Monthly Archives: August 2012

Alas, Spoilers

(A spoiler free blog post on the topic of spoilers)

After starting this blog, I’ve been reflecting on the implications of spoilers in our society.  For years, I’ve noticed, both in myself and others, strong emotional reactions to being spoiled or even to the very idea of spoilers.  From the glee of finding out a plot twist early, to the agony of finding out about the untimely death of a favorite protagonist, spoilers seem powerful.  People may even feel powerful themselves when spoiling another person intentionally.  On the other hand, people go to great lengths to avoid being spoiled.  With changing technologies in recent years, its become more challenging to remain “spoiler free.”  I even noticed this with the 2012 Olympics.  While I actually didn’t mind for the Olympics, I was spoiled many times by friends on Facebook, Twitter, and by news sources.  I found an interesting news article related to spoilers and the Olympics that flies in the face of “commonsense”.  NBC found that “[p]eople who watched the events live earlier in the day via computer screen watched the tape-delayed broadcast 50 percent longer than those who hadn’t.”  This type of research doesn’t tell us why this occurred, but the article goes on to discuss the fact that this might change how NBC covers the next Olympic games.  (Also, check out the comments in the bottom.  There are some irate people who have been spoiled by NBC.)

Years ago, I cared deeply about avoiding spoilers because I felt like it reduced the emotional authenticity of my experience when reading (or watching).  Over time, it’s mattered to me less, although I still try to avoid major Doctor Who spoilers.  My spouse, knowing my position on spoilers, recently shared a study with me that has been making its way around the main stream media.  I haven’t read the original, experimental research yet, but the various news articles appear to agree that, at least for short stories, participants preferred the versions with the spoilers.  If you want to read more, this UC San Diego piece explains it.  Although this is limited research, and I’d like to see more studies specifically looking at novels, movies, and tv shows, I think this does question the typical belief that many of us hold.

And I’m writing a blog that looks at novels and culture.  What is a reviewer to do?  Some people get incredibly upset if they get spoiled on the most minor of details, while others only care about the ending. Furthermore, some people don’t care at all or actively seek spoilers.  I recently read a blog post by Maria Popova titled, “John Updike on the Ethics and Poetics of Criticism.”  I think that many of her ideas are spot on for what I’m trying to do with this blog.  As she notes, “[w]e need to relearn the skills of making the criticism constructive rather than destructive,” and she refers to a list of rules by John Updike on constructive reviewing.  Although I find all six relevant to writing a review, he notes his thoughts on spoilers.  According to Popova, Updike states,

“Go easy on plot summary, and do not give away the ending. (How astounded and indignant was I, when innocent, to find reviewers blabbing, and with the sublime inaccuracy of drunken lords reporting on a peasants’ revolt, all the turns of my suspenseful and surpriseful narrative! Most ironically, the only readers who approach a book as the author intends, unpolluted by pre-knowledge of the plot, are the detested reviewers themselves. And then, years later, the blessed fool who picks the volume at random from a library shelf.)”

I wonder what Updike would have thought about the recent study about spoilers.  I certainly don’t want to give away plot like a “drunken lord”, and I want to respect people’s feelings about spoilers.  On the other hand, I need to discuss characters, plot, and scenes if I want to give a good sociological analysis of what ever book or aspect of culture I am observing.  I realized that this can be a difficult balance to strike in my first posts, making me curious about what other people think.

Questions:

(1) Do you care about spoilers? Why or why not?

(2) What is the most memorable time you’ve been spoiled?  How did it make you feel?

(3) If you care, how do you try to avoid them?

(4) Would you expect that a blog like this should avoid any spoilers?  Major spoilers?

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Social Inequality in “Leviathan Wakes”

“‘Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “We stand at a crossroads.  On one hand, there is the very real threat of mutual annihilation.  On the other…’ He paused for effect.  “On the other, the stars.”

– James S.A. Corey

[Spoiler’s Ahoy: read at your own risk!]

