Archive of Our Own

Bio

It always irks me when for the sake of 'in-depth analysis' someone decides to yank a basic device out of a text and tries to force some deeper meaning out of it. They're wringing a sweaty sock that's already hard and desiccated from its holiday to a dryer.

The "dots fading away to symbolise Al's fading hope" is because it is a dotted underline and the author has been using dotted underlines the whole graphic novel. The reason why it's bad analysis is because there's not much depth to analyse in the first place.

A key part of literacy is the ability to interpret an author's message and intention through their words. Verbose discussion about meagre devices can make you feel smart, but at that point you're just extrapolating headcanons and swaddling them in bubble wrap to give them false substance. It contributes nothing to a better understanding of the text; rather it frames what you've read in your terms as opposed to the writer's.

Every letter and symbol has meaning, but not necessarily in the same way, or needs to be given the same importance. Every word someone writes can inadvertently expose their views and purpose, but if you're rephrasing points or lacking evidence that the device serves a purpose or is indicative of something, it's likely that you're overanalysing.

I'm begging you to scrutinise but make sure you're not imposing significance on every miniscule, insignificant detail. And if you overanalyse because you're feigning intellectualism, stop. It's annoying.

Brevity is the soul of wit
- AO3 probably