Question:

Why do people spend so much time over analyzing every little thing they find in a comic book storyline, trying to find some hidden meaning or Easter egg that they completely ruin the storytelling experience. It gets to a point that they just buy the books and read them looking for some fine print, a chink in the armor, a small code, something...

I point as example Batman RIP. How much time did anyone spend on an internet chatroom or 4chan discussing what the meaning was behind the whole red and black thing? Spending so much time building up theories and over analyzing every detail in every Morrison Batman story, only to find the whole thing was thrown in as a joke. The Joker's way of screwing with Batman.

Why do we do it? Why do I do it? Why does anyone do it? I mean, I don't mind discussing, but it gets to a point that the reason we get disappointed is because we're not right.

Is it me? I can't speak for all of you, but I'm just curious.

Human sentience is all about pattern recognition.

Recognizing patterns from a bewildering assortment of visual, aural, olfactory, etc. data, and putting it altogether quickly enough to realize that the combination of no bird noises and that rustling means a tiger is about to eat your face is the reason mankind has made it past 'tiger kibble' in the great chain of life.

Unfortunately, that feature of our brain doesn't come with an off button, and we end up looking for patterns in things that are, essentially, random and unrelated, or 'forcing' patterns onto events or situations that have nothing to do with our amazing discovery. Everything from religion to philosophy to the 'natural philosophy' that eventually became modern science started out with somebody saying, 'Now why the hell did *that* happen?'

Schizophrenics, and especially those subject to paranoid imaginings, are victims of an overly active pattern recognition ability, allowing them to 'discover' all sorts of amazing connections between events that were not connected, and forming vast conspiracy theories from tiny inconsistencies or funky coincidences.

At the other end of the spectrum, some people have a lack of pattern recognition ability, and are functionally autistic, trapped in a world where everything just seems to happen randomly to them, where the actions and reactions of other people are threatening and unpredictable, because they can't tie social cues and behaviors together to anticipate how others will act or react in any given situation. A far less crippling version of this can be seen in the 'clueless' person, who blurts out ridiculously inappropriate things, and then gets confused and even defensive as others react badly to what they've said.

Most of us sit in the middle, able to see patterns and apply them to our daily life to solve problems. We aren't the awkward kid that everybody avoids because he's a social disaster, and we aren't the tinfoil hat wearer who is convinced that the moon landing were faked, 9/11 was an inside job coordinated from Dick Cheney's hidden satellite lair and Obama is a Muslim socialist from Kenya.

But we can all veer in one direction of the other. In the case of fiction, including comic books, it's *supposed to make sense.* Go to any study group of a novel or author, any message board dedicated to a television show, etc, etc, and you'll find the same sort of discussions. People looking for patterns, looking for explanations that make sense of what they've read, and, in many cases, pointing out connections and correlations that the authors and creators *never intended,* but that, in some cases, are *even cooler.*

Take the side-discussion back in the Lo3W days about how Superboy-Prime, coming from Earth Prime, had a sort of 'writer's fiat' power that allowed him to rescript events, and 'punch reality into a new shape,' making him a perfect Time Trapper, since he'd already been 'rewriting reality' even before then, doing impossible things (like punching his way out of the Phantom Zone!) by sheer force of will, because of some latent property stemming from his origin in the world in which the DC universe is *being created.*

That's an example of some comic readers coming up with something that *makes sense* (in a way) and 'explains' the nature of what they are reading, tying together elements from the very inception of the concept of 'Earth Prime' with the actions of Superboy Prime and the later revelation that he's become a Time Trapper.

We look for patterns. We *want* things to make sense. Some of us even *need* things to make sense. And, when dealing with fictional events, which are very truly and really *scripted,* we have a very credible expectation that they *should* make sense, and that anything that was put onto a page *must have meant something.*

And sometimes, the writers didn't put that much thought into it, didn't even know the history of the characters or had something completely other in mind for that scene. Sometimes it's just filler.

But our squishy gray pattern-recognition engines lack the ability to read the writers mind, so we 'fill in the blanks,' and assign values to what we failed to recognize as valueless integers.

Even then, it's 'value-added.' We get to have fun discussions with other fans, who can say, 'Neat ideas!' or 'You're full of crap!' Either reply can lead to new explorations of characters and concepts that we find endlessly fascinating.

Excellent post, Set.

Indeed. Set nailed it.

