A Critique of the Article: “Spoiler alert: Stories are not spoiled by ‘spoilers’”
I was recently compelled to read the article, “Spoiler alert: Stories are not spoiled by ‘spoilers’,” which describes a psychological study conducted at the University of California, San Diego to assess the impact of spoilers on readers. In fact, the article appears to be a press release from the university. Also, I have not read the actual study. This is a critique of the article (i.e., press release) describing the study, in which subjects reported a better reading experience when they were provided spoilers for stories that they were assigned to read.
That said, my thoughts are as follows:
- There is no stipulation that the subjects were avid readers. Thus, knowing the end of a story might have enabled them to skip more of the text, providing the non-reader with a more pleasant “reading” experience.
- Even if the subjects were avid readers, there is no guarantee that he or she would be likely to enjoy all of the stories that were provided, regardless of spoilers. While a spoiler at the midnight launch party of a much-anticipated Stephen King novel could cause a showdown in the Barnes & Noble coffee shop, similar information for an obscure John Updike short story might be happily received.
- The literary stories were the least popular, with or without spoilers. This is interesting, because the enjoyment of a literary story should be more about the journey than its conclusion. The problem here is likely that, in order to instill a love of reading in school children, literary stories are xeroxed, distributed, assigned, read, skimmed, cliff-noted, highlighted, analyzed, discussed, lost and recycled. By the time a student is done learning to love reading, he or she can’t wait to read the next J.K. Rowling book, spoilers be damned.
- Any person who is actively avoiding spoilers would not have read this article, as it begins with the phrase, “Spoiler alert.”

