Subtext

[maestrowork]

Let's talk about subtext, a topic not often discussed.

What do you know or think about subtext? How do you approach it? Does it come naturally? Or do you have to work it during rewrites? Any good examples of well delivered subtexts...

[Jamesaritchie]

Subtext and subplots are two things I never even think about. My belief is that if you tell a good story, you get these as part of the process.

[Gala]

ditto what James said.

Not heard of subtext in novel writing, that I recall.

I've heard of subplot in frequently.

[James D Macdonald]

"Subtext" is a cheat of Satan; a lie.

There is no such thing as subtext. Belief in its real existence is a mark of insanity.

<HR>

Actually, "subtext" is the part of the story that the reader supplies, the meaning the reader finds. It has little if anything to do with the meaning the author intended.

<HR>

Subtext does exist in drama -- it's the part supplied by the actor, the part that isn't in the text.

Our readers are our actors. They transform the printed words into moving colored noisy reality inside their minds.

That's subtext.

[maestrowork]

To me, subtexts are things that you, as the author, don't say explicitly but the readers will "get it" based on the context.

Context is very important for subtexts.

For example (I think someone posted this in Screen Writing before):

The man and his wife stood quietly in the elevator. A young woman came in, and the man took off his hat, smiled and nodded.

On the surface, it's just that the man greets the woman politely. But the subtext could be that it shows something about the relationship between the man and his wife. The author doesn't say it explicitly, but the readers supply the rest of the information and "get it."

In the following example, the context is that the narrator sees his sister's ghost:

"Tommy Sutton was executed today," I said.
"I know," she said, and smiled. "Justice. Take care, my dear brother." Then she disappeared like a wisp of smoke.

The subtext is that Tommy Sutton must have something to do with her death, and probably through a heinous crime, and now that justice is served, she can go in peace.


But without the context, the readers cannot understand the subtext. With the right context, subtexts are very powerful and fun.

[KLH]

I've always heard 'subtext' applied specifically to 'sexual tension' - and often subtext implicitly includes same-sex sexual tension. Not necessarily a "we'll jump into bed together!" but just a maybe/maybe-not kind of ambiguity that plays off the existing chemistry between two characters. And since it's rarely in the script per se, actors do create subtext on their own. However, writing a novel, I control the way the characters move, act, react, and can thus create subtext on my own.

I adore finding/playing up subtext; it indicates tensions beneath the surface. They may or may not be explained - more often not - but it indicates a depth to the characters. It's like...hrm, not only do the characters have motivations of their own (which may or may not align with the protag's motivations), but they also have sex drives of their own. If they're adults, they will look at the protag (or anyone else) and have that flicker of thought: hrm, he's cute; hrm, wonder if she's good in bed. And then it's gone - but that flicker creates a quick flash of tension, and that's the subtext.

Errr, or something like that. I don't think that was a very good explanation - but it's hard to explain. I don't think it's something you write consciously, but something you find in revisions (at least I do), or crit circles call your attention to it, and you either leave it in its ambiguity or you play it up a bit more or you explore what these tensions mean, and that takes you farther into the story and the character interactions.

[vstrauss]

>>Our readers are our actors. They transform the printed words into moving colored noisy reality inside their minds.

That's subtext.<<

And one person's subtext is another's "Say what?" It's endlessly fascinating how different people will read the same piece of fiction differently.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

I think that's why not a lot of people talk about subtexts... everything else you can pretty much get your hands on and wrap your mind around -- grammar, POV, plot development, dialogue, etc. etc. But subtexts? Be definition it's something that is "not" there.

It's kind of like style. It's something so abstract that you either have it, or you don't.

[mr mistook]

To me "subtext" is litterally the same as "reading between the lines." So to create subtext, you have to write between the lines. Or in my case, remove entire lines on revision. I'm still trying to get a handle on it.

[James D Macdonald]

All that's between the lines is blank white space. That's the screen where the readers project their own interpretations and meanings.

Writing/reading is an act of co-creation between the writer and the reader. We provide the blueprints; the reader is the contractor who builds the house.

[pianoman5]

This is a very interesting topic, maestro, because, although the term is used with slightly different meanings in the text-based arts – prose, plays, and screenplays – I think the combined sense of those meanings is what good fiction is all about, and describes what we might strive for as novelists.

In novels, I’ve always understood it to imply a hidden meaning behind the text, an extra layer of complexity or possibility that complements the ostensible theme of a piece (whether or not there is one).

Theatrical directors sometimes use the word similarly to describe what they see in plays that makes it possible to keep interpreting and re-interpreting the good old standbys of their canon, while their actors have to be mindful of it to perform the new angle accordingly.

