This is not true at all. All you are doing is changing the manner and time at which the unknown has become known.
Rather than discovering that they have received a free switch by seeing the Nintendo logo behind a piece of paper, they have discovered it by hearing and processing spoken language.
Theyâre very different debates. The first set would never have happened. Could never have happened.
A different one would have happened. It is even possible a better one would have happened instead. What you call spoilers could have actually been spice that made things better.
Sure - so instead of unwrapping it, you got to see it all splayed out. Did someone tell you there was a GC there, or did you walk into the room to make the discovery yourself? I can get behind that too.
@Apreche, I think the crux of this might be back to Old Man Scott who has lost all sense of what itâs like to experience wonder, suspense, anticipation, surprise, etc. If youâve decided you donât want or have otherwise suppressed that desire for exploration and discovery, then thereâs not much more to say. âFuck this treasure map with the X-marks-the-spot bullshit, just tell me exactly where the treasure chest is and whatâs in it.â
You seem to completely not understand, or not value the experience of discovering something for yourself as opposed to someone telling you something. In the present case, for most people, the act of opening the present and discovering what the present was is much more powerful than someone handing you a present and telling you âItâs a Switch.â
This seems overly simplistic. I agree that good art generally does (and should) not rely by necessity on the element of surprise, though perhaps thereâs room for future artistic geniuses to come up with something truly amazing.
But I wasnât talking about the entire experience; just part of it. Surely good art can still have parts that can be spoiled, even if the overall experience is worthwhile whether spoiled or not?
Art that is big enough to have parts can have good parts and bad parts. Something that only has a relatively small number of bad parts can still be overall good.
I did not know there was a GC there, I walked into the room, alone before anyone was up in very dim light and discovered it for myself. It was layed out in an appealing sort of way with the GC in the center and the games resting against it. One of my fondest xmas memories.
Not really in defense of spoilers here, but just an interesting idea. It seems as though the people who donât like spoilers enjoy the time they spend between episodes discussing things. I enjoy that well enough but thatâs largely gone away in recent times thanks to netflix letting me consume an entire series in one night.
Do the anit-spoiler people prefer the one episode a week model?
In your example though, you still get to experience the surprise of walking into the room and discovering that you got a GameCube. It doesnât matter if it was wrapped or not, no one told you ahead of time.
This is certainly true, I was just sorta saying the example of a wrapped present didnât work for me as a wrapped gift is inherently inferior to an unwrapped one. No work of unwrapping and tossing out the paper to be done.
OK; so anything spoilable is a âbad partâ of an artwork. If many people claim to derive significant enjoyment from those âbad partsâ, what is wrong with them? Are they mistaken about their own enjoyment, or somehow deficient as people?
The wrapping paper is immaterial. Itâs about discovering what the present was, experiencing that surprise and joy for yourself, versus someone just telling you that you were getting a GameCube.
Will a person still enjoy the Switch or the GameCube regardless? Sure, but the experience of discovery is forever lost. That moment has a distinct emotional value that can never be replicated in that context.
Thatâs what Scott doesnât understand. He seems to attribute the same emotional value to his first viewing of Evangelion as to his seventh, or whatever. He might enjoy the show the same each time, but the emotional value he is deriving from the show is different each time, or at least it is in other people. I have no idea what emotional value Scott derives from things, which is leading to this discussion.
Go to some kids and TELL them âYouâre going to Disney World!â
Assuming those kids want to go to Disney, they are going to scream and jump up and down.
Putting some Disney tickets in an envelope and having the kids open the envelope, and theyâll still jump up and down and scream. Whatâs the difference? Is one really more powerful than the other?
What Iâm saying is that our culture has faith in the power of surprise, and I donât buy it. Surprise is vastly overvalued and overrated.
The fact that someone got a Switch for free is the reason to be excited. If the discovery is the good part, why not just have an empty Switch box and unwrap it over and over again?
I think the reason that people overvalue surprise is not because people like being surprised so much. I think it is because people like being surprise-ers. People give gifts in a wrapped present mostly because itâs more fun for the giver, not because it is more fun for the receiver.
Jumping from behind a door and going âbooâ is fun for the jumper, and in many cases might actually be a negative experience for the person who was jumped. Someone who makes art that has nothing to offer beyond surprise is no better than a kid who loves to jump out from behind the door. Fuck 'em, and whatever theyâre selling.
Absolutely and unequivocally YES! And if you canât realize this, thereâs really no point continuing this discussion.
It means they enjoy disposable low art. I enjoy Initial D. People enjoy eating fast food. Other than the negative health effects of fast food, nothing is wrong with that.
All they have to do is two things.
One, admit that itâs crap even though they like it.
Two, now that they have admitted itâs crap, stop putting a ridiculous burden on themselves and others to avoid spoilers. I admit I like Initial D, and that it is crap. If itâs such crap that I like anyway, who fucking cares if itâs spoiled? Spoil it or not, who gives a shit? You have to be a moron to not realize Takumi wins every race anyway.
Prove it.
In more than 15 characters.
For someone who references the âTerrible Secret of Spaceâ so often, it seems like you want nothing to do with Terrible Secrets of Space.
Also @Apreche I think youâre taking an overly narrow view of how spoilers can affect enjoyment. Surprise is not the only relevant mechanism.
I presume you would agree that a puzzle is a worthwhile (and not âlowâ) source of enjoyment. Itâs obvious that being told the solution to a puzzle is a completely different (and inferior) experience to solving it on your own.
Couldnât a worthwhile piece of art incorporate some kind of puzzle as a centerpiece?
Invent a time machine, or a machine that can travel between alternate realities, where we can run an experiment and Iâll be happy to.