Spoiler Alert!--The Culture of Spoilers and Convergence

Convergence

Convergence.  Defined by Henry Jenkins as the coming together of various types of media and their effects on each other, convergence seems to have thrown a wrench (so to speak) in how things are done, perceived.   Like Dino Ignacio’s spoof photo which ended up all over the world, media has become pervasive, omniscient almost.  We are, as Jenkins puts it, entering into this crossroads where convergence is happening whether we like it or not.

http://onemobilemedia.com/blog

                Throughout the introduction of his book, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, Jenkins provides us with snapshots of how media culture is changing, how we are, in essence changing it.  Perhaps the largest idea Jenkins puts forth, and arguably one of the most interesting, is that how we consume media has changed now that media is changing.  While it seems like a simple idea, Jenkins proceeds to detail the ways in which this is especially important in this day and age.  We are no longer passively taking in what is shown to us, leaving the decisions up to the producers of tv shows and the writers of law.  Instead, we are actively engaging with them, trying to outdo them, push back a little harder in order to get different results.  While this interaction has not been absent in earlier decades, it has been relatively closeted—people might engage in spoofing or spoiling among friends, but it rarely got any further.  Now, private matter is really only private if it happens via pen and paper communication.  And even then, not necessarily. 

Survivor

http://imgs.xkcd.com

                This consumer interaction requires media to be produced differently, to be handled differently.  This is particularly true with shows such as Survivor, which Jenkins details quite thoroughly in his first chapter.  The culture of spoiling (one which is thoroughly annoying to someone like me who has to record episodes of shows I like because I’m not home to watch them when they air) has grown drastically, and reality shows such as Survivor seem to garner the most “water cooler” conversation (as Jenkins puts it).  The Survivor spoiling community has created a game out of spoiling—which is basically letting information leak before it happens.  Spoiling can be simply releasing little plot tidbits, who got voted off a show, what happened at the end of a book/game/movie.  Often these spoilers are marked, giving viewers of forum threads and conversations a chance to back away before their “first time experience” is ruined.  This particular Survivor community, SurvivorSucks.com, has created a game out of spoiling, with some members using their expertise to focus on deciphering the exact locations, other members with inside connections hint about Final Four contestants and who gets voted off first. 

                For these viewers, and many within the spoiler community, the show is arguably not as exciting as ferreting out the information before it happens.  It becomes a game, a treasure hunt of sorts.  And, when someone like ChillOne comes into the community dropping information, suspicions run high and the camp is divided.  The group’s attention becomes distracted. 

                While this spoiling can be fun, it leaves the producers of the show to alter how they produce.  What happens when the show runs away with the audience?  In the case of Survivor, the producers have been known to play along.  They have put the answers in the opening credits—a purloined letter of sorts.  They have been rumored (and confirmed in some cases) to have gone onto these spoiler websites and plant red herrings for the viewers to chase. 

                Spoiling does more, however, than just allow viewers to spoil or attempt to spoil a television show.  It allows spoilers (especially college students) to “exercise their growing competencies” (52),  They can work and attempt to accomplish things within a setting which has lowered consequences.  Even if they get some information wrong, they will not get a failing grade in a class or lose a job.  There are lessened stakes for the players.  These spoiler communities also allow for a more interactive group dynamic.  Everyone needs everyone else in these groups in order to find the best spoilers.  There is a shared knowledge, where everyone works towards the end instead of a top-down knowledge which can lead to feelings of superiority and inferiority.

                Spoiling has grown drastically, and it’s causing television shows to take on a new way of production and viewers to take on a new way of viewing.  We have the ability to “peek” at the end of a series if we so chose (or even if we don’t if spoiler posts are mislabeled).  The lines between viewer and producer are becoming more and more blurred as viewers, through their vast communities are able to influence how producers put reality tv shows together.  While spoilers and producers do not always see eye to eye, they are definitely both affected by each other, which can definitely alter the final product.

Questions:

1) Jenkins writes that "corporations still exert greater power than any individual consumer or even the aggregate of consumers" (3).  Is this necessarily true with the rise of Youtube?

2) Is there still a safe way to keep this "private," especially when we look at instances similar to what happened with Dino Ignacio?

3) With spoilers being so difficult to avoid, how do you feel about them?