One of the things I found the most interesting was the spoilers’ attitude toward knowledge and information. Before ChillOne, virtually all of the spoilers were sure they wanted to know all they could. However, when ChillOne came along, spoilers were faced with a dilemma about whether having the knowledge was what they valued about the spoiling experience, or if it was more about something else. Jenkins argues that, for most spoilers anyway, spoiling is not just about acquiring the knowledge. It’s about the community and the process of finding things out individually and putting them together with what everyone else learned. It is the process of acquiring information that holds these knowledge communities together (54).
ChillOne’s process of just dumping his information onto the message boards “ruined” the season for many spoilers because he had already done a lot of the work of acquiring information that so many people in the spoiling community enjoy. At one point in the chapter, one of the spoilers says ChillOne finding out so much before the season had even begun was like someone sneaking in and opening all your Christmas presents while you weren’t looking. Before, spoiling had been a goal: something to work toward achieving. After ChillOne, people could see that spoiling was more about the process: a community (with individuals boasting different and specialized skills) working together toward a common goal. ChillOne ruined the season because he “won” the spoiling game (51). He got all this information before the show eve started. Because of ChillOne’s ultimate spoiling, the other spoilers were able to see that spoiling wasn’t about getting the answer but about getting to the answer.
My question with the modern day implications of Jenkins’ argument lies in the quote given at the bottom of page 56 about how dead the message boards were before the 7th season of Survivor. It was clear there that the spoilers were tired of the game they had been playing. I wonder whether spoilers of different shows are having similar problems now that reality shows are on the decline. How long could it have taken for the boredom with Survivor, one of the most fun and interesting shows for spoilers, to have spread to other shows?
Some of the sentences are a bit choppy which makes it less readable. As with many other blogs I have read I would like to hear more of the writer's voice.
ReplyDeleteYou bring out a very interesting point-- the spoilers "knew" they wanted to know what would happen next, only to find out that's not what they really wanted-- it was the thrill of the chase that was important to them. It's funny that our culture has evolved, yet to some extent we still want the same stuff as before-- we may not know our neighbors, so we go online to make new "neighbors". Figuring out the end of Survivor is about solving a puzzle together, kind of like a modern-day barn raising, so to speak. It's still about the interaction, no matter what the medium is.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that the spoilers had become the 'spoiled,' so to speak. I would agree with your assessment that they were more interested in the process of spoiling than the actual results. There seems to be at least three kinds of Survivor fans in these communities: the average fans, who don't want anything spoiled; the casual spoilers, who wants to solve as much of the puzzle as they can while still retaining some element of surprise; and the super spoilers, like ChillOne, who want to spoil as much as possible without regard for the consequences.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that one of the hazards of communities which allow free contribution from its members is that the experience can easily be ruined by overzealous participants.
To build on your comment, Su, I think whatever game or pursuit people engage in after they get bored of spoiling, the most important element will ALWAYS be interaction. Humans evolved as social creatures, and involvement, cooperation and contact with others is something we simply can't do without. I feel that, to an extent, the huge success experienced by social networking services comes from people's psychological need for gossip. We can get into someone's business without dealing with the awkwardness of being nosy in real life. I feel like the Survivor Sucksters represent an extreme version of gossipmongers: they go to great lengths snooping around for personal information (even hacking into e-mails).
ReplyDeleteYou bring a very good point of how spoilers value the activity of spoiling rather than the actual spoilers. It is not just about what they find, instead, it is about the process of finding it and collaborating. This trait, I think, is unique to true participants of knowledge communities. In their mind, finding out who will win the show is not a spoiler, instead, it is their ideal interaction with the show. For others, simply watching and getting entertained by the show is it. They don't want any experience discovering, but instead what the information told. Knowledge communities, therefore, are HUGE spoilers for them.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the problem with people leaving the Survivor spoiling community had anything to do with no longer enjoying spoiling. Rather, I think it's more a case of the spoiling becoming almost formulaic in nature, with very little unpredictable deviation that would require any actual effort to crack. Look at ARGs like "ilovebees" or "This is My Milwaukee" - despite both requiring the same type of investigation and community collaboration, projects like these will always be popular because they typically aren't following the same methods in which they will unfold, and thus provide more dynamic and exciting twists to work with.
ReplyDeleteI think your last paragraph brings up an interesting point; that in the age of cyberculture our attention time spans seem to have decreased. Since information can circulate so quickly its hard to remain attached to a particular idea for too long. What do you think the Implications of this new phenomenon are? Are there ways in which we've actually been able to follow other events for a longer time? Some people point to the 2008 election as indicating people having gained the capacity to and derive pleasure from longer stories that unfold over time, so long as there are constant updates emerging. I wonder if spoilers are indicative of the ways in which cyberculture gives us other avenues to continually show our interest in something whereas television as a sole medium we are mainly only interested in it when watching it.
ReplyDelete