I did consider, after I hit "reply," how "surprise" is often considered a very important part of good poetry. I haven't reconciled yet but I'm working on it. I trust I am allowed room to think, consider, and refine. I don't disagree with your input on Gardner; I can't apologize for taking college level courses at 17, one of which was intro to the novel taught by a prof who was a self-admitted Gardner fan girl. And would have written me a fantastic letter of ref had I ultimately needed it. The ultimate point is Gardner makes is that, as a writer, you should be able to lay everything pertinent to a story out to a reader at the beginning and still tell a good story. To me this can absolutely include plot. Who doesn't trust someone who shares their opinion over someone who doesn't? But what I can't see is what is necessarily fundamentally wrong with distrusting an author or narrator if I choose. This fundamentally seems a matter of preference over right or wrong. I don't see the problem with having trust issues...with your authors or narrators of fiction, at least. Let's not extrapolate to real life; it isn't real life or necessarily really accurate, I think. In fiction, I'm allowed to opt out. That's half the point: fiction is an area of escape. If I don't like how the escape is going, why should I have to stick with it?
1) The ability to "lay everything pertinent to a story out to a reader at the beginning and still tell a good story" is in no way compromised by writing unpredictably. The outcome of Gift of the Magi is laid out "pertinently" at the beginning and it's still a good story and it's a twist ending in like 2500 words. This is the same argument as before: "surprises" are simply story elements that are not the first, most obvious conclusions. If they're done well they're beyond complaint. If they're done poorly, "I like spoilers." 2) The problem is not "distrusting an author or narrator if I choose." The problem is choosing to trust someone else more. Let's say you watch The Bachelor. Let's say you like "Steve's" spoilers. That means you prefer The Bachelor as related by an internet parasite over The Bachelor as related by its creators. There is no way to have your "spoilers" without handing the narrative over to a third party. Sure - maybe you trust your friends' reactions to a film more than you trust the creators. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about forum comments. And I have no idea why anyone would choose to have Reddit, Hubski, Slashdot, Facebook, whoever be the lens through which to view any art but the most loathesome. When you view the work as intended, it is a direct transmission between you and the author (I know you love your King). When you view the work as spoiled, it is a game of telephone between you, the author, and some random twitbag on the Internet. Again - fine for you. You're not impacting my ability to enjoy art or media in the slightest. But you're also not convincing me your position has merit.
To revisit a much earlier comment you made: "The writer should be able to present her narrative as she sees fit." - and she has, by producing her book. That is her presentation. I feel like we have talked on Hubski before about how, once the book goes out into the world, it's up to the audience to interpret and react to it as they see fit. Here The author doesn't get to say, "No, you're reading it WRONG! That's not what I meant! That's not what it means!" The author does not get to dictate how the audience responds or interprets or engages with the book. The author cannot say literary interpretations or analysis are invalid simply because she does not like them or agree with them. She doesn't get to say, "No you can't love this character," or so on. I feel like the use of spoilers, or not, fits into this concept absolutely. ______________________ Wikipedia. Just the facts, ma'am, as some cowboy would say. (Fig 1) - Say I'm watching Grey's and there's this new character introduced mid-way through Season 5 and I just hate her. She annoys me. It pisses me off that she's on the show. I also know, due to prior reading, that during Season 4 and 5, ratings took a slump for the show, which is attributed to poorer overall quality as a result of the writer's slump. So...I know I'm not getting the Grey's I exactly love at the moment. And this character makes me nuts. Every time she comes on screen, I make a noise of disgust. I'm faced with a (first world style) dilemma. If I really loathe this character it's going to put me off of Grey's. The longer she's on, the more I'm going to stop enjoying the show. So, I think to myself...Hmm, maybe the character is going to die! Maybe this episode! (Then she doesn't die.) I'm still frustrated. I want the character gone. A horrible thought strikes me. What if the character is going to become permanent cast? That would suck. I don't know if I could stand to keep watching Grey's to the end if she's going to be there, at least in this iteration. So I go to Wikipedia. I don't ask my friends, they don't remember. I don't check Reddit because, what, is there like a grey's anatomy subreddit? They're not going to tell me what I want to know unless I post a self-post and that's just stupid. I guess I could google blogs and check them, but that's not going to tell me what I really want to know, which is just, "Is this character going to stay or go or what?" Voila! I find out the character leaves in S5E15! That's only...cripes, that's only 6 episodes from where I am. I can bear it. I also find out that she leaves because it turns out she cheated her way into the program. I am mollified. My dislike of her is justified. She is a terrible person, only we don't truly know that yet. Because of both these factors I am pleased and choose to continue the show instead of at least walking away for the time. If anything, my enjoyment of the storyline has increased because I checked the future plotline. (Fig 2) I read A Song of Fire and Ice. If you haven't caught it yet, rest of Hubski, Ned