoiler-alerts-any-story-worth-telling-doesnt-need-them/

the best stories, the great ones, are spoiler-proof. You can be privy to however much information about the plot as you like, and the great stories will still work. They can still make you cry or jump or laugh—but they are not jokes, or magic tricks. They aren’t organized around a punchline or a reveal. The alchemy of the finest stories lies in their wholeness, an infinitesimally plaited nexus of particulars interplaying with the amalgam, the back and forth between what is happening, how it’s happening, and why it matters.

Anyway, just wanted to share!

Thanks Viv - an interesting article as you say (I do use spoiler tags, but only occasionally and only when something that genuinely surprised me occurs late in a book)...

Hugh wrote: "Thanks Viv - an interesting article as you say (I do use spoiler tags, but only occasionally and only when something that genuinely surprised me occurs late in a book)..."

Oh, I use them too, because I know a lot of people are genuinely upset when they come across spoilers. But personally, I am happy to read reviews, discussions etc before I've read the book, without worrying about spoilers, and I've never really found it "spoiled" my experience of the book.

Sometimes the publishers' blurbs are the worst offenders - I have come across books in which half of the blurb only makes sense when you have read the final chapter.

I tend to agree with the article that in more literary books, surprises should not be an important part of the reader's experience, but just occasionally I find myself wishing something hadn't been mentioned before I read a book for the first time.

Viv wrote: "Hugh wrote: "Thanks Viv - an interesting article as you say (I do use spoiler tags, but only occasionally and only when something that genuinely surprised me occurs late in a book)..."

Oh, I use t..."

I agree 100%.

Hugh - "Work Like Any Other" is a case in point. There was hardly any need to read the book after you read the blurb!

I agree with the article that the fact that we re-read books (often again and again) suggests that spoilers don't actually spoil the book. But there are some books where the twist is enjoyable first time because you don't expect it and then on repeated reads precisely because you do expect it!

I'm really not a person who gets worked up much about spoilers. My opinion is that if a single sentence can ruin an entire book / movie / television series than it's probably not worth my time in the first place. But I recognize that other people feel differently, so I try to respect that.

I also think that there are 'spoilers' beyond revelations of plot twists. Many people want to interrogate a book on their own and reach their own conclusions before being influenced by other's opinions. For this reason, I usually avoid book discussions until I've finished the book in question.

Also very lame is that the article sites as examples books where the author supposedly 'spoils' their own book, and then argues that these revelations heighten dramatic tension. A writer revealing facts is a completely different thing from a random person blurting out plot twists.

On a related note is this study, showing that readers who had stories 'spoiled' for them enjoyed the stories more than those who didn't:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/news...

I think this is the kind of thing that is true except for when it isn't. It's true that no one is surprised when, at the end of Jane Austen novel, the heroine marries, and you really can't spoil one of her books by revealing the end.

On the other hand, it's hard not to imagine losing something in the experience of a narrative like Fight Club if someone tells you the thing that is revealed, which I won't tell you here in case you are the last person in the universe to not know.

Whitney wrote: "I also think that there are 'spoilers' beyond revelations of plot twists. Many people want to interrogate a book on their own and reach their own conclusions before being influenced by other's opinions. For this reason, I usually avoid book discussions until I've finished the book in question."

I'll avoid reading any reviews until I've had a chance to make myself think through some of the harder or more challenging reads (otherwise, my laziness just adopts these other viewpoints and convinces me they must have been what I thought all along). There are a handful of books that rely on a "secret" or misdirection that is a key part of the enjoyment/discovery (most recently, I'd say The Fifth Season kind of falls in that category--it's not that it would be ruined by any revelation, just not nearly as enjoyable IMHO).

In the light of the current discussion on The Blind Assassin, this is a book that should work with or without spoilers and would almost certainly be a good one to re-read, but the first read would definitely be diminished by too much knowledge...

A fascinating case at present is Solar Bones, on this year's Goldsmiths shortlist, where there is a massive spoiler in the publisher's blurb on the back. Something is revealed there that would otherwise be unclear to the reader until near the end of the book.

Which at first sight seems a massive error on the publisher's behalf, but it turns out that the author actually wanted to make the reveal - the reader was supposed to have read the blurb before reading the book to put the reader in a privileged position vs. the first person narrator.

Neil's review discusses it perfectly (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...?) - would love to see what others think about a novelist "spoiling" his own novel, and doing so via the publisher's blurb.

Thanks, Paul. I was about to add a similar comment. Keen to know what others think about this.

I will let you know when I have read Solar Bones, but that may take some time (I have two books from the 1978 Booker shortlist to collect tonight and another 40 or so books in the backlog, so the Goldsmiths shortlist is on the back burner for now)...

Here is a fun article from the Guardian on the topic of spoilers:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...

A goodreads link where this and related opinions can be found:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

i read often the same book more than once, so obviously i do not consider spoilers to be negative. in fact, knowing the story means you read it differently- less surface glitter, less 'what' is the story, more 'how' the story is told, plot, characters, poetics, translation...

It is not just translators - a lot of "classics" editions come with introductions and these often contain spoilers too. I still think it depends a lot on genre and the author's intentions.

I find it interesting how some people recommend a book or movie and then tell you what it's about. I usually say "OK, now I don't need to read or see it." (They just look at me like I have 3 heads). That's obviously untrue with stories as Govnyo points out that are unspoilable. I still like to discover all the riches it contains myself.

The thing is, I don't want to be surprised or thrilled. (I read books from both ends, even mysteries.) What I want to know is how the book is made, whether it falls into any easy formula, whether the promise of the early parts will be borne out, a guess at the major themes, subtext -- etc. I find it difficult to say anything meaningful without the whole book because any worthwhile book is a web, a net, not just a string of knots. Well, I've messed up far too often, so I tend to read the book and follow on with the discussion but keep quiet. I never seem to be on schedule anyway.

