Layering - Who for?

Sometimes the layers just happen.

I don't believe Shakespeare wrote his plays to be analysed, but you can find layers if you do so.

I reckon if you concentrate on themes while editing your work, you can find some plot points work better than others and these are usually the ones with double meanings or 'layers' to them.

I'll probably come back to this. It's half four in the morning where I am and I'm only just starting to get tired...

But anyway. I think there are writers who put subtexts in without even trying to do so; some storylines work better than others and they're usually those that are multi-dimensional rather than flat and 'what you see is what you get'.

For the readers. Not ALL the readers, but those who take the time to read deeply, or those who read the book multiple times, or academia that study it. Layers, symbolisms, subtexts, etc. are like details, much like the varying hues in a flower petals, or the intricate patterns on a leaf. A casual observer would only see the whole and a general impression -- and that's all fine. The flowers are red and beautiful. The leaves are green and fresh looking. But for the person/readers who dare to delve deeper, there's a whole different level(s) to appreciate, and it can be very gratifying.

Think of it as the hidden treasures, the golden nuggets somewhere for the curious to find. They can be very rewarding. And to the writer as well, when some of his readers "get it." I've had a few very attentive readers who see the layers and subtexts in my stories, and that's very satisfying for me when they tell me. It's the fulfillment of the ultimate writer-reader contract.

Hmmm....I think there are many reasons.

I think some try to be deep and layer on purpose. Sometimes it is done well and sometimes not. I know a poet who deliberately made sure his themes meant at least two or three things--

I think sometimes universal themes can present themselves within text that is relatable in that way--things can then be distilled down to an essence or "truth" that is recognizable to people inherently, and especially upon closer scrutiny.

I think that sometimes it is like a Roarsharc card (probably slaughtered the spelling there)--that the reader brings to it their own experiences, dreams, thoughts and ideas--drawing out layers from the text....

I also think that I shouldn't babble when I have had beer.

Also, even if the readers don't consciously notice the layers and subtexts, I think subconsciously these layers and subtexts do add to the experience. Again, using the flower/leaf analogy -- the observer might not really notice the varying hues or patterns, they are there there help bring the total, richer experience.

I can't say I'm doing it on purpose but I've noticed in the story that I am writing that I am discovering layers. I started my story with a blank page and no idea of what I was going to write. It turns out that my story is about a woman who is homeless and has amnesia. As I write the story, I see it functioning on a superficial level but as I reread and reread, I feel like I am discovering some things about my subconscious.

Whether my story operates on different levels for other people, I have no idea. And, maybe no one else will ever see the dimensionality of the story. For me, it's happening.

I guess I'm kinda weird though because, whether anyone else sees it happening, I believe everything happens on multiple levels. I don't believe the world is flat in any aspect or for anyone or any experience. I can't think of anything that is truely "flat".

Sorry for the redundant word usage......guess I'm tired.

kdnxdr said:

I guess I'm kinda weird though because, whether anyone else sees it happening, I believe everything happens on multiple levels. I don't believe the world is flat in any aspect or for anyone or any experience. I can't think of anything that is truely "flat".

Click to expand...

That's not weird to me at all. I actually have a mental '3-D model' of reality -(okay, THAT'S weird!)
Much of my work has multiple levels. I think a lot of it is missed by the reader- sort of out of context maybe. My poetry about family can be read in a way most people can relate to, but if you know my family personally, the references change.
I don't exactly do it intentionally, but I can't imagine writing any other way. But then, maybe using poetry as an example isn't appropriate, since metaphor and simile are expected there, and those are good vehicles for layering.
I'm still working on my short story style, but I do see a tendency there as well.
As a reader, I LOVE layers.

I write those layers in mainly for myself, because I like reading fiction with that kind of depth and complexity. I assume there are other people who like and bother to notice them, so I'm writing it for those readers, too. But I also write them for the sake of the story.

Others have pointed out that while most readers won't consciously notice all those layers, and may never sit down and analyze a story to try to find them, leaving them out would deprive the story of richness and depth. Most people I know would never read something I wrote and say, "Wow--I loved your use of the house as a symbol for [whatever]. It really built up the sense of dread." They're more likely to say, "Giving that house a mind of its own? That was really creepy. I liked it, but man, how do you think up this crazy shit?" But they're also aware of when a story seems "flat," even if they can't articulate why, and sometimes they'll spot things I never expected them to. So I'm not going to underestimate the people who simply read for enjoyment.

My layers are more obvious and have to do with the plot structure. Rachael Vater taught me about the importance of layering, complex sub plots, twists, turns, red herrings and other devices. She explained that this is what attracts serious attention from agents and editors. Simple, linear stories are not cutting it anymore. You have to become wild and daring.

