The New Yorker Celebrates, Spoils "The Wire"
David Remnick may be in love with "The Sopranos," but people who love "The Wire" are freaking obsessed with it, and the show and genius creator David Simon get a long and loving look by Margaret Talbot in this week's special Arts issue.
In such a huge piece — 11,000 words! Ye gads! — it's inevitable that Talbot would talk about plot. But a friend and Wire obsessive points out to me that the piece includes two spoilers, both without any warning. Per my Wire-loving friend:
"Two spoilers, no warnings. Both regarding the deaths of characters who are present in the very beginning of Season 1, and it is a big deal when each dies several seasons later. Neither was necessary to the piece. In one she could have just been less specific, in the other she was quoting a fan on a chatboard, could have not used the character's name - little would have been lost by it for the article's purposes. Or offered a spoiler warning at least. Bleh."
That "bleh" aptly expresses the feeling a fan has when reading about one's beloved series/movie/wildly anticipated children's book and encountering spoilers. These series/movies/books are written about so much precisely because they are the object of critical and/or fan appreciation; that aficionados are invested in the characters and the storylines is a given. So obviously, spoilers are less than appreciated. It's why the phrase "spoiler alert" was created.
But — and there's always a but! — when does the sacrosanct period of secret-keeping expire? What is the statute of limitations on spoiling? If I blurt out right now that Rosebud is a sled, how many of you will smack your heads in frustration? What if "Citizen Kane" was in its fourth season, had finally gotten some mainstream buzz after being an unwatched critical darling for the first three, and all of the sudden viewers were getting addicted to the show via DVD? (Yes, we know, the sled thing is at the end, but go with it.) Probably most of us know by now that Adriana bit it in the woods on "The Sopranos," since images of her scrabbling through leaves were everywhere after she was iced; that goes double for Joey Pants and Uncle Junior shooting Tony. (NB: I didn't watch the show, this is just from reading about it). So in this DVD era, what does a writer like Talbot and a magazine like the New Yorker owe a viewer/reader when writing about a show? I don't know; there are no codified written standards and there is often furious debate over what is actually required. I guess the minimum expectation would be "thought"; that is to say, that in writing about these intricate, operatic series in which so many people are clearly so invested, a writer might think about what he or she is giving away, and what those viewers do or don't want to know. The more unforgiving standard of what the reader/viewer ought to know is another thing entirely, and here a writer/magazine is obviously validated by the fact that such plot details have been published, distributed, and are clearly on the record. But where the question is, "how best can we serve our audience?" the answers are a little more complicated.
In other news, the ending of the article is really sweet and uplifting — and so on the record that I could link it in two places. But, I'll let you read it yourself.
Stealing Life: The Crusader Behind The Wire [New Yorker]
Related:
Harry Potter and the Debate Over Whether The New York Times Should Have Reviewed And/Or Spoiled It [HuffPo]
Loading comments…
Huffington Post | Rachel Sklar | October 18, 2007 09:46 AM