I am not that annoyed at all when I know how a book will end. Sometimes it's more about how we got to that point, or the character's progression, etc. I thought that article was brilliant and had some great, valid points about the reading experience. I really liked the line "Spoilers are about the what; great stories interest themselves in the hows and the whys." This is pretty much how I look at a reading experience, a novel, a play, or a short story.

Oh, and I had a literature professor in college that would totally would give up the ending of a book we were going to launch into, to the chagrin of many students (groaning a sigh). He always said, "Hey, it's not really about the ending, anyway" just in a matter of fact, nonchalent way....(You could guess that he wasn't too popular). So, I already knew the ending of 1984 before I read it the first time...no biggie.

Viv wrote: "There seems to have been a lot of discussion in different groups on GR lately about spoiler alerts. I loved this article as it pretty much sums up how I feel:

http://lithub.com/spoiler-alerts-any..."

I can still enjoy a book after it being spoiled but I completely disagree, it does take something away from the experience. I like mystery, that is part of the enjoyment of picking up a book for the first time. The less I know, the better. A lot of the time, I don't even read summaries, particularly if it's an author I love.

I agree. When I was still acting, friends would ask me if they should read the play before seeing it. I would always say "definitely not." It's a treat to see a play or read a book you know nothing about.

I very rarely re-read but my sister is always telling me I should and insists that you don't know a good book after one reading...

Ali Smith said the same in one of her books. She said we wouldn't dream of saying we knew a piece of music or art with just one listen or look, but we often seem to think we know a book after just one reading.

Jan wrote: "I agree. When I was still acting, friends would ask me if they should read the play before seeing it. I would always say "definitely not." It's a treat to see a play or read a book you know nothing..."

That's true. But somewhere in my sixties (and I am sorry now it took so long -- I guess I wanted to touch as much as possible of that big world out there), a couple of online readers/moderators convinced me and taught me the value of re-reading. It is no longer an either/or for me; still most often, a first read, but increasingly, at least a second read and occasionally even more, although not necessarily in the same modality, i.e., kindle versus paper versus audio versus transformation into another media entirely.

For me, classics do still seem to most often have the sufficient depth and subtlety to justify the additional value and pleasure that comes from re-reading. But that is a not totally defensible generalization.

When I commented that i like being surprised by books i read doesn't mean i don't value re-reading. When i first read a book, I'm not going to be able to soak it all in. It's the perfect time to enjoy the twists and turns and the prose. The re-read, to me, is when you dig deeper and observe the nuances and the philosophy behind it.

Nathan wrote: "When I commented that i like being surprised by books i read doesn't mean i don't value re-reading. When i first read a book, I'm not going to be able to soak it all in. It's the perfect time to en..."

I feel the same way. There is a special experience on the first read that is spoiled by spoilers. I love that feeling of surprise. It isn't the best thing about reading, but it is something you can only experience once. With a good book, you can enjoy the deeper observations and philosophy, as Nathan says, countless times. I prefer not to have that first read spoiled though.

Regarding Hugh, Neil, Lily, Nathan, and Kathleen's comments about rereading: I've been surprised by how much more I sometimes appreciate a novel when rereading it. Until recently, I've almost exclusively reread novels that I enjoyed during my initial reading. More recently, largely due to participating in on-line conversations such as these, I've reread novels that I did not especially enjoy on first reading. Some of these rereadings have led to much greater appreciation for and enjoyment of novels that I wasn't especially taken with initially, such as Iris Murdoch's The Sea, the Sea and even AS Byatt's Possession.

Of course I re-read. I probably have 2/3 of Hamlet committed to memory just from reading it so many times. I was only suggesting that having the opportunity to experience something without a preview (I have a friend that has to tell me the plot of a movie before I've seen it) is a joy. I've seen productions of Shakespeare too many time to count. Re-reading has its own rewards.

It depends on the book really. I'll never reread the storied life of aj fikry but i will reread infinite jest

To add some further fuel to the fire, there's this article:
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON SPOILERS.

What do you think? While I'm not particularly spoiler averse, I respect that many people are. Is there a time limit after which people have to accept that no one cares they haven't read or watched something yet?

One of the more interesting examples to come up recently is season one of the podcast "Serial". It's a case study of an actual crime, but there were always complaints about spoilers in articles or social media discussions of it. Can you "spoil" real life?

Regardless, I think my coworker who has just started watching season one of "Game of Thrones" walks the building at her own risk, especially on Monday mornings.

For more specific rules on spoilers, Collage Humor has their own take. Hopefully you won't find yourself in the knife fight situation:

Official Spoiler Rules

I don't mind spoilers in the majority of the cases. However, with certain genres and certain book series for example, it can ruin the reading experience for me. There are genres, where I feel like the guessing game or experiencing plot twists is a part of the experience and is part of the grade I would give to a novel / is a specific feature of the genre.
I don't like major spoilers in investigate crime / mystery stories and thrillers, because being spoilt for those kind of defeats the purpose of the genre.

I also hate it when I am spoilt about which major character is going to killed off in a series that I'm invested in.

On the other hand, a lot of people are too spoilerphobic, and diss other people for "spoiling" minor plot points or even a fragment of a dialogue... when, in some cases, you cannot actually give a proper reasoning for a grade you want to give in a review without spoiling minor things / giving examples... or if you don't want to spoil anything, your reasoning becomes too vague.
I also don't understand grown people (I mean mostly 25+) who moan and whine for running into spoilers for classic movies and films which have been written / made 10+ years beforehand.