2683: Fan Theories

|< < Prev Comic #8 (September 30, 2005) Next > >|

Red Spiders

Title text: They are six-legged spiders

Explanation

The early comics often feature a style different to what would become the signature xkcd stick-figure style. This comic is the first in an arc of comics, spaced out over 3 years (so far), in which Red Spiders are seen attacking humans. Its objective is not to be funny, philosophical, or scientifically interesting; it just tells a story, in a Questionable Content-esque way. Interestingly, the red spiders actually more closely resemble opiliones, the order of arachnids that includes the Daddy Longlegs, and which are actually more closely related to mites than to spiders. Of course, the number of legs is incorrect.

The full series of Red Spiders comics:

• 8: Red Spiders, this one
• 43: Red Spiders 2, in which the spiders begin building.
• 47: Counter-Red Spiders, in which the humans begin a counter-offensive.
• 126: Red Spiders Cometh, in which the spiders attack a city.
• 427: Bad Timing, in which, in a style more typical to xkcd, the spiders attack a couple in the middle of a serious relationship discussion in a hot-air balloon.
• 442: xkcd Loves the Discovery Channel, in which it appears briefly in the 14th panel crawling over a cube

Transcript

[Many six-legged red spiders standing on and hanging from cuboids. The cuboids hang in the air with no visible means of support. Some of the spiders have made a bridge out of themselves.]

Trivia

• This was the 8th comic originally posted to LiveJournal.
  • The previous was 13: Canyon.
  • The next was 6: Irony.
• Original title: "Spiders"
• Original Randall quote: "They're not spiders; they have six legs!"
• This was one of the thirteen first comics posted to LiveJournal within 12 minutes on Friday September 30, 2005.
• This comic was posted on xkcd when the web site opened on Sunday the 1st of January 2006.
  • It was posted along with all 41 comics posted before that on LiveJournal as well as a few others.
  • The latter explaining why the numbers of these 41 LiveJournal comics ranges from 1-44.
• One of the original drawings drawn on checkered paper.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

To me, the title text seems to be referring to the opposite kind of fandom compared to what the current explanation says. 141.101.76.203 06:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Given the constant stream of manchildren vandalizing this, could an admin please restrict editing access to logged in users? 172.68.110.143 07:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

manchildren

You mean the xkcd fandom? Fephisto (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I am 100% behind calling hypotheses 'fan theories'. Fephisto (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

To the person who inserted the {{Citation needed}} initially unsuccessfully by [[citation needed]], and complained in their edit summaries that no other place uses our formatting (of {{}}s)... That's how Wikipedia implements it (or at least the actual Citation Needed... see below) and [[]]s/[]s are for more general hyperlinking (internal and external). You aren't thinking of some BBCode plugin for forums, are you? They will use [tags] and [tag][/tag], and I could imagine a popular tweak to the tag-handler to not require writing [sup][[u][color=#whatever]citation needed[/color][/u]][/sup], or similar, every time someone wanted to parody (or properly apply?) the meme...
...although, reading your intention, did you instead intend to use the explainxkcd version that is {{Actual citation needed}}? I can imagine another editor removing it, anyway, but I just moved it the more accepted side of the punctuation. 172.70.85.49 18:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this comic might also be a comment on the following phenomenom: a lot of spectacular ideas that were once regarded as not really significant, "fringe", or even dubious by the mainstream scientific community two or three decades ago are now seriously pursued by science - mostly because the kids whose imagination was fired up by those ideas have now grown into scientists themselves, who can decide on their own what things to research. The idea that life might exist in the Europa ocean is a prime example for this: It was once mainly science fiction, popularized by Arthur C. Clarke in his 2010 and 2061 odyssey novels, but has since become a serious research subject. Similar things might be said about the time, energy and money that is nowadays devoted to SETI or to the search for primitive life on Mars. Scientists in the 60s and 70s would have probably fallen out of their chairs in shock if they knew. (note that I am all in favour of looking for aliens, but scientists in the 60s and 70s were much more interested in planetary geology and stuff like that). --172.70.247.38 09:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kuhn's work as part of the explanation seems odd. This may be because I don't know his work and thus don't see how this is connected to the comic and especially how merely mentioning it actually helps explaining the comic. I removed that part unless someone comes up with some actual explanation why this is relevant. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Kuhn does discuss paradigms as effectively similar to my simple understanding of fan theories, but I don't understand what the "franchise" terminology means. I can't imagine it would make much of a difference. I guess the point was most professional scientists wouldn't be particularly annoyed by the comparison, because it's not novel or really unusual as a concept. 172.69.22.185 19:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

this suggests a "how to annoy" category w/ 2036 and 2654 (and possibly 2118, though the "expert shouting at cueball" part is absent) --172.70.110.231 13:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What does "franchise with an established fandom" mean? Could you guys please try to use a relatively simple vocabulary and define necessary jargon or specialized language, such as with link(s)? 172.69.22.163 19:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It feels like the current explanation is missing a clear exposition of the key comparison between scientific research and fan theorising - that they both (a) start from a canonical body of work, (b) build on top of that with experimental theses that are then 'peer tested', and (c) may then in time end up becoming a part of the canon themselves. I can't quite work that up into a form that would flow nicely in the explanation, though. 172.70.91.58 13:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

By referring to scientists as fans, could Cueball be suggesting an author exists? 197.234.243.26 14:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

God? (I'm not intending to ignite a theological debate here) Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

God? (I'm intending to ignite a theological debate here) [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 11:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that the astronomer in the the comic looks more like Danish than Megan? I guess her attitude and demeanor is more akin to a standard Megan, but idk. 15:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)~ 3:55, 13 Feb 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a bit late, but I'd like to apologise on behalf of the "furry" vandals. My Species Doth Protest Too Much. I don't believe furries are "better than the rest of humanity combined." Your favorite aura doggo (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there any fandom other than the universe fandom that makes fan theories that directly contradict the canon? 172.68.174.226 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I think that's the norm. There's usually something that a fan disagrees with that official canon says, when they write their own version. Whether it's Snape/Potter slash (or just about any other fan-shipping event, slash or otherwise) or whether the vast majority of Gravity was an anoxic dream sequence (not just the bit where she snaps out of it, but potentially everything from the very first crisis onwards) or, my own personal fanon, that the Patrician in The Colour Of Magic was Vetinari (through Pterry said otherwise, and normally I'd happily take that as gospel). The fan-fiction must turn upon something not in the source, or it'd just be a retelling, and often it's something reinterpretted in order to support the particular conceit of the fan-scenario. Could be minor or major; significant diversion from the 'authorised' material or just a whole undocumented/unaccounted-for side-adventure; something other fans would support or such a twisted take on things that it's sidelined by others. But contradictions are easy. Perhaps harder in some canons, where self-contradictions are already muddying the waters, ironically. 141.101.99.134 15:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)