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/2...
"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/AR2007042700... 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/AR2006041101... 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/COMMENTAR...
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."