Need to study subtext, but how?

[Manderley]

One of the returning comments when my writing group critics my WIP, is that I need to leave more in the subtext. And I absolutely agree. When I see their suggestions, they are (almost) always right. However, next time, I back there with yet more text that should have been in the subtext. I seem incapable of relying enough on the subtext in my own writing, and I don't know if this come from me being blinded to my own writing; a fear of not being clear enough for the reader; an immaturity as a writer; or what. But I really want to improve on this. But how?

Does anyone have any great suggestions on how I can improve my grasp of subtext? Are there any books on writing that deals with this in particular? Any great novel for studying subtext - or maybe a really poor novel for seeing how it should not be done? Any writing exercises I can do to sharpen my subtext skill?

[OremLK]

This sort of depends on what they're saying you should leave in the subtext. Character motivations, thoughts, and emotions? Absolutely not, come out and say 'em.

If, on the other hand, you're bashing the reader over the head with lofty concerns like the theme and the moral of the story, then yeah, you might want to focus more on the action and the characters.

I'm not a big believer in making the reader work to understand your story, though. (The characters and the events.) Doing it too much can certainly damage your ability to get published or your sales once you are; doing it too little, not so much. Most of the bestselling writers tell things as plain as can be.

[Dale Emery]

There's a book called The Art of Subtext (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1555974732?ie=UTF8&tag=dalehemer-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1555974732). I haven't read it, so I can't advise whether it's any good.

Here's something I'm going to do: Study the TV series Mad Men to analyze how those writers work with subtext. I just started watching the first year on DVD a week ago, and I'm floored by the writers' use of subtext. There's always subtext in the conversation, and many conversations (at least one per episode) seem to be almost entirely subtext.

Dale

[Manderley]

There's a book called The Art of Subtext (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1555974732?ie=UTF8&tag=dalehemer-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1555974732). I haven't read it, so I can't advise whether it's any good.

Here's something I'm going to do: Study the TV series Mad Men to analyze how those writers work with subtext. I just started watching the first year on DVD a week ago, and I'm floored by the writers' use of subtext. There's always subtext in the conversation, and many conversations (at least one per episode) seem to be almost entirely subtext.

Dale

Thanks for both suggestions! Typically, I think Mad Men just ended a season over here, but I'll definitely keep an eye out for it when the show returns to the screens.

[Stunted]

If you have a sample of your work, I'll take a look at it.

[EriRae]

You could always post a couple of paragraphs in SYW and ask for comments/help with subtext. Providing an example may be the best way for us to know what we're dealing with and to make suggestions.

[Manderley]

I don't write in English, so I think that would be a bit tricky. ;-)

[Phaeal]

Subtext is implication -- what the words on the page suggest, rather than state. The reader must infer the subtext. I'd say you're doing your job is the reader infers more or less what you intended to imply, although it's also fascinating when he infers something different.

However, if what he infers is counter to what you intended to imply, you may have a problem. Maybe you do need to state more in the text, or maybe you need to reslant the text to lead more clearly to the subtext.

As for text that leaves little room for subtext, I find the solution is trusting the reader's intelligence and sensing how much your target reader wants to work out what's left unwritten. Molding something visible (the words on the page) so they suggest something invisible (the subtext) is, by its nature, advanced literary technique. It has a place in every genre, but I imagine that readers of literary fiction would have a higher tolerance and sensitivity for the thing unsaid, in that they would expect, would look for subtexts. The game in literary fiction is just this: wrestling meaning out of words and the whiteness around them. Whereas the game in other genres is not centered on language itself but on solving a mystery, emotionally shadowing the emotions of lovers, marveling at a strange world, vicariously sharing the thrill of adventure or the terror of suspense.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Subtext? I have enough trouble just writing the text! We have to have subtext, too?

[Medievalist]

Don't worry about subtext itself; that's something for writers (and mostly, critics and academics) to obsess over.

The job of the writer is to Show not Tell. What the readers are really saying (they've had too many college lit classes!) "Don't tell us so much, show us, instead, and let us figure out what it means."

[Telstar]

I think you should leave the subtext analysis and as well the theme for the third or fourth draft.

Now you have to concentrate on finishing the damn thing :)

[Sailor Kenshin]

One of the returning comments when my writing group critics my WIP, is that I need to leave more in the subtext. And I absolutely agree. When I see their suggestions, they are (almost) always right. However, next time, I back there with yet more text that should have been in the subtext. I seem incapable of relying enough on the subtext in my own writing, and I don't know if this come from me being blinded to my own writing; a fear of not being clear enough for the reader; an immaturity as a writer; or what. But I really want to improve on this. But how?

Does anyone have any great suggestions on how I can improve my grasp of subtext? Are there any books on writing that deals with this in particular? Any great novel for studying subtext - or maybe a really poor novel for seeing how it should not be done? Any writing exercises I can do to sharpen my subtext skill?