In an attempt to read all the Hugo nominees for best novel before voting happened at the end of July, I tackled “Leviathan Wakes” by James S.A. Corey after “Among Others.” Although this book didn’t charm me like “Among Others,” there is a great deal to analyze from a sociological perspective.  This book is the first in a trilogy.  The second book, “Caliban’s War,” is out, but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet.  Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to read it later this year.  Once I finish my review of “Embassytown,” I plan to review books outside of the sci-fi and fantasy genre.

One of the reasons that I love reading science fiction is that it deals with differing cultures and conflicts between them.  “Leviathan Wakes” doesn’t disappoint in this regard, but its real strength lies in the fact that it is set only centuries in the future. A great deal of science fiction tends to either be set so far in the future as to be unrecognizable in how it relates to our society today, or it is set in the immediate future.  This means that in Corey’s universe, many of the conflicts faced are familiar and relevant to today’s struggles in a globalizing world.

Humans have colonized Mars, moons, and asteroid belts, but they have not been able to venture farther due to technological limitations.  Many advances in science and medicine have occurred compared to our current level of understanding.  However, for all the advances, many of the same problems that plague us today still exist including potential war, mutual annihilation, inequality, inappropriate use of science and technology, among many other problems.  As a species, we still face boundaries, although they are outside of Earth’s atmosphere.  There are still limited resources.  The general structure of the book is a space opera, and the characters spend a great deal of time swashbuckling in space.  Similar to our world, there are conflicts between cultures on the different planets and asteroids.  Corey portrays inequality in the midst of the action.  You get to see how people of different social classes live.  It seems that capitalism and trade have continued into the future.  Money continues to relate to power and inequality.  There is a great deal of tension over resources, especially in the Belt.  The interplay between governments and different organizations in the book was fascinating.  This book would work well if a social-conflict theorist wanted to point out how inequality privileges some while disadvantaging others.

There are two main point of view characters whose experiences throughout the duration of the book lead to a better understanding of the universe.  One, Holden, is originally from Earth, and he is an executive officer on a spaceship called the Canterbury.  (The naming of ships in this books seems significant.  The Canterbury originally transported immigrants from colonies, and in Holden’s time is a transport for a corporation selling water.) On the other hand, Miller favors a noir detective, and he helps the reader understand what life is like for people on the Belt.  These characters eventually come together, and they are used well by Corey to show how two men from different cultures will react very differently to the same events.  What seems like villainy from one context might seem like heroism from another.  Many of the characters are practicing ethnocentrism, judging situations based on their own cultural context, without considering how another would view the situation from a different culture.  Environment plays a huge role in shaping culture.  On a planet with (relatively) unlimited resources, the cultural values will be shaped differently than on a space station where all there is complete reliance on trade for survival.  I thought that Corey did a fantastic job of illustrating this through interactions between the characters over unfolding situations in the plot.

Although this book was set in the future, I felt that many things may have been too similar to our society. (Or perhaps, I hope that in a few centuries, less inequality would exist.) For example, gender roles seemed very similar to gender roles today.  Competent women did seem to be more accepted by the society, but the main pov characters were both men.  Naomi, although I loved the character, fulfills gender roles as a love interest for one of the main characters.  However, she is a competent character who, at many times, makes better decisions that Holden.   Since the book was going for a space opera and noir feel, I understand these choices, too.  On the other hand, Julie Mao, the young woman that the detective is hunting for seems like a compassionate, competent woman who stands up to her wealthy parents and tries to live a different life. She’s off-screen for most of the book, though, so I still have some of the same points as I did for Naomi.

“Leviathan Wakes” is a fast paced romp that manages to be a space opera while also covering important societal issues.  I would highly recommend this book, and I look forward to reading the next book in the trilogy.  I think that in a different field of contenders for the Hugo, I would have selected it.  However,  “Among Others” and “Embassytown,” also explored fascinating ground.

Recommended for lovers of: sci-fi and fantasy, space opera, noir, detectives, adventure, culture, inequality

Questions that I’m left with:

(1) Are my critiques of gender in the book fair?  What do you think?

(2) Is Corey right that we would continue to have the same problems in our human cultures if we were able to go to space?  Is inequality inevitable?

4 Comments

Filed under Book Reviews, Science Fiction