As far as hidden layering or themes, I don't intentionally sneak them in there for effect or any other reason. If someone wants to analyze my work in such a fashion, so be it. Anything that ends up in there, past or over my intentions, is probably a fluke. Ender's Game is one such book that everybody wants to delve into and pick apart for layering and hidden meanings. I just don't see it.

Tri

Layers add complexity, much like a parfait, and everyone loves parfait.

(^me, trying to be deep at far too early on Saturday morning, but referencing Shrek instead)

Layers just happen because life imitates art, no sorry that's the other way around. We think in a layered way, we live in a layered way, so it is natural and honest to create in a layered way. For me, there's no way around the layers , they just keep happening.

As a reader, I love the layers and I'm betting they enrich the experience for most other readers whether they are aware of them or not.

Actually readers may discover layers and subtexts and meanings beyond what the author intended or even thought of. It's actually quite fascinating to hear a reader going on about the social-political-economic themes of certain story only to have the author say, "Huh?"

Layers

It's been my experience that, about nine times out of ten, the layers exist only in the mind of the critic studying the fiction. A critic is often like the man in a dark room who was looking for a black cat that wasn't there, but he found it anyway.

The one in ten times the layers really do exist, the writer did not put them in intentionally. They just happened as a natural consequence of the story. When a writer starts actively trying to put layers into fiction, the fiction usually turns out bad, and never sells.

Jamesaritchie said:

It's been my experience that, about nine times out of ten, the layers exist only in the mind of the critic studying the fiction. A critic is often like the man in a dark room who was looking for a black cat that wasn't there, but he found it anyway.

The one in ten times the layers really do exist, the writer did not put them in intentionally. They just happened as a natural consequence of the story. When a writer starts actively trying to put layers into fiction, the fiction usually turns out bad, and never sells.

Click to expand...

LOL! I always thought this when the teachers in college kept asking us to analyze the layers and determine what the writer meant.

maestrowork said:

Also, even if the readers don't consciously notice the layers and subtexts, I think subconsciously these layers and subtexts do add to the experience.

Click to expand...

I agree.

As much as I do consciously try to layer my work (in the short stories I'm working on now, the challenge I've set myself is to tell one story while implying another), I think that a good deal of layering happens unconsciously. Sometimes you can discover this yourself, as in those "aha" moments where you suddenly realize that the action in Chapter 10 dovetails perfectly with that apparently random detail you came up with in Chapter 1. Sometimes you have no idea till a reader says something.

- Victoria

Jamesaritchie said:

It's been my experience that, about nine times out of ten, the layers exist only in the mind of the critic studying the fiction. A critic is often like the man in a dark room who was looking for a black cat that wasn't there, but he found it anyway.

The one in ten times the layers really do exist, the writer did not put them in intentionally. They just happened as a natural consequence of the story. When a writer starts actively trying to put layers into fiction, the fiction usually turns out bad, and never sells.

Click to expand...

Although the critical ability to invent layers where none exist are high, there are plenty of fiction writers who deliberately build very deep, nuanced works that have both commercial and critical success. Margaret Atwood, Kazuo Ishiguro, Michael Chabon, Cormac McCarthy -- these people write books that are both incredibly engaging and very deep, and I suspect those writers would be very offended by the suggestion that their work only acquired depth by accident.

That said, I think you have to let your themes develop organically. Attempting to shoehorn Deep Thoughts into a story that doesn't naturally support them is a recipe for failure.

Alot of good comments have been posted that help me as a novice writer.

It seems the twist to this subject is that when others do see or look for those nuanced meanings in a story, or for that matter, any work of art, something is at play that is more than the story itself.

As an "outsider" looking "in", I believe the audience has a vantage point that the artist does not, in most cases.

I'm one to believe that others can see things about us (the artist) that are revealing of who we are and how we function. Art is about communication (and that communication takes many different forms and functions). Artists need an audience, someone who the art communicates to or with. Affirmation, confirmation, response are motivators for what artists do but I think art involves a process of knowing our own self more each time art is executed.

As layers (of meaning) are explored, we gain understanding of the artist, our own self, our world and of whatever is beyond all those things.

Sorry, just thinking "out loud".

ClaudiaGray said:

Although the critical ability to invent layers where none exist are high, there are plenty of fiction writers who deliberately build very deep, nuanced works that have both commercial and critical success. Margaret Atwood, Kazuo Ishiguro, Michael Chabon, Cormac McCarthy -- these people write books that are both incredibly engaging and very deep, and I suspect those writers would be very offended by the suggestion that their work only acquired depth by accident.

That said, I think you have to let your themes develop organically. Attempting to shoehorn Deep Thoughts into a story that doesn't naturally support them is a recipe for failure.

Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't acquire depth by accident; maybe the books acquired depth without the authors even trying - there's a difference.

