Slate's Bizbox
culturebox: Arts, entertainment, and more.

Peeking at PotterIs it wrong to skip to the end of a book?

By Juliet Lapidos
Posted Friday, July 20, 2007, at 5:25 PM ET

When a few media outlets published early reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows this week, author J.K. Rowling protested that the articles contained spoilers. She declared herself "staggered that American newspapers have decided to … [ignore] the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry's final destination by themselves, in their own time." Presumably, Rowling assumes that half the pleasure of reading a fat, event-filled tome lies in our uncertainty about how it will end. But not every boy-wizard devotee thrives on guesswork and anticipation. According to a poll of 500 children taken for the British bookstore chain Waterstone's, nearly one-fifth of Harry Potter fans will skip straight to the end of the final book in the series. Is there something wrong with sussing out an ending in advance?

Readers are, of course, free to experience books in any way they see fit. It's customary to read page by page, but there are no set rules. And as any Ian Fleming enthusiast can attest, knowing that 007 will eventually escape doesn't mean you feel cool and collected when he's fighting against a giant squid. Yet peeking seems unfair and, ultimately, counterproductive. Authors spend years crafting a story, agonizing over when and how to reveal that Pip's benefactor is really a criminal or that Voldemort is Harry's alter ego. If you skip, you thwart the author's intentions and cheat yourself of maximal enjoyment. Surely it's more fun to speculate about the outcome along the way, and then feel humbled, or exhilarated, or despondent when you realize you got it all wrong.

Peeking feels like cheating, but is there any evidence that flipping to the back of the book suggests dark things about your character? A professor of psychology at Smith College, Phil Peake, says page-skipping may relate to broader issues of impulse control. And according to at least one "delay of gratification" study, bad things come to those who can't wait. In the early 1970s, Harvard professor David Funder and UC Berkeley professors Jeanne Block and Jack Block conducted an experiment in which 116 4-year-old children were shown a wrapped present and told they could open it as soon as they completed a puzzle. The researchers helped the children with their task and then spent 90 seconds shuffling papers before telling the kids to open their present. After each go-round, the researchers calculated a "delay score"—a composite of how many times the child mentioned the gift while toiling away, how long it took the child to grab the gift after completing the puzzle, and whether or not the child unwrapped the gift immediately.

When independent examiners interviewed the kids seven years later, they found significant personality differences between the patient test subjects and the impatient ones. Using a "California Q-set," which consists of 100 character descriptions, the examiners reported that boys who had delayed gratification were "deliberative, attentive, and able to concentrate." Conversely, boys who had not delayed were "irritable, restless and fidgety, aggressive, and generally not self-controlled." Likewise, girls who had displayed restraint under laboratory conditions seemed "intelligent, resourceful, and competent," while those who had not "tended to go to pieces under stress, to be victimized by other children, and to be easily offended, sulky, and whiny."

The parallel between the "gift delay task" and Harry Potter reading habits isn't exact. For one thing, the test subjects knew they were waiting for something good, but J.K. Rowling fans worry that the seventh Harry Potter book will end with something bad—the death of Harry, or some other beloved character, or both. Still, both cases reveal how children regulate their impulses in the face of behavior-constraining norms.

So, it's not crazy to posit that peekers and page-by-pagers may represent two opposing personality types. Maybe the tenacious tots who read Harry Potter all the way through will show great self-restraint, competence, and resourcefulness later in life. And maybe when the peekers come of age they'll whine, sulk, fidget, and try to get ahead by taking shortcuts. To date, I've only heard one convincing reason to flip to the back, from another famous Harry. In When Harry Met Sally..., Harry says "I always read the last page first. That way in case I die before I finish, I know how it ends."

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Juliet Lapidos is a Slate assistant editor.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

As an habitual end-of-booker and skip-arounder, I have had to defend my practices many times. I've tried many arguments in my defense, and tried to figure out why I'm so itchy to know the end.

I now know that reading the end means that for one area of my life, I know how things will turn out. I want to know if it will be good, or bad. I want to know if Scarlet gets Rhett, or if I should be paying attention to the butler's actions. I need time to prepare myself for a favorite character's demise. I hate surprises - good or bad.

In reality, no one knows how The Story will turn out. Let me, just once, know the future. Let me, just in this book world, decide to stop the story and move to another if I want. I certainly can't in my real life.

--Norbrat

(To reply, click here.)

I've never really understood this fixation with saving the end of a book for last. I've been known to skip ahead. It usually happens when I'm checking the number of remaining pages - I get caught up in the text and there you go. If the book has anything to offer other than a plot line, you'd be surprised how little is "gained" (or "lost"). After all, millions of people will go see Hamlet knowing (SPOILER ALERT!) the prince dies. They still manage to have fun.

I also sometimes start in the middle - especially in a library or book store. If the narrative grabs me, I'll take the book home and start over from the beginning. I can dip in and out of books a friend might be reading. Reading, for me, is far more than a journey to be made, in strict alphabetical order, from A to Z. It's why I can enjoy rereading books - even though I know the ending.

In any other context, people who could only approach a subject in so limited and proscribed a manner would be called not model citizens but intellectually challenged. I prefer to pity them as sensory deprived. They cannot savor the flavors of language any more than some poor individuals can detect the faint savor of anise in a particularly subtle flan. They devour their novels like Remy's rat cousins eat garbage. I prefer to taste each flavor like a chef in the kitchen - I make the book my own. Eating dessert first does not ruin my appetite.

That said, I would not dream of disclosing the end of Potter. Just don't call me damaged goods because I read the Epilogue before the final chapter.

--noisette

(To reply, click here.)

Another distinction deserves to be made between the gift a subject receives after having completed a puzzle and the end of a book, besides the fact that the latter is not guaranteed to be pleasant.

It is not the case that these people skip to the end because of an inability to delay gratification -if that was all they were after, then their satisfaction being gratified there would be no reason to go back to the beginning and labor through 800 plus pages.

I have never read the end of a book first, but I do this sort of "cheating" on a small scale -glancing at the opposite page during a fight or search to see if doom is in fact imminent. It's simply because I can only regulate so much suspense.

--jocelyn

(To reply, click here.)

While I freely admit to have never read a Potter book, and probably won't, in general the only time I skip to the end or read ahead is when I'm bored with the book as a whole.

Skipping ahead isn't "cheating", this isn't a test it's a book, but it is a sign that people aren't very interested with the material and are really only looking to get some closure. I myself wouldn't purchase a book simply to stay culturally relevant, but for some people that's important.

--Eigenvector

(To reply, click here.)

(7/26)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.