No, you're right, unspoiled viewings don't take anything away, I just think they aren't nessisarily that big of a deal. However, I hadn't considered how the filmmaker had planned the experienced to work and that's a very valid point. I mean, the director's expectations and vision are not things I feel
inherently deserve respect since a viewer always includes themselves - emotions, knowledge, memories, cultural/social notions and all - in the encounter and directors can't just say "no, no, ignore this or that, I didn't
intend that so you can't think of it." That doesn't mean when breaking down a film we shouldn't take into consideration that most every filmmaker will construct theirs with a first uniformed viewing in mind. I mean, yeah, it's kind of obvious but not something I had thought about so thanks.
Though I do think that most of the time you can look at something and intelligent deduce what reaction the filmmaker wanted even if you don't have it yourself. Alternatively you can be like me and have an incredibly low threshold for suspension of disbelief and it helps to be just way too emotional about fiction. Then you'll probably just end up getting the effect anyway even knowing precisely what is going to happen.
But I don't think I explained my point well last time which is weird since I used so. many. words. (Yeah I'm sorry about my post size, I need to learn to rein it in
) Watching something for the first time is similar to reading something for the first time and in that case I know that studies show again and again that on first read through our brains are usually preoccupied on trying to file/sort the information as well as just looking for the gist of it. It's not a conscious thing, it's just how brains work, and it doesn't mean that you are entirely unable to focus on other elements as well.
To take it back to reading; there are stages of reading comprehension that depend on the skills of the individual and different level of a given text. Practiced readers are able to take glance over even complicated texts and pick up not only surface meaning but also a multitude of sub-textual interpretations. Books can be extremely complex so that even highly skilled readers struggle to discern their full meaning without some outside research. A really talented young reader can go word by word and get through Milton's
Paradise Lost, sure, and maybe even take enough from them to be able and give a vague summary of events. But don't expect them to fully understand the text: the various layers, symbolism both religious and secular, literary allusions, commentary on contemporary culture and popular thought, various themes, signification and even cliches. Hell, I wouldn't expect that from your average English master's student without some outside resources and/or past exposure to the text.
Even when we're talking about a much simpler narrative, the first time we phase through a passage we typically start by individually reading each word to figure out what each individual sentence says. You probably think, "well, yeah, I do that every time I read most every sentence. That's how reading works!" Not exactly. When dealing with new, unfamiliar text our brain's processing capacity is going towards reading each individual word and so doesn't engaged deeper, narrative focused brain pathways. When the vocabulary is familiar than a little less of our brain power goes through those low-level pathways. When the style, genre, or general purpose of the text is recognized that's less processing we're doing at the one end which means more on the other. This is why reading strategies including things like having kids discuss after each chapter (this not only helps by familiarizing them with what has happened so far but typically it involves some amount of prediction as well, right? That's all prepping your brain for what lies ahead) and teaching them to recognize certain factors that will help them to identify what is likely to happen in the book like form. When teaching poetry, for instance, you cover the patterns in a given form so that the reader has a vague predictive understanding of where specific information is likely to be, what structure the narrative in the poem tends to take, etc. Basically, the more you know about what you are about to read the less time your brain worries over individual words and the more it's focused on the meaning implicit in the sentence, then paragraph, and then text as a whole.
Most of us have enough experience and skill that something like a message board post only requires one read through and your brain doesn't even engage it at the most basic vocab-level. You are not reading each one of these words and then processing them at a unique, individual level (okay so you might be NOW but only because it's like concentrating on your breathing which... Sorry I just made someone do both those things didn't I?) but is actually doing a so-subtle-as-to-be-unnoticeable version of smart scanning where it takes in only what it has to in order to process the information in the sentence rather than the words. It doesn't need to waste the energy. You've gotten to a point where your brain doesn't bother keeping you informed but, yeah, it's got this figured out enough and can pick up the clues fast enough to predicted what you haven't yet read. It already knows the basics.
Which is the same, I assume, with films which is part of why the Spoiler Paradox works the way it does. Obviously your brain isn't processing individual words in every frame of film, but the equivalent energy exchange is happening so that when you know what is going to happen your brain stops using energy to process that information and instead fuels whatever parts takes in the over-all narrative rather than the single units. THAT is what I was referring to when I said that your brain was distracted by wondering what is next. I guess my problem is that I made it sound more as though it was an
actual question driving you to
actual distraction rather than being more of a metaphorical way to talk about energy exchange through neural pathways. Yeah... Definitely should have included something like that.
(Edit: Oh god, it's like I get worse at precision posting every time.
Mjölnir, you have been to kind in actually reading through these novellas and taking the time to reply!)
t: 