Not a book but a movie, and not even one that I particularly like, but The Firm.

The scene with Gene Hackman and the girl talking to one another through the schoolyard fence is loaded with subtext.

[maestrowork]

IMHO, subtext is not something you can actually learn by brushstrokes. It's not even like POV -- no specifics you can learn. Subtext is like the subtlety of a delicious dish -- it's kind of what makes something art: what's being said without saying it. The problem is, subtext is all about what "is there but really isn't" -- so how can you teach that?

To me, it's not a matter of trying to shoehorn subtext into a story, but creating it organically. The more layers you add to your story, the more chances for subtext to appear. I agree with a previous post that a writer needs to trust the readers to have the intelligence to comprehend beyond the written words to understand what lies beneath.

One way to practice writing subtext is to create multiple layers in your characters and plot, then in your rewrites, cross out things that are just obvious or find another way to say something without saying it. Show vs. tell is also a key to subtext. The more you show, the less you need to explain, and the more layers you can bring into your prose.

Study how people talk and have conversation as well. People don't usually spill out everything, but others can pick up the hints or the subtext, undertone, etc. A woman could talk about all kinds of stuff about kids, the house, etc. and her companion would know she was actually talking about seeking a divorce. Again, say something without saying it -- that's the essence of subtext.

[miles]

At least in dialogue, another word for subtexting is "indirect dialogue".

Lots of books discuss this, including HOW TO WRITE A DAMN GOOD NOVEL and GETTING INTO CHARACTER (http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Into-Character-Secrets-Novelist/dp/0471058947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225244027&sr=1-1) (both excellent IMO).

[C.bronco]

C.bronco looks up "sub-text" in the dictionary....

[C.bronco]

Subtext is like the subtlety of a delicious dish -- it's kind of what makes something art: what's being said without saying it.
Thanks, sir. My dictionary is in the back of my car, and it's too freakin cold to go out there.

[Carmy]

I was wondering what the heck subtext was, so thank you Phaeal and Maestrowork.

I guess, from a reader's point of view, it's the information I get from reading between the lines. Huh?

[LaceWing]

That question of How, Manderley -- maybe explore how a character would do it, by ignorance or subterfuge or deep psychological cause, and then work up to getting your narrator to be that kind of character.

[Diviner]

Aren't there two kinds of subtext, the implicit message of the speaker and the unspoken thoughts of the speaker? or do I have this wrong?

An example of the first: "You don't really understand." subtext might be, You're and ignorant, insensitive person or you would understand.

And example of the second: " 'And I know Brian doesn't want you to suffer.' The words caught in her throat, a comforting half-lie."

Or am I completely wrong about this, that one kind the reader has to figure out from the context and the other explains that the speaker is not being completly honest?

[miles]

Example of subtexting:

Jill and Lisa are coworkers. Jill gets irritated by something Lisa does and snaps at her, but soon apologizes.

Lisa doesn't accept it.

Later in the day, Jill says, "Want to grab a bite after work? I'm buying."

What she really means is: "Please, I'm so sorry. Won't you forgive me now?"


Lisa will either say,"Okay, let's go," (meaning she forgives) or "I don't have time for that," (meaning she won't drop it).

That's subtexting, at least in dialogue.

[maestrowork]

Here's a subtext in my own work. ;)


<The aunt goes on and on about the history between her and the MC's late mother>

"Your mother and I talked about everything." She held my hand and gave it a squeeze. "Everything."


<that's when the MC knows the aunt knows and is fine with her secret: she's a lesbian -- but nothing else needs to be said at that point>


Subtext is all about context and the subtlety, and the underlying meanings behind what people do or say things. You may want to look at it as the "unspoken truth."

[Diviner]

So sub-text is symbolic, no one is hiding anything but just saying something where their feelings are implicit?

[Dale Emery]

So sub-text is symbolic, no one is hiding anything but just saying something where their feelings are implicit

Often subtext includes things that people are hiding.

maestrowork mentioned context, which is a critical element of subtext. Let's see if I can explain...

Every conversation takes place in a context that includes each participant's history and experience, and (often more importantly) the relationship between the participants. An indirect conversation is one in which the meaning relies heavily on specific knowledge of that context, and in which the crucial details of the context are never spoken directly.

Those crucial, unspoken contextual details are the subtext. Subtext is the implicit context that gives meaning and significance to the indirect conversation.

Sometimes both participants know the implicit context, so they understand each other's meanings. Sometimes only one person understands the subtext, which means that the other person won't understand their full meaning (though an attentive reader/viewer will).

Many threats rely on subtext: "You know, Clement, it would be a real shame if something were to happen to your beautiful daughter."

Or even less directly: "Is this [picture] your daughter? Such a pretty face."

