Thursday, June 6, 2013

Shhh..... Spoilers!

On Wednesday June 5th, the free newspaper The Metro Herald published a spoiler-heavy article on Monday evening's Game of Thrones episode The Rains of Castamere.  The same day, I lost some Twitter followers for making what could be spoiler-y remarks about the same episode.  It got me thinking: what is the etiquette for spoiling something and are there exceptions to the rule?

Oh and... Spoilers abound, for Game of Thrones up to and including The Rains of Castamere, the Doctor Who episode The Angels Take Manhattan, and also for Harry Potter.  All of them.


I was super pissed off a few months ago when I had Amy and Rory's last Doctor Who episode, The Angels Take Manhattan, ruined on me by a fan page on Facebook.  As most of you probably know, it ends with the Doctor standing by Amy and Rory's graves.  My problem was that I hadn't watched the episode yet.  I know what you're thinking: "Just watch the episode already, Emma!" That's fair enough, there are numerous resources for this, but I hadn't got around to doing it and it was only the day after the episode was broadcast.  An Australian girl in the comments who was also giving out had better legs to stand on, they're a week behind, but I was outraged on my own behalf and on other's.

Then this week, I made a remark about how Richard Madden, who plays Robb Stark on Game of Thrones, could play the next Doctor, because he's now free.  I hashtagged it with #RobbStark #RedWedding and #GameOfThrones, and rather carelessly I posted it before the episode had aired in Ireland.  Rightly so, I annoyed people and they unfollowed me.  But in my mind I hadn't actually spoiled it; I thought it was an oblique enough reference if you didn't know anything about the episode.  It could just refer to the fact that GOT was winding up for the year.  But obviously it annoyed people and I should have been more careful and left it later, and I am very sorry for that.

Not as sorry as the Metro though, which today published several letters from angry readers who hadn't gotten around to watching the episode yet, complaining about the lack of spoiler warnings.  In Metro's defence, they DID warn people on the cover, but apparently not clearly enough, and also the episode had been broadcast well over 24 hours previously.  On the other hand they published huge page-sized photos of the pivotal moment in the episode.

Usually I think spoiler etiquette is pretty clear.  Something new comes out, you give people a chance to watch/read it, and then it can be discussed.  For example, film critics don't give out huge plot detail in their reviews, game reviewers don't give away the ending, book readers don't go around telling everyone the twist in the tale.  For movies, maybe give them till they come out of the cinema before doing away with your spoiler warnings.  Books, a good few months anyway, people read at different speeds.  TV shows, until the next episode is broadcast (sorry again).

But here's the thing - this is were it gets murky, for me at least.  Game of Thrones is a TV show still in the process of being broadcast.  A Song of Ice and Fire, the book series on which it is based, had its first volume published in 1996 - 17 years ago.  The latest book came out in 2011.  A Storm of Swords, the book the current series is based on, was published in 2000.  Robb Stark has been dead for 13 years - is it really a spoiler to discuss it because of the TV show?

I'll bring you back here to my anger on the Doctor Who spoilage; that to me is a whole other issue.  Doctor Who comes out once a week during its run and is not based on anything else - it is its own source material, its own original story that is evolving all the time.  This is why I was angry.  I have no source for Doctor Who apart from its weekly broadcasts.  There are no books that I can check out of the library to find out what happens down line.

Okay, so people can't be forced to read A Song of Ice and Fire.  That's fair enough.  But there is an awful lot of grey area here.  Thirteen years is an awful long spoiler buffer; people should be prepared to discover things they would rather not.  I would never ask anyone to give up social media until they've watched what they need to, that's stupid.  This is why there are spoiler warnings, this is why I tweeted obliquely and did not just outright say "Robb Stark would make a great Doctor what with his being horribly murdered now and all." I would argue that my tweet was only a spoiler if you already knew that something was afoot at the wedding.

Also here's something to give a little perspective: Robb Stark died in A Storm Of Swords, published 2000.  Albus Dumbledore perished five years later, in The Half-Blood Prince.  Is it still considered a spoiler to say that? No.  You could argue that that's because the film of the book has been out years, but I don't think that's what it is.  People were expected to have read the book by the time the film came out.

So here is my proposal, and I've mentioned it already here in the article: for TV shows, spoilers should be clearly marked until the next episode is broadcast.  Metro Herald abided by this rule as far as I can tell, by clearly stating on the front that they were discussing a shock twist and even helpfully providing the page number.  What more were they supposed to do? It's event television, it was shocking and it was a huge news story and deserved to be discussed.

What do you all think?

No comments:

Post a Comment