Perhaps it was just further evidence of his pseudointellectual pretentiousness. The "satire" description doesn’t really make sense.

Yes, it’s quite contrarian. Maybe there is even a slight sense of superiority, being too "smart" to take the film seriously. There’s definitely a slight sense of him separating himself, or being above the mainstream. A lot of people were genuinely terrified by this film.

Laughing at horror movies is hardly an uncommon past time. It is a little more common amongst sub-cultural groups though. Was the Zodiac a ham radio operating geek who liked to watch horror movies ironically? Was he a nihilistic proto-punker urban gorilla who got a droll kick watching western civilization burn? Was he a cynical recluse locked away in projectionist booth reliving the glory days of B grade cinema? Was he a theatre geek, whos higher tastes for light operas and early satire gave him a superior sense of the satirical? Was he just some smuck who thought hysterics were for weaklings? We have no way of knowing. You can’t read too much into someone’s point of view. I do think though it leans us ever so slightly towards the view that he was a sufficiently contrarian so as to be perceived by friends and family as "a bit odd". That is as far as I would go with speculation.

It might be as simple as that Zodiac thought;

-The Exorcist, HA! HA! HA! what a joke compared to "my thing" killing teenagers in love,
communicating about it, with my audience, through the newspapers.

And I believe that, like other things he wrote, his use of a term/wording like "saterical comidy"
point to that he, to some degree, has a sophisticated intelect.

And I believe that, like other things he wrote, his use of a term/wording like "saterical comidy"
point to that he, to some degree, has a sophisticated intelect.

He doesn’t need to be genius to use it, doesn’t even need to have an above average IQ, but it’s a bit hard to imagine him using the term sitting around in his undies in trailer with a bowl of guacamole balanced on his gut watching Super Bowl reruns, isn’t it? Not that I have a problem with guacamole, or football, but meat heads don’t go around calling things "saterical comidy"s. Whoever he was, he did seem to have a bit of an intellectual spark.

Yes, it’s quite contrarian. Maybe there is even a slight sense of superiority, being too "smart" to take the film seriously. There’s definitely a slight sense of him separating himself, or being above the mainstream. A lot of people were genuinely terrified by this film.

Laughing at horror movies is hardly an uncommon past time. It is a little more common amongst sub-cultural groups though. Was the Zodiac a ham radio operating geek who liked to watch horror movies ironically? Was he a nihilistic proto-punker urban gorilla who got a droll kick watching western civilization burn? Was he a cynical recluse locked away in projectionist booth reliving the glory days of B grade cinema? Was he a theatre geek, whos higher tastes for light operas and early satire gave him a superior sense of the satirical? Was he just some smuck who thought hysterics were for weaklings? We have no way of knowing. You can’t read too much into someone’s point of view. I do think though it leans us ever so slightly towards the view that he was a sufficiently contrarian so as to be perceived by friends and family as "a bit odd". That is as far as I would go with speculation.

This is a good post. I do think a sense of superiority runs through the Zodiac case. I also think it was not entirely misplaced. He’s into opera, sophisticated poetry, old movies, possibly Edgar Allan Poe and James Joyce. Whatever his intelligence, his tastes are not proletarian.

That’s a reason I roll my eyes when people suggest normal people or normal criminals as Zodiac. I’d rather look into a dude with a large library and a stack of comics than a rap sheet.