Dale

[katiemac]

I have a very simple example of subtext from a film.

Scenario: Captain and first mate of a ship. Ship's in nasty shape, damaged, destroyed, etc. First mate's husband has died in the crash that caused all the damage.

Captain: You think she'll hold together?
First mate: She's torn up plenty, but she'll fly true.

Dialogue suggests they're talking about the ship. The subtext is they're discussing the husband's death and effect on the first mate. It's very subtle, but it's very good, especially when you factor in character personalities, the setting and more.

[maestrowork]

So sub-text is symbolic, no one is hiding anything but just saying something where their feelings are implicit?

It can include hiding, but at least the readers will get it, if not the character. But basically it's something said without saying it.

True "hiding," in which the character is omitting or misdirecting or evading, is not subtext. A subtext must have meanings beyond the spoken/written words.

[Toothpaste]

We speak in subtext all the time, we just don't always realise it. If my mother asks me how I am, and I snap back "Fine" it is quite obvious that either I am not "fine" or that I am sick of my mother asking me that question. Thus I am actually saying something other than just "Fine", I am saying so much more.

When someone asks someone else "What's wrong?" and that person replies with a sigh, "Nothing", same deal.

Subtext isn't fancy, it isn't something that only writers think about, it is an incredibly important aspect to how humans communicate verbally with each other. Something we do unconsciously all the time.

Look at it literally: sub text. Beneath the text. Beneath what is being actually said.

[Medievalist]

The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms defines subtext as:


subtext Any meaning or set of meanings which is implied rather than explicitly stated in a literary work, especially in a play. Modern plays such as those of Harold Pinter , in which the meaning of the action is sometimes suggested more by silences and pauses than by dialogue alone, are often discussed in terms of their hidden subtexts.

[job]

One of the returning comments when my writing group critics my WIP, is that I need to leave more in the subtext.

I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what this meant.

Is this about literary themes? Because I don't understand literary themes myself so I should just kinda keep quiet.

But then I decided, (somewhat arbitrarily,) that the crit group may be saying you over-explain.

Does this seem to fit?
Are you over-explaining?


Lookit a little bit of explained-to-death exchange.

**********

"Listen to me for God's sake. I know what I'm talking about," John said angrily.

He was enraged because Marvin wouldn't listen. Would never do what he was told. John always expected Marvin to look up to him and take his advice. They were brothers, after all, and John was the older.

"Just calm down." Marvin was trying to soothe him. He didn't succeed.

"It's your funeral if you don't listen to me." He hated the way Marvin would follow anyone but his brother. Every dish on the shelf rattled as John stomped out of the room and slammed the door, leaving the threat behind.

*************


Here is the same exchange, but not over-explained.

************

John paced back and forth. "For God's sake, I'm six years older. Listen to me."

"Just calm down."

"Damn you. You'll take advice from anyone but your own brother." Every dish on the shelf rattled as John stomped out of the room. "It's your funeral."

**********


And here is the original segment wit the stuff that got 'over-explained' in blue


**********

"Listen to me for God's sake. I know what I'm talking about," John said angrily.

He was enraged because Marvin wouldn't listen. Would never do what he was told. John always expected Marvin to look up to him and take his advice. They were brothers, after all, and John was the older.

"Just calm down." Marvin was trying to soothe him. He didn't succeed.

"It's your funeral if you don't listen to me." He hated the way Marvin would follow anyone but his brother. Every dish on the shelf rattled as John stomped out of the room and slammed the door,leaving the threat behind.

*************

We got two kinds of over-explaining going for us here.

1) Some of this over-explaining is just that the reader gets told something twice. That John is angry, that he's making a parting threat, that Marvin tries to calm him down and doesn't succeed -- these are all obvious from dialog.

If you say something in dialog, don't go on to say it in action and then have the character think it and then outright tell the reader what's going on.
Once is enough.

2) Then there's stuff that gets more interesting if we move it into subtext.

See how I moved the entire
'younger brother/older brother relationship'
stuff into subtext?
It's happier there.

In the revised segment, the brothers' relationship is not simplified and explicitly spelled out and fed to the reader.
The relationship is still there for the reader to 'see'. But now she has to work to figure out what that relationship must be and how they feel about each other. She has to put her own spin on it. Has to pick up clues.

The specific, detailed 'this is what's happening between the brothers' words have moved off the page ...
and into subtext.


To avoid over-explaining ...

-- Trust the reader. She's smart. She'll figure it out.

-- Don't say stuff twice.

-- Be stingy with the big 'whys'. Don't tell her everything. Let the reader draw conclusions from the dialog and action you present. She'll thank you for the exercise.

-- leave depths of your characters in shadow. That's some of your subtext ... what's inside the characters that explains their actions. Let the reader go fishing in those depths.