On Wed, 23 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
The distinction is that reviews are intended for
people who haven't read the
book or seen the film. They aren't encyclopaedia articles which are intended
to give information and commentary.
(Besides, I've seen plenty of print reviews with spoiler warnings in them.)
May I call your bluff on that?
The trouble with finding these is that
1) most reviewers simply don't mention spoilers at all (with quite a number
of them telling you they're leaving the spoiler out)
2) most reviews you'll find in a Google search aren't going to be print
reviews
3) I'm on a dialup connection.
Still, I managed to find a couple:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19921218/REVIEWS/…
"I would prefer, in fact, that you put this review aside until you see the
film. If you read on, I will do my best not to spoil your own discoveries."
This one
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR200704270…
has a "spoiler alert" in the middle of the article. So does this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR200604110…
Of course I can't prove these weren't added for the web version.
Here's another Roger Ebert one where he not only includes a spoiler warning
in the article itself, but also defends the practice of using spoiler
warnings:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050129/COMMENTA…
Here's a Time magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1604863,00.html
"Fair warning: here's where the spoilers begin."