In screenwriting they use the term to describe the scene-by-scene subtleties within carefully-crafted dialogue that speak volumes about characters and their situations (in conjunction with the skill of actors, director, cameraman, editor), where they don’t have the advantage of narrative to describe what’s going on inside the actors’ heads. It’s subtext that helps you ‘feel’ a movie in your heart as you’re hearing the dialogue.

There’s a good article about its use in screenwriting here (http://www.scriptforsale.com/articles/subtextfuture.htm), analysing a scene from ‘As Good As It Gets’ (one of my personal top 5 movies).

Given that a novel effectively becomes a movie rolling inside the reader’s head, the best writing, the good stuff that drags us into the page and stays with us long after we have experienced it, is riddled with subtext of all the above types.

In particular, I think a good grasp of subtext in the screenwriting sense is of great value to us as novelists. Pointed, economical dialogue reduces the need for narrative, and frees up our slim quota of qualifying adjectives and adverbs for use in action- and setting prose.

I like this quote from Logan Pearsall Smith, the great essayist:

What I like in a good author isn't what he says, but what he whispers.

[mr mistook]

All that's between the lines is blank white space.

Will respect, Uncle Jim - that's my point. A house is just a way to enclose empty space.

[maestrowork]

Have you ever drawn or seen a picture where lines are missing, or there are gaps all over, or looked at a Monet painting and seen how fuzzy everything is? At the same time, you get it -- you know it's a drawing of a woman, it's a painting of a rainstorm, it's a lily pond.

Subtext is saying something without saying it, and your readers will see it because of the whole context, much like filling in the gaps and details for the whole painting of a lily pond. It's like when you try to tell your soulmate something, and she says, "I know."

On a smaller scale, it could be a dialogue line removed... on a grander scale, it could be an underlying tension/cultural differences/political conflict/whatever without the author actually coming out and telling you. For example, "Planet of the Apes" is full of subtexts.

To be able to do that is mastery of the craft, in my opinion.

[mr mistook]

It's like when you try to tell your soulmate something, and she says, "I know."


That there, is very profound.

[Writing Again]

Subtext is that which is never stated directly but which the viewing, reading, listening, audience understands by implication.

Subtext is generally a screenplay term and it is vitally important to movies as we know them today. The primary reason it is so vital to is that screenplays are essentially written third person objective POV.

Third person objective cannot show what a character is thinking or feeling, cannot show past successes and failures, or hopes for the future through any means except action and words. Thus how the action is done, how the words are spoken, and the unsaid things the words can mean become more important than what is done and what is said. That is subtext.

To most non screenplay writers who can dip into the thoughts, emotions, and hopes of one or more characters subtext is of far less importance. However it is still a useful tool and one any writer would benefit from understanding.

Mysteries often benefit from subtext that neither the reader nor the detective understands at the time, but once the implications of actions and words are understood the solution to the crime is obvious. If done well the detective does not need to "explain" the solution; once pointed out the audience will experience an epiphany.

[chindem]

It's like when you try to tell your soulmate something, and she says, "I know."

Your soulmate is the entity with which your soul was created. It should reside on the 'other side' while you live on this side. Your kindred spirit, on the other hand, is your friend, spouse, etc.

[pepperlandgirl]

I think subtext is vital to a good story. Take Cat in the Rain as an example.

"I'm going down to get that kitty," the American wife said.
"I'll do it," her husband offered from the bed.
"No, I'll get it. The poor kitty out trying to keep dry under the table."
The husband went on reading, lying propped up with the two pillows at the foot of the bed.
"Don't get wet," he said.

That exchange would be pretty dull without subtext--maybe even pointless. It's what they're not saying that makes it interesting, what they're not doing, and what their words imply.

For me, subtext is when your character says Pass me a hammer and the reader understand the character is saying I love you more than life. Is it something you have to go out of your way to create? Not if you're a good writer, but just because you don't consciously inject it doesn't mean it's not there.

[pdr]

I've always linked subtext with theme. I will admit that I am often not fully aware of the full subtext until the story has been edited a few times but that's writing for you. By using certain words and phrases in a literary short story I try to point each reader to the 'something-I-want-to-say-through-this-story' truth in what I wrote. Often the subtext has been jangling and roiling around in my back brain for a long time and writing the story makes it all drop into place for me and hopefully some readers. Alas never all readers though maybe one day...when pigs can fly...?

[maestrowork]

Writing Again said subtext is a common thing in screen writing.

I think by definition it can be used wonderfully in dialogue in fiction. I'm the kind of readers who hate "internal monologue" or "explanation" during a dialogue scene. So subtext is greatly appreciated in dialogue, as illustrated in "Cat in the Rain."