« May 05, 2005 | Main | May 10, 2005 »

May 06, 2005

basic definitions, the issue of spoilers - oh, and genre

There was an interesting discussion going on at The Mumpsimus about spoilers. Matthew Cheney doesn't like to use the term; thus this discussion that involved BionOc. I am providing part of one of BionOc's comments here:

I'm struggling to hammer out a working spoiler theory that, though I suspect somewhat philosophically incoherent, does address the actual experience of people-in-general interacting with fiction-in-general.



I keep coming back to the notion that narrative, while I agree it's no more important than other elements like characterization, political viewpoint, &c.;, is nonetheless qualitatively, experientially different. And different in a specific way such that plot spoilers, in general (working theory!), interfere with the experience of narrative more, and more negatively, than 'spoilers' about other aspects of a work.



From a purely narrative perspective, fiction is definitionally the deliberate juxtaposition/sequencing of events, ordered as the author intends the reader or viewer to experience them. Therefore, becoming aware of any event outside of that order disrupts the inherent experience of the narrative (as the author intended, anyway, a contentious point I know but for the sake of argument).

Once in a while you come across someone who has such a clear way of verbalizing a complex matter that you have to stop and simply appreciate it. This is such a case for me.

I've said before -- without apology -- that I'm one of those people who jump ahead and read the ending soon after I've started a novel. My excuse is that once I know where I'm headed, I can enjoy the ride.

It's also an occupational hiccup, this concern with process first and foremost. While I'm reading a story, or watching a movie, I'm keeping track of the narrative flow, the pacing and structure, the characterization, all the little things that add up to make the whole. If I get so involved in the story that I forget to pay attention to the proverbial man behind the curtain, the author has seduced me away from my workmanlike approach, and that's wonderful. Doesn't happen very often, but it's great when it does.

But BionOc points out something I should have been thinking about all these years. An author takes the story (what happened, chronologically) and rearranges it, with great care and thought, into a plot. By jumping ahead or jumping around, I'm messing with the plan. I can't do that when I go and sit in a movie theater, of course, but I have more control over the book in my hands. The question is, am I ruining the experience for myself by subverting the process? So I'm going to think about that now, with a slightly different perspective.

Of course, my habits are well ingrained and hard to change -- but who knows. Maybe when I'm tempted to jump ahead to the end of a book, I'll look at the author's name on the cover, think about the work that went into structuring the damn thing, and settle back down to read the story in the order he or she meant it to be read.

Also, while you're over at Matthew Cheney's weblog, you might want to read a very interesting essay on the question of genre and related issues, all of which followed from the assignment of a Stephen King novel in a college English class. It's called Genre and Pleasure, and you'll find it here.

12:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack