subtext

I am aware of that word in your sentence, yes. Imo it's usually a mistake to assume any intentions on the part of the author unless they explicitly state them, for many reasons, whichever way your assumptions are leading. (ETA: that;s not 100% accurate on the state of my feelings on the matter tbh, which are complimicated. But for any one book? Yeah, assuming is probably bad.)

Metaphors I can do*. But subtext flies over my head like superman


* mostly

Neegh said:

It is a mistake to assume that the author was unaware of some subtext you believe you may have discovered.

Click to expand...

I disagree, and I will tell you exactly why. Writers are human, they can't catch 100% of the implications of everything they produce. Whether it is a short story, novel, play, movie/TV show etc., they can't control the reader/viewer's conclusions about every little thing. Two Star Trek original series episodes have gay subtext, but people view it as a friendship thing despite the intentional subtext by the writer. And the writer of those episodes was known for gay subtext, even having a short story published during the 50s which includes such subtext. Or for something more appropriate the scene where Jim and Blair's spirit animals merge and restore Blair to life in the TV show Sentinel. I bet the writers didn't mean to give Jim/Blair shippers fodder, but they did. The subtextual implication is that Sentinel and Guides are spiritually linked, bonded to one another. Some would take that in context of other things and see soumates, which for them becomes soulmates= non-platonic love. IE. They're in love with each other. Others will take that in context and not see the same thing, they'll see no soul link at all or see them as platonic soulmates.

Don't even get me started on subtle but still oddly enough fairly obvious things like the meaning of the Vulcan word t'hy'la.

Well, if you were reading one of my stories and you saw that there was a bit of dialogue where the characters were talking about fast cars, but there seemed to a lot of gay undertones going on...that'd be because I put them in there.

Neegh said:

Well, if you were reading one of my stories and you saw that there was a bit of dialogue where the characters were talking about fast cars, but there seemed to a lot of gay undertones going on...that'd be because I put them in there.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone would see it. To some the conversation really would be about cars and nothing more, because for whatever reason they subconsiously refuse to see it. Subtext in Harry Potter was subtle but tells us Dumbldore was in love with Grindwal, and fans of the books still freaked out when it was revealed Dumbledor was gay. The subtext was there for anyone willing to consider it for a second, many didn't.

If subtext winds up in what I write, I don't care. If a reader takes some subtext out of what I write, I don't care. I write.

I write. For the writing part of my life, that's my job. I don't interpret or parse what I write. That's not my job, nor do I ever want it to be.

caw

Any subtext in my stories occurs only at the micro level, and only in dialogue (or in anything that could be considered dialogue). The desire to convey a theme or message doesn't exist in me.

Lillith1991 said:

Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone would see it. To some the conversation really would be about cars and nothing more, because for whatever reason they subconsiously refuse to see it. Subtext in Harry Potter was subtle but tells us Dumbldore was in love with Grindwal, and fans of the books still freaked out when it was revealed Dumbledor was gay. The subtext was there for anyone willing to consider it for a second, many didn't.

Click to expand...

That reminds me of a story about Clive Barker, who gave a talk in the 80s and spoke about the then-recent David Cronenberg remake of The Fly. Barker talked about body horror, AIDS overtones (bear in mind AIDS was a VERY pressing issue that decade) and so far. A man in the audience got up and angrily replied that that was all nonsense - it was a film about a man changing into a fly.

eyeblink said:

That reminds me of a story about Clive Barker, who gave a talk in the 80s and spoke about the then-recent David Cronenberg remake of The Fly. Barker talked about body horror, AIDS overtones (bear in mind AIDS was a VERY pressing issue that decade) and so far. A man in the audience got up and angrily replied that that was all nonsense - it was a film about a man changing into a fly.

Click to expand...

Yup! Some readers/viewers don't see subtext and will ardently defend the literalist view of whatver it is.

I don't really care for subtext that the author points out after the fact. To me it feels slightly pretentious. (Well, not the Dumbledore kind of subtext, more like the "the dog obviously represents climate change, I can't believe people missed that" kind of subtext). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

As for shipping subtext... well, shippers gonna ship. They don't just ignore subtext, they'll ignore text. Ships are sacred!

(I... may or may not be one of those people who wishes Hans and Anna were the actual official couple...)

Samsonet said:

I don't really care for subtext that the author points out after the fact. To me it feels slightly pretentious. (Well, not the Dumbledore kind of subtext, more like the "the dog obviously represents climate change, I can't believe people missed that" kind of subtext). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

As for shipping subtext... well, shippers gonna ship. They don't just ignore subtext, they'll ignore text. Ships are sacred!

(I... may or may not be one of those people who wishes Hans and Anna were the actual official couple...)

Click to expand...

Not all of us, probably 90% of my ships whether hetero or same-gender are completely based on actual events in the show/movie/book. I love my ships because they're entirely possible within the confines of the source material. If I personally have to twist everything and take it completely out of context to support a pairing then I don't have any interest in the pairing. Even when I write a crackship like a crossover pairing I look to make sure the sort of pairing I'm considering is possible within the confines of each source.

Lillith1991 said:

Two Star Trek original series episodes have gay subtext, but people view it as a friendship thing despite the intentional subtext by the writer.

Click to expand...

OK, first, the gay subtext was never confirmed by Sturgeon, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's there. The generally understood interpretation of it is that the idea of Pon Farr is a metaphor for coming out of the closet. That is, Spock (and all Vulcans) have sexualities that they keep hidden and repressed, much like many gays etc of that period. That's the subtext, if there is one, and it has nothing to do with Kirk and Spock's particular relationship.

Now, you may disagree, which you have a perfect right to do. But all that does is confirm that subtext is often in the eye of the beholder. It may seem very real to that viewer or reader, but that's doesn't mean it's actually there. And I rather object to the notion that writers can be incapable of recognizing subtext in their own work.

BethS said:

OK, first, the gay subtext was never confirmed by Sturgeon, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's there. The generally understood interpretation of it is that the idea of Pon Farr is a metaphor for coming out of the closet. That is, Spock (and all Vulcans) have sexualities that they keep hidden and repressed, much like many gays etc of that period. That's the subtext, if there is one, and it has nothing to do with Kirk and Spock's particular relationship.

Now, you may disagree, which you have a perfect right to do. But all that does is confirm that subtext is often in the eye of the beholder. It may seem very real to that viewer or reader, but that's doesn't mean it's actually there. And I rather object to the notion that writers can be incapable of recognizing subtext in their own work.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm not basing my belief in the subtext in those episodes solely on those episodes but on The World Well Lost, a short story written by Sturgeon. The story sets a precident for later works in my opinion, of which "Shore Leave" and "Amok Time" are examples. There are honestly things in those episodes that friendship, even strong friendship, simply doesn't explain. In fact I find there are things in the entire series that are like that. Note that I'm not saying the characters where gay like a rabid fan would, I don't believe they are. I simply don't subscribe to the idea that they didn't feel more than friendship for each other, because to do so would be to ignore some things with no other logical explanation. It would also mean accepting an inherint double standard in which some of the overlaping interactions between them with women or with each other is ignored.

When I first saw TOS I didn't actually see what fans of the pairing meant. I've gone through each episode and dismissed anything that either didn't overlap with their interactions with women or wasn't completely unique to them. And there is a lot more overlap than people, even myself on first watch, actually tend to be willing to consider. As I said earlier, I don't like a pairing without evidence the majority of the time.

Either way, I maintain that a writer is only human. We can not see every single bit of possible subtext in our work, some of it we will miss. Some of it we will see at a later date when someone else points it out and go, "huh, I didn't notice that before."

Neegh said:

...And people have been known to see the things they wish to see rather than what may actually be there; just because you can make an argument doesn't mean you have one. Just two common themes used as subtext in many stories over the centuries.

Click to expand...

As I said, I went into TOS WITHOUT my looking for subtext goggles. I went in despite my love of other pairings in other fandoms completely expecting to come down on the side of them simply being friends. What I got without aforementioned subtext goggles was a lot of things that didn't add up, and in truth annoyed me. People mistake the idea of them being in love with them being involved romantically and sexually, even among fans of the ship. There are no indications that they ever engaged in sex during the series, and sex and love are not the same. There's no indication they were non-sexual romantic partners either. But being in love with someone, especially one whom you consider a friend, doesn't require a romantic or sexual relationship to take place. You can be in love with someone and not "be" with them.

And maybe the author never intended that

Happens.

The existence of subtext does not equal the author intending that subtext (It may, it may not. you cannot say for sure unless the author says so)

Mr Flibble said:

And maybe the author never intended that

Happens.

The existence of subtext does not equal the author intending that subtext (It may, it may not. you cannot say for sure unless the author says so)

Click to expand...

Agreed. Though if other works of their's includes it as well, I'm likely to say they're aware of it. But only because the more it comes up the more both the writer and others are likely to notice it.

Samsonet said:

"the dog obviously represents climate change, I can't believe people missed that"

Click to expand...

That's symbolism - a different device but also a powerful one if done well.

Lillith1991 said:

Agreed. Though if other works of their's includes it as well, I'm likely to say they're aware of it. But only because the more it comes up the more both the writer and others are likely to notice it.

Click to expand...