After all, most of 'layering' is in the eyes of the reader. As I said before, I'm sure Shakespeare didn't write his plays to be analysed to the Nth degree. He wrote them to be enjoyed.

Same with Ishiguro, who happens to be my writing god. (He was robbed of the Booker for Never Let Me Go if you ask me).

I'll bet it takes hard work to write those books, but I'll also bet that when he's writing, some plot lines 'feel' right and others don't. Layering can come as a result of instinct. And let's face it, if anyone can develop a reliable writerly instinct, it's Ishiguro.

So it's not so much that writers layer 'by accident', but rather, by instinct for what fits in with the themes more.

Jamesaritchie said:

It's been my experience that, about nine times out of ten, the layers exist only in the mind of the critic studying the fiction. A critic is often like the man in a dark room who was looking for a black cat that wasn't there, but he found it anyway.

The one in ten times the layers really do exist, the writer did not put them in intentionally. They just happened as a natural consequence of the story. When a writer starts actively trying to put layers into fiction, the fiction usually turns out bad, and never sells.

Click to expand...

Word, James.

I've never thought about layers. All I ever want to do is get from the beginning to the end of my story.

ClaudiaGray said:

Although the critical ability to invent layers where none exist are high, there are plenty of fiction writers who deliberately build very deep, nuanced works that have both commercial and critical success. Margaret Atwood, Kazuo Ishiguro, Michael Chabon, Cormac McCarthy -- these people write books that are both incredibly engaging and very deep, and I suspect those writers would be very offended by the suggestion that their work only acquired depth by accident.

That said, I think you have to let your themes develop organically. Attempting to shoehorn Deep Thoughts into a story that doesn't naturally support them is a recipe for failure.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I've heard an awful lot of writers who were as surprised by the "layers" critics found as I am. I don't think "accident" really has anything to do with, but neither do I think intention has anything to do with. Good layering is the result of telling a good, properly structured story about real life and real people.

And just once I'd like to have a writer such as Atwood, Chabon, or McCarthy point out this fancy layering before a critic does, and then have it match what a critic says.

Jamesaritchie said:

And just once I'd like to have a writer such as Atwood, Chabon, or McCarthy point out this fancy layering before a critic does, and then have it match what a critic says.

Click to expand...

But you can't disprove that they did put in those layers. Chabon's books, for example, are obviously layered. This guy spent five years writing a novel and his books are all rich, layered, multifaceted. You can't just say "Oh he just winged it." I think we're doing the writers a disservice by implying that they don't know what they're doing, that layers/subtexts/symbolisms are just a college professor's imagination. People are layered. Life is layered. And when a writer does it well, HE or SHE understands these layering and has made an effect of creating such layers. Whether they match what the readers think is beside the point. The point is that they don't write surface stories and thin characters.

I am surprised by some of the things my readers tell me -- and that amuses me to no end -- but I'd be darned if I say, "Oh, I never thought of layers. I just wrote a simple story." Yes, there are definitely layers in my story. The fun that is for you to find out or speculate what they are.

Jamesaritchie said:

And just once I'd like to have a writer such as Atwood, Chabon, or McCarthy point out this fancy layering before a critic does, and then have it match what a critic says.

Click to expand...

I've had reviews that "got" my layers, or underlying themes, or whatever you want to call them. And sometimes, when I mention that kind of thing in a revew, I hear from writers who are pleased that they succeeded in getting across what they intended. You can't control the reader's response, and there's certainly a lot of off-the-wall critical stuff out there--but I don't think it's fair to say that layers are the invention of the critics.

- Victoria

Yes, Victoria. It's very gratifying when a reader/critic/whoever "gets it." It's amusing when they think something else, too.

maestrowork said:

But you can't disprove that they did put in those layers. Chabon's books, for example, are obviously layered. This guy spent five years writing a novel and his books are all rich, layered, multifaceted. You can't just say "Oh he just winged it." I think we're doing the writers a disservice by implying that they don't know what they're doing, that layers/subtexts/symbolisms are just a college professor's imagination. People are layered. Life is layered. And when a writer does it well, HE or SHE understands these layering and has made an effect of creating such layers. Whether they match what the readers think is beside the point. The point is that they don't write surface stories and thin characters.

Click to expand...

Very well said. I remember Amy Tan commenting on a master's thesis that a student sent her, which speculated on the meaning of her continual use of groups of four in her fiction. The student had come up with all sorts of possible links to Chinese mythology. Tan reported that no, she hadn't thought of that at all; in fact, now that the student had pointed out all the repetitions of the number four, Tan considered it a flaw in her writing.

But does that mean that The Joy Luck Club or The Kitchen God's Wife don't have deliberate layers that Tan did build into her story? Of course not. Just because some people get it wrong doesn't change the fact that authors work hard at creating stories that operate on more than one level, and the best succeed brilliantly.