Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!Leban%hp-hulk.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
From: Leban%hp-hulk.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Telling the Plot
Message-ID: <2321@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 14:09:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.2321
Posted: Wed Jun 19 14:09:22 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 00:34:48 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 29

From: Bruce <Leban%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>


> From: sdcrdcf!barryg@topaz.arpa (Lee Gold)
> May I point out that ALL of us know the plot of Alice in Wonderland
> but I doubt if we think that ruins the book.  Do you people REALLY
> think that rereading a book can never possibly be as much fun as
> reading it the first time, because the book is -- horrors! -- "at
> least partially ruined"? .... Ah well, the same stupid attitude
> manifests itself in the popular use of the term "spoiler."
> *Grumph* again.

There was a recent poll among net.puzzle and (amazingly enough) most
people thought that solutions to puzzles should be marked with the
term "SPOILER", presumably under the impression that knowing the
answer somehow spoils the puzzle!

A good story needs to unfold and there's a certain magic in that.
Rarely will you get as much out of a book by reading all the
sentences backwards or starting in the middle (with the notable
exception of /Finnegan's Wake/).  When I read a book a second time, I
don't expect the same magic, but rather I'm looking for the
subtleties I may have missed the first time.  There is nothing quite
like being halfway through a mystery and having someone say "Oh yes,
isn't that the one where the pregnant ballerina is the murderer?"

Ah, it is so nice to get back to serious discussions after the recent
froth about "The Problems with SF Today."
-------