Do spoilers really "ruin" things? Or make things more interesting?

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 168745

I've been thinking about the latest DH related story, in which 
Rowling is pleading with those that have knowledge of the plot not to 
reveal it, lest that revelation "diminish (the readers') pleasure in 
the book".  

Avoiding spoilers may be hard--from what I hear the audiobook is 
coming out the very same day as the hardback. Doubtless it will take 
weeks for that to be recorded and got to "press".  That's a whole 
other level of people who are going to know what happens. 

But I say:  so what?  My philosophy about spoilers is that they can 
only "ruin" things if the novel/movie is otherwise relatively 
uninteresting.  If the facts of the plot are the main thing that 
matters to the audience. That's not the case with Rowling's work.  

The next generation of Potter readers are probably going to go into 
the first novel with knowledge of how the series will end. My 
daughter (who's four) will probably know when she starts Sorcerer's 
Stone whether or not Harry dies.  The books and movies are so 
popular, she'll likely know that Sirius is a good guy at the 
beginning of reading PoA, and she'll know from the first mention of 
him that he's doomed as well.  

Will that diminish her pleasure?  I hope not. I guess in a way I feel 
like Rowling is not giving her own work the credit it's due by 
suggesting that.  The "surprise" of what happens is only going to be 
the tiniest aspect of my daughter's enjoyment. 

I guess I just don't understand the hoopla over not "spoiling" 
things.  I could read an elaborate description of the plot and the 
book would not be spoiled for me at all.