Matters/Antimatters: Spoilers

Howdy, y’all, I’m Kaitlin Heller, editorial assistant at Del Rey Books, and welcome to MATTERS / ANTIMATTERS, the new Suvudu/Tor.com joint venture!
In each post, I’ll discuss a topic of interest to the science fiction, fantasy and general genre community, and Steven Padnick, my *cough* colleague at Tor Books, will offer a response on Tor.com. Or vice versa.
Steven and I have a long-standing debate about spoilers. I’ve been known, on occasion, to flee the room while he discusses Battlestar Galactica with friends, or put my hands over my ears and yell “Puppies!” loudly when he brings up Angel seasons 1-4 (I’ve only seen 5). I am, to put it mildly, not the sort of person who would wear this t-shirt.
But as Steven pointed out in yesterday’s blog post, there are maybe sometimes possibly a few reasons why being spoilerphobic is a bad thing. Perhaps. Let’s examine, shall we?

The disadvantage of going second, of course, is that a lot of clever (and speedy) commenters have said what I’d say:
If the entertainment value of a thing can be ruined by learning the plot twists, isn’t that more reason not to ruin it, rather than less? It seems to me that a well-crafted, surprising plot is extraordinarily difficult to pull off–so if something’s ruined by spoilers, that doesn’t mean it’s inherently of less value. In fact, a tv-literate friend mentioned to me that she’s fine being spoiled for Gossip Girl, because it’s so predictable, the plot isn’t why she watches it anyway–but she would cut anyone who ruined Lost for her.
As for articles on the interwebs, sure, it’s reasonable not to seek out your own spoilerrific doom. But not every article declares what it’s spoiling at the beginning. If you were reading about Wheel of Time, for example, and suddenly you came across a mention that in The Fellowship of the Ring–SPOILER ALERT–Boromir snuffs it, you’d be miffed, right?
…Okay, I agree with Steven (and the inimitable Mr. Scalzi) there. After enough years, some things warrant a spoiler or two sans retribution.
But it’s extremely difficult to assess a work correctly when you’ve been biased by prior information and opinions. I hate going to a movie that’s been overhyped almost as much as I hate reading a book that somebody’s trashed–I can’t help seeing all the flaws they’ve pointed out, even if it’s a wonderful book.
Still, as Steven says, too much spoilerphobia can be very bad for a book’s publicity and marketing. But I think what this tells us is not that those of us who are afraid of spoilers should lighten up.
What makes a spoiler bad, fundamentally, is that it prevents someone from encountering media on their own terms. That says to me that we shouldn’t be afraid that broadcasting information will ruin fans’ enjoyment and turn them away. In fact, a new fad in publishing that seems pretty spoilertastic appears to be having just the opposite effect: digital downloads. More and more publishers are experimenting with giving away free content, to a very positive response.
Take also, for example, the leak of Midnight Sun, Stephanie Meyer’s planned fifth Twilight book, while it was still in draft form. Presumably the leak resulted from simple overenthusiasm, but once enough of it got out, Meyer was incensed–she wouldn’t finish the book. And then, suddenly, she changed her mind. Was it, perhaps, partially in response to “the outrageous number of emails . . . with questions concerning Midnight Sun“?
So in the end, I’m pretty anti-spoiler–but it’s because I think people should be able to experience and assess art on their terms, not because I think people shouldn’t know what they’re buying. If they don’t mind spoilers, bully for them. I’ll still be over here with my fingers in my ears if you’re discussing Cylons.
And Steven: thanks for that crack about Starbuck, by the way. You know I’m only up to “Pegasus.” When we get home, I’ll tell you all about the very long night of Londo Mollari. We’re definitely out of statutory spoiler range on that one.