In Defense of Spoilers: Knowledge Good

With the release of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I've another opportunity to indulge in a favorite pastime of mine: Posting spoilers for movies on random forums / blogs. There are a few reasons why I enjoy this activity. The first is that I enjoy pissing people off and inciting arguments, both of which result from posting spoilers. Second, posting spoilers has the chance of sparking a chorus of "You shouldn't post spoilers" comments which I personally enjoy because there's no sensible fucking foundation upon which that stance is founded.

If you think about it the desire to not know what will happen is fundamentally an argument in favor of ignorance. Granted, with regard to movie spoilers this is a contextual, entertainment based ignorance, but none the less it is ignorance all the same. I think it is safe to say that a preference for ignorance is itself ignorant despite that whole Old Testament "Tree of Good and Evil" malarkey.

Also, one needs to question the notion of timing with regard to spoilers. If a person plans to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull at seven p.m. and at six p.m. a friend tells them a bit of information they would not have known until 7:18 p.m. while watching the movie then, really, that friend has not told the individual something they would have never known but rather told them something prior to when the friend thought they would know it. In what way can it be harmful to know something sooner rather than later?

Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse by ignoring the notion that one may want to discover a bit of information during the experience of watching a given movie. Perhaps one enjoys the surprise of learning something within the context of the activity to which the bit of information pertains. But how can that feeling not be replicated by reading a spoiler on a website, or by stumbling upon a spoiler in a bookstore? Will not bit of information A be just as surprising within the theatrical context as it would in any other context? Is not there some finite amount of surprise to bit of information A which exists regardless of the context in which bit of information A is revealed?

Shortly after the release of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince some fans of the series stood on an overpass holding a sign which said "Snape Kills Dumbledore". In what way is that information more surprising within the context of the book than it is when communicated via a sign on an overpass?

Or maybe we're not concerned with the surprise itself. Perhaps some maintain the notion that the experience of watching a movie, reading a book, playing a video game, is somehow enhanced by not the surprise of particular events but rather that continual flow of new information which results from the ignorance one's lack of experience affords them. Perhaps what some find truly insulting is their being robbed of that Naïveté to which they cling while engaging a book, film, or game for the first time.

But can't we question the wisdom of clinging to and enjoying Naïveté? Is not it fundamentally good to know things, to have an understanding of what will come? Do not spoilers behoove us by replacing ignorance with knowledge?

Is not knowledge good?