Sturgeon was, to the best of my knowledge, straight - if not that bi, as his three marriages and two other longterm relationships known about, were all with women. But along with Philip José Farmer (also straight) he did a lot to liberalise SF in the 50s and 60s regarding sexual matters and broke a few taboos on the way. "The World Well Lost", your example, is just one example. He also wrote a story whose subject matter can be guessed from its title: "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One of Them Marry Your Sister?". And the ending of his short vampire novel Some of Your Blood was controversial in its day.

Lillith1991 said:

Agreed. Though if other works of their's includes it as well, I'm likely to say they're aware of it.

Click to expand...

Again maybe, maybe not

It's not much different from unexamined prejudices -- the author may be completely unaware

Over a course of a career you might be able to extrapolate a standpoint (I think you can, or a reader thinks you can, but you need to be bloody clever), from one or two books ...no.


*(an author I totally admire for his books stance on many things is, in fact, a complete arsehole IRL. His books have no resemblance to him or the values he actually speaks of. His books are fecking fantastic for diversity)

eyeblink said:

Sturgeon was, to the best of my knowledge, straight - if not that bi, as his three marriages and two other longterm relationships known about, were all with women. But along with Philip José Farmer (also straight) he did a lot to liberalise SF in the 50s and 60s and broke a few taboos on the way. "The World Well Lost", your example, is just one example. He also wrote a story whose subject matter can be guessed from its title: "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One of Them Marry Your Sister?". And the ending of his short vampire novel Some of Your Blood was controversial in its day.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not suggesting he wasn't straight. You don't have to be LGBT for your work to contain either outright queer text or queer subtext. Just that the man has a history of it prior to Star Trek, which makes it a little less likely he didn't know it was there. There's no confirmation either way on whether he deliberately did include it, and there's no denial. I suspect we'll never know.

Lillith1991 said:

Oh, I'm not suggesting he wasn't straight. You don't have to be LGBT for your work to contain either outright queer text or queer subtext. Just that the man has a history of it prior to Star Trek, which makes it a little less likely he didn't know it was there. There's no confirmation either way on whether he deliberately did include it, and there's no denial. I suspect we'll never know.

Click to expand...

Sorry if not clear, but I wasn't suggesting you were suggesting that. There are plenty of straight creatives quite comfortable with LGBT angles and "sensibilities" (however you define that) and LGBT creatives with whom you will have to dig very deep into their work to find any sign of LGBT subtexts if any at all.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Lillith1991 said:

And then you also have some subtext that people refuse to see when the writer does insert it. Both Amok Time and Shore Leave, two original series Star Trek episodes, include gay subtext written in by the writer.

Click to expand...

Lillith1991 said:

Oh, I'm not suggesting he wasn't straight. You don't have to be LGBT for your work to contain either outright queer text or queer subtext. Just that the man has a history of it prior to Star Trek, which makes it a little less likely he didn't know it was there. There's no confirmation either way on whether he deliberately did include it, and there's no denial. I suspect we'll never know.

Click to expand...

Which means you do not KNOW whether the writer inserted it, or not.

Instead, you are assuming and, in the first post I have quoted asserted it as fact.


You think it involves gay subtext. Unless the author says that is so, it is only your supposition. Other people have other suppositions ( which are as unsupported by fact, but which they are entitled to)

My schizophrenic friend can go on for hours on "alternative" meaning within any text you wish to hand him—and half of them sound fairly reasonable. It’s slightly amazing actually (when in the mood to tolerate him) …but in the end, he’s crazy so…

Mr Flibble said:

Which means you do not KNOW whether the writer inserted it, or not.

Instead, you are assuming and, in the first post I have quoted asserted it as fact.


You think it involves gay subtext. Unless the author says that is so, it is only your supposition. Other people have other suppositions ( which are as unsupported by fact, but which they are entitled to)

Click to expand...

Well, then mea culpa. I made an assumption. Other people certainly have before. Though there are certainly a lot of things about the particular episodes I've referenced which honestly have no plausible heteronormative conclusion, facts about the episodes themselves. And I still maintain that since gay subtext appears in more than one of his non-Trek stories, he may have known it was there when writing those episodes. May have known, not did.

Everyone makes assumptions -- they aren't evil. They just are not facts and should not be presented as such

Lillith1991 said:

Though there are certainly a lot of things
about the particular episodes I've referenced which honestly have no plausible heteronormative conclusion,

Click to expand...

To you maybe not. To others, there there are plenty of heteronormative conclusions to be had. Where you stand probably depends on your perspective.

That does not mean other's perspectives are wrong. They just are not yours.

Some readers/viewers don't see subtext and will ardently defend the literalist view of whatver it is.

Click to expand...

And some readers will ardently defend their view of a subtext the author never inserted

Unless the author explicitly states it, you can never know who is right