I'll admit I'm not a fan of the mystery genre. I will watch them on television, but usually only once. The entire genre relies too much on the plot revelation of "whodunnit". The challenge in solving it before or with the characters has its appeal, but I'm a scientist, and already faced with plenty of mysteries in reality. I don't need to consume more mysteries for entertainment purposes. Besides, I find most mysteries tedious and obvious. If on TV, the killer is usually one of the first three people interviewed by the detectives, or the biggest guest star in the episode. Too obvious. I can appreciate a well-crafted mystery, but if The Mousetrap
asks me to keep quiet about the solution to the mystery after I leave, does that mean the playwright thought the solution was the only worthwhile part of the play? Are the characters otherwise uninteresting and the plot otherwise pointless?
I much prefer stories that have what I refer to as "rewatchability" or "re-readability", stories that can be enjoyable more than once. What's the point in collecting a large library of stories (such as I have, and maybe others do) if they're not going to be enjoyed more than once?
Still, my original position stands. The concept of what constitutes "spoilers" has grown out of control, now encompassing any
information about any
detail of any
story that anyone
hasn't learned yet. It's ridiculous. If you don't like being spoiled, fine, but that means it's on you (the general you, not you specifically Christopher
) to avoid the spoilers, not on me to help you do so.