Should threads in the recommendation forum contain spoiler warnings?

[DiapDealer]

For the record: I voted "I don't care one way or another". It is ultimately my responsibility to stay away from conversations where things I may not want to know might be being discussed. It's not up to others to self-redact for my sake.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by John F

And as far as length, I've read and enjoyed A Tale of Two Cities and the EPUB page count (818) is less than the Jane Eyre (1071). And Great Expectations comes in at 1048.

But then there’s David Copperfield, Bleak House, Our Mutual Friend, Nicholas Nickelby etc., and that’s just Dickens. But read Great Expectations instead, by all means; it’s my favorite Dickens.

I see you voted for it when it was chosen; I thought your MO was to vote and read. My mistake.

And vice versa? If everyone knows the classics, and there is no need to do spoilers, surely they have been discussed to death and any new discussions will add nothing new other then how people "feel".

Part of the appeal of the classics is that there’s so much depth to them; there’s always the possibility of new insights and greater understanding. However, I don’t take your comment seriously.

[binaryhermit]

I think it's best to err on the side of spoiler tagging spoilers, from the Wheaton's Law standpoint.

Wheaton's Law can be paraphrased as "Don't be a jerk"

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by gmw

I can just imagine you sitting down to read The Raven and saying: "ah, so that's what that episode of The Simpsons was about".

Or maybe with Wuthering Heights with the exclamation: "Dave Allen did that so much better!"

Some people, like me, have never watched the Simpsons or Dave Allen.

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

For the record: I voted "I don't care one way or another". It is ultimately my responsibility to stay away from conversations where things I may not want to know might be being discussed. It's not up to others to self-redact for my sake.

But how can you tell the difference? Especially when a thread is just the title of the book and gives no indication that it's a discussion therefore there will be spoilers.

I remember being castigated for asking if a cat died at the end of a book I wanted to read - I didn't want to be upset. People went crazy at me for soliciting spoilers when a pm would have told me about the cat's fate.

I'm in favour of spoiler tags. There are many classics I haven't yet read but intend to; for example, I've deliberately not read all of Dickens because I was so disappointed when I had no more Hardy to read.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by BookCat

But how can you tell the difference? Especially when a thread is just the title of the book and gives no indication that it's a discussion therefore there will be spoilers.

Length, for one. If a post goes on for paragraphs, it’s presumably discussing the book. I agree that it would be assy to reveal a major plot point in a one-sentence squib. In any case, as I said in the thread that led to this poll, people should tread warily. I don’t think it’s that hard myself. For the record, I’m a total spoiler phobe and sometimes I’ve gotten caught. My biggest beef is with those who refer to later books in a series when discussing a particular book and I’m caught off-guard. But it should be obvious that you don’t do that.

I've deliberately not read all of Dickens because I was so disappointed when I had no more Hardy to read.

There’s always Trollope, whom I prefer to Dickens. I figure his roughly 60 novels will see me out, although I was a wee bit desolate when I had finished his two great six-novel series.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BookCat

But how can you tell the difference? Especially when a thread is just the title of the book and gives no indication that it's a discussion therefore there will be spoilers.

Just the Title?? That's already like a klaxxon going off for me, if it's the title of a book I've not read (and have an interest in doing so). I've no business even opening the thread that's titled after a book I'm looking forward to reading.

As to not knowing if I might ever want to read said book or not, it's unlikely I'd remember much spoilery detail from such a thread anyway. That's because I don't actually read book recommendation threads. I skim them. Precisely because I don't want much in the way of particulars when it comes to recommendations.

Look: the poll gave me choices, and my choice was I don't really care. I don't care because most people here aren't jerks, and they do tend to use spoiler tags. And for the few who occasionally don't, my own precautions suffice. Everybody doesn't have to walk around on tiptoe because I haven't gotten around to reading a book that most of the reading world already has.

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Just the Title?? That's already like a klaxxon going off for me, if it's the title of a book I've not read (and have an interest in doing so). I've no business even opening the thread that's titled after a book I'm looking forward to reading.

snip

Look: the poll gave me choices, and my choice was I don't really care. I don't care because most people here aren't jerks, and they do tend to use spoiler tags. And for the few who occasionally don't, my own precautions suffice. Everybody doesn't have to walk around on tiptoe because I haven't gotten around to reading a book that most of the reading world already has.

The thread which began this debate was posted by a newbie and entitled merely The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I was the first person to point out to the OP that spoiler warnings or tags were needed.

The thread was posted in Recommendations; when I clicked on it, I was not expecting plot details, merely either questions about whether it was worth reading, or where to obtain it (as the poster was new here) or any of the myriad possibilities which were in my mind when I opened the thread. I now know more about the ending than I wanted to.