I also think that fans like the idea of contributing something to the mythos by figuring out things, speculating, or offering alternate interpretations. In days of yore, not everything was spelled out for comic book characters. Back stories, origins, limits of powers, etc., were often kept vague either because they didn't fit in with the designs of the story or because creators didn't bother to be that precise. The result (intentional or not) was that fans stepped up to fill in the gaps. Some fan ideas even became canon (such as the idea that Cosmic Boy had served two terms as leader before passing the gavel on to Saturn Girl, an idea that originated, I believe, with a member of the Klordny APA). To achieve this kind of immortality--a chance to influence, however slightly, creative aspects of the characters--is the Holy Grail of Fandom.

Wow. I was NOT expecting that kind of reply.

Well, it was a topic about over-analyzing things, so I thought I would be terribly 'meta' and clever and cute by over-analyzing it.

Plus, I can't remember what it was, but I thought the red/black thing in Batman: R.I.P. did end up meaning something.

I also think that a writer like Morrison is going to get that kind of analysis while the latest issue of "Deadpool" doesn't because writers like Morrison, Moore or Gaiman actually do put tons of forethought into what they put into their stories. Remember "Long Halloween?" That was like crack to those kind of fanboys and Leob played into that - laying out clues and red herrings left and right.

We never did find out who Holiday was...

I recently attended a workshop in which one of the keynotes speakers applied this very idea to some of the more controversial debates in society ... fascinating to see it applied to the the comic book genre ...

[snip]



I feel like I should apologize in advance then, just in case my over-analysis really does end up contaminating canon like that.

[snip]

But I would've voted for him if somebody HAD managed to convince me of that.

Great post Set! Really good thoughts there.

I'd also add that over-analysis on message boards and things stems out of general boredom and finding an amusing way to alleviate it.

Sure we did!

<span class="spoiler_containter"><span class="spoiler_wording">Click Here For A Spoiler</span><span class="spoiler_text">I'm going on memory here but I think the Holiday murders weren't all done by the same person. Gilda Dent did the first few, Alberto Falcone did most of the rest and Two-Face himself did the final one or two. It's still a little up in the air on purpose by Loeb to keep people interested but I think that's basically it. I remember because I guessed it was Gilda early on and kicked myself for never writing in and getting credit for it, so only my brother ever knew that I was right.</span></span>

If I love something very much, I want to love every bit of it. SOmetimes, that involves looking for hidden meanings and Easter Eggs. I suppose the best example I have of this is the movie "Donnie Darko". I watched it over and over again, looking for meaning where it may or may not have been intended.

It was fun for me, and I wanted to know every last detail about those characters. Other things, take Bendis' Avengers for example, I barely care enough to give a quick read through. It all depends on what it is, at least for me.

While not the first ones, I blame Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

With Watchmen,, they really gave the reader meaning in just about every line drawn and written in a comic series with Watchmen.

fans were reading into things long before Watchmen, and seeing great meanings in continuity errors made by lax writers/editors.

"Blaming" AM/DG is not really fair; they merely did it well.

I know what you mean Kent, but for me that's when it really started. Before that, I just read the books without really getting into hidden meanings and easter eggs. If I did notice them, I just thought it was a happy coincidence.

I blame all those kooky Greeks for over-analyzing Homer's Odyssey and Illiad. They started the whole trend!

Bah! I blame Goog the Cave-Boy for reading too much into the Tale of the Great Sloth Hunt!

Goog was impossible to please as an art critic!

I often wonder how many fans - of anything - are autistic. I'm mildly so, with no language or learning difficulties but no ability to predict others' actions. The analysis of fiction gives me a hope of understanding something. I do have pattern recognition ability, just not applied to people. I like series fiction because I *can* see patterns in it. I admit that I'm not very good at analyzing even fictional characters. I often have to rely on other fans' analyses to understand a series. I suppose that's a big part of why I'm involved in fandoms. Just reading a story without context, the limits of my pattern recognition become apparent. I need others to fill in the gaps.

I recall Howard Chaykin, well before Watchmen, being annoyed at a number of vocal fans who concocted the idea that Blackhawk was the grandfather of Rueben Flagg.

Roy Thomas had to (over)explain that Ted and Sandra Knight were cousins (as if Knight was that uncommon a surname), that Tarantula and Sandman having similar costumes, and that Guardian, Atom and someone else all had to have the same boxing trainer. Among many other things.

Thomas himself hunted for many of these non-easter eggs and forced them together.

With Watchmen, it may have been intentional rather than fan-created. But Lee and Ditko were doing that in 60s Spider-Man, too (to a lesser extent).