Stark dies at the end. I can't take the suspense leading up to his execution, though. I'm plagued with "Will he or won't he," so much so that it's distracting me from the actual details in the book and I find myself just wanting to skip to the end to find out what happens. I'm ruining the story for myself because of my anticipation. So, I look it up online. Knowing that he dies, I can continue to read the story in peace and actually absorb the details instead of anxiously skimming until the execution scene and then having to re-read the prior 50 pages. (Fig 3) I'm watching some movie I found on Netflix. From what I'm picking up in clues and foreshadowing, it seems like {some thing} is going to happen. But in my opinion, if that thing happens, I feel the movie will be cheapened, its overall quality will lessen, and I will find the story disappointing, predictable, and/or just icky. Not to my taste. I want to know if this thing is going to happen because if it is, fuck this movie, it's not worth my time. So I look it up on Wikipedia, find out what happens, and am able to decide. There are times I have no urge to spoil books or movies. They are not frequent but they happen; usually it is a sign that I am enjoying the media, or that it simply doesn't matter to me much what the plot actually does. I'm reading Don Quixote. I don't know what happens next nor would I be motivated enough to look. I watched The House of Yes and found the storytelling so skilled, subtle, and different from most movies that, while I was able to pick up on undertones in the script and movie and guess some of what would happen, I enjoyed the artistry behind those undertones, enjoyed not being totally sure (but being pretty sure), and I enjoyed watching it all play out. It's like novelty accounts on Reddit. If I check a username before I read a comment and see it's a novelty account, I know not to even bother. There's no spoiler that would have made me not go see the new Star Wars. But there's no spoiler that would have ruined the film for me either. I just don't experience that side of spoilers, I'd say 90% of the time. It doesn't matter to me if I know the plot ahead of time and in fact it might help sway me one way or another when it comes to consuming the media. ___ Steve and the Bachelor tie in here because Steve is the person who collects Bachelor spoilers. You couldn't pull up Wikipedia and check; the producers are going to edit that shit. But what I'm saying is that my feelings about spoilers have nothing to do with getting them from a commentator like Steve or other blogs or my friends or Facebook at all. If spoilers come to me via those methods, hey, sure, that's fine. I realize I used the Star Wars example and talked about asking my friends to spoil it. I didn't ask them because I wanted their lens. I would have inadvertently gotten it, sure, but it would have been collateral to the point, which was to gather facts. And in that way, I would think that this is more about distrusting the narrator or author than trusting someone else more. And I have been thinking about it tonight and I cannot think why distrusting the author/narrator/whatever is really that bad of a thing. After all, we all saw Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars. Could you really trust George Lucas to put out a good movie after that? Could you blame me if I didn't? No matter how many times I read LOTR my heart is still in my throat when I read, "The Eagles are coming!" No matter how many times I watch Silent Hill, Triangle-Head is still terrifying and the ending is still - silencing. Any movie where it turns out at the end, the sickly sweet wholesome teen queen dies of cancer? Nope, not interested, let me know she dies and count me the fuck out.
Nothing you write contravenes what I wrote. 1) You still are trusting others (in this case, Wikipedia) more than the author, and you are still allowing a dry outline to replace the narrative. You are still allowing an intermediation between you and the story and the best part is that you defend this practice by saying "but I enjoy stuff more when I don't trust the author." And you don't even see that you've created a vicious circle for yourself. 2) You are admitting that you don't even give a fuck where the spoilers come from, you are literally trusting anyone else with your entertainment over the author. Ned Stark dies barely 200 pages in, by the way - nowhere near the end. Which matters, and which shapes the story, and which absolutely shapes the experience with the book, and which since you weren't forced to pay attention, all you have now is a loosey-goosey don't-really-understand, don't-really-care experience with the material. 3) By allowing Wikipedia to let you know when your least-favorite Gray's character leaves, you rob yourself of the joyful experience of seeing how the creators dispatch them. You're so wrapped up in the meta that you're willing to burn the narrative. Really - you're stating that you'd rather read about reading than read. That you'd rather read Wikipedia than George RR Martin. Your opinion of George Lucas is pretty firmly cemented - is Wikipedia going to tell you anything to change your mind? Apparently it didn't even tell you that he had nothing to do with the new movie. You haven't counter-argued, you've elaborated. What's wrong with not trusting authors? As an author, fuck you.
shrug I guess all I can say is, well, it don't bother me for all it bothers all of you. Let's not act like I checked Wikipedia for spoilers for the new Star Wars when it's been clearly stated throughout this thread that I didn't spoil it for myself and neither did anyone else. That would of course explain why I had no idea whether or not Lucas was involved, though. I don't replace one with the other; I read both. Although I would rather read Wiki than Martin at this point. I haven't been a fan for a long time. For that author part of you? If this is the worst that readers can do to your book, then I think you'll come out okay.