Is the onus on thread participants to avoid opening threads just in case they contain spoilers, or upon the poster to make it clear that a thread may contain spoilers? I don't particularly want to tip-toe around mobileread fearing I'll trip over spoilers.

Could make more arguments in favour of spoiler warnings but my cat is in need of attention!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Is the onus on thread participants to avoid opening threads just in case they contain spoilers, or upon the poster to make it clear that a thread may contain spoilers?

Both.

Originally Posted by BookCat

I don't particularly want to tip-toe around mobileread fearing I'll trip over spoilers.

People who are extremely sensitive to, and averse to encountering spoilers should already be on tip-toe wherever books are being openly discussed and/or recommended. The more we look, the more we risk encountering something we don't wish to know (yet).

Do I wish more people used spoiler tags? Sure. Do I want someone to be punished, corrected, or castigated for "spoiling" something in The Hunchback of Notre Dame in a recommendation forum in 2021? Not even a little bit.

[binaryhermit]

What about the ending of the sixth Harry Potter book? The one that became a meme?

Spoiler:

Snape kills Dumbledore

[gmw]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Some people, like me, have never watched the Simpsons or Dave Allen.

The point of my examples was how widespread is the expectation that people are familiar with at least significant elements of classic works. I've already mentioned the Muppets. One of the Star Trek TNG movies references Ahab and his whale. And ten or so years ago I put up a quote from Moby Dick on the quote thread here that in light of this thread I see is a total spoiler since it gives away the plot and the ending. (Melville had never before nor later managed to be that succinct!) The list goes on and on.

It seems to me that when it comes to the older classics it is almost impossible to miss spoiler-ish references. Your best hope lies with the comedies (hence my earlier post) where you can think that they've changed things around enough to make it funny and untrue to the original. For example:

Spoiler:

Edgar Allen Poe did NOT use the line: "Eat my shorts!" in The Raven.

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Some people, like me, have never watched the Simpsons or Dave Allen.

It shows what a HORRIBLE person I am that my first reaction was "Dave Allen wouldn't point a finger at you for that"

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I can't get behind a blanket "no spoilers" in the recommendation forum. People could never agree on what actually constitutes a "spoiler in the first place. Some people really, really, really, REALLY nitpick over things that I would never bat an eye over.

"Why did you tell me the ship sank? You spoiled the end of the movie!"

In a discussion about spoilers years ago, somebody claimed that in a review of historical novels, you shouldn't spoil the ending of the American Civil War in a book because readers from other countries might not know how it ended.


Of course, people laughed at that. They also pointed out that was insulting to people from other countries. And there is a difference between "spoiling" the plot of a novel and spoiling the end of a very well-known historical event.

A gray area might be a lesser-known historical event. Some people were upset that the end of the miniseries Masada was spoiled for them when someone revealed

Spoiler:

that the Jewish rebels kill themselves and their children

. Is that a spoiler because fewer people would be familiar with the events?

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Critteranne

"Why did you tell me the ship sank? You spoiled the end of the movie!"

In a discussion about spoilers years ago, somebody claimed that in a review of historical novels, you shouldn't spoil the ending of the American Civil War in a book because readers from other countries might not know how it ended.


Of course, people laughed at that. They also pointed out that was insulting to people from other countries. And there is a difference between "spoiling" the plot of a novel and spoiling the end of a very well-known historical event.

A gray area might be a lesser-known historical event. Some people were upset that the end of the miniseries Masada was spoiled for them when someone revealed

Spoiler:

that the Jewish rebels kill themselves and their children

. Is that a spoiler because fewer people would be familiar with the events?

Interesting question.

Similarly, what about fiction that is old but obscure? Sure, most people probably know how Romeo & Juliet or Jane Eyre turned out. But what about other fiction from those eras that is less widely known?

Also, in the case of older books in general, how old would a book have to be before it was old enough for spoilers to not be necessary?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Interesting question.

Similarly, what about fiction that is old but obscure? Sure, most people probably know how Romeo & Juliet or Jane Eyre turned out. But what about other fiction from those eras that is less widely known?

Also, in the case of older books in general, how old would a book have to be before it was old enough for spoilers to not be necessary?

If it's fiction, I don't want any spoilers whatsoever. No matter how well-known a book is, someone may be reading it for the first time. I've been quite annoyed when the scholarly introduction to some classic book gives away various plot points, or even the entire plot. Gee, thanks for wrecking it for me.

Fear of spoilers is one reason I mostly avoid reviews--too many people are careless.