Subtext: What Does It Mean?

[polymath]

I know what subtext means, know it when I see it, the many ways it contributes to a narrative's experience. I'm not as great at creating it as I desire. But I'm closing in on it.

Does it matter if there's little or no subtext?

When subtext is inaccessible is it a wasted effort or appropriately or inappropriately asking for closer reading and contemplation after reading?

Does intepreting subtext add to the reading experience, while reading, when rereading?

Is subtext open to interpretations different from what a writer apparently intends? How different can it be and not detract from the intent and meaning?

When subtext is obvious is it too easy to interpret and therefore questioning readers' intelligences?

What about when subtext calls attention to deeper layers of subtext?

[Quill]

Many books appear to me to have little to no subtext.

I try for subtext as big as the surface text, and hopefully bigger.

Subtext is what's between the lines.

Poetry and song lyrics without subtext is known as Pop.

Subtext is what the writing piece is really about.

Subtext speaks to subconscious. If it speaks to consciousness it isn't subtext.

Subtext is the author's voice in undertones and words in invisible ink.

[polymath]

Many books appear to me to have little to no subtext.

I try for subtext as big as the surface text, and hopefully bigger.

Subtext is what's between the lines.

Poetry and song lyrics without subtext is known as Pop.

Subtext is what the writing piece is really about.

Subtext speaks to subconscious. If it speaks to consciousness it isn't subtext.

Subtext is the author's voice in undertones and words in invisible ink.

I'll grant I most strongly agree with the first and the fifth. The fifth and sixth raises a question of does subtext speak as strongly from a subconscious as from a conscious writer's mind.

[JohnDurvin]

Personally, I prefer books without subtext, or at least reading them as though they didn't have it. (Thousands have speculated on the meaning of Moby Dick, but what did Melville himself say it was about? "Whales.") Subtext is definitely an important factor in the fine-literature-versus-commercial-fiction debate, and while we'd all like to feel smarter and have layers of meaning and allegory in our work, that doesn't necessarily make for a good read, especially if it's too obvious or if it's too dense. In the former case, it might question readers' intelligence, or it might come off as preachy or as just an attempt to add subtext for the sake of subtext. In the latter case, you get something incomprehensible to those without Master's Degrees, things like Matthew Barney's "Cremaster" series or some kind of James Joyce fanfic.

As for differing points of view on the subtext, yes, that is going to happen, and no, you shouldn't feel bad. I learned this when I was getting my degree in art. The creative process can be guided the content, pure and simple, and you can put all the effort you want into it, but every single person will have a different interpretation of it. In psychology, Jung said that some things have universal meaning; Freud said that most things don't. Let's say your book starts with a horse alone in a field, and you intend it to represent loneliness. But then Reader A thinks back to when his cousin was trampled to death by a horse, and he's going to have a very different interpretation from Reader B, who remembers visiting her grampa's ranch and riding the horses. Reader C thinks about cowboys and Indians, and Reader D just watched that famous documentary about the rendering plant. Things are just going to mean different things to different people, and as an author, you should be proud when you can make them mean things to them, even if it isn't quite what they meant to you.

[polymath]

I feel when literary analysts interpret meaning they're posing their own sometimes overwrought meanings from what they read. Some go pretty far afield. They've got an interpretation they want to share and try out for finding common ground with an opinion consensus. They try to get others to agree with them and don't always succeed.

In my view, the secondary discourse that literary review is, is an effort to engage in the dialogue that literary arts are. I'm amused by literary reviews that are an ongoing debate between critics carried out in slow motion over months and years, even decades if not centuries, as to whether any given critic's interpretations of an author's intents and meanings are valid interpretations.

The literal meaning is the safest one, the easiest one, the most accessible one, perhaps the most spectacular one, frequently the most entertaining one, yet subtext is part of human nature. It's the depth of meaning with many layers we encounter in our everyday lives. We have hidden agendas. We're reluctant to show our true natures for fear we will prematurely show our hands, give our competitors and enemies and even our friends ammunition to use against us, or reveal our skeletons hanging in our closets. We keep secrets. We politely tell little white lies out of convenience, indifference, courtesy, consideration. We suspect others of hidden agendas and dark secrets. We rarely say what we mean or mean what we say. We tell partial truths and partial lies. We don't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth even under oath testifying in a court of law no matter how unbiased and honest we think we are or try to be. Though we do reveal our truths through nonconscious subtext when we most try to conceal them.

Subtext is more than just overarching symbolism, imagery, and tropes. It's also the implied accessible meaning between the lines that engages readers proactively by wanting to know what it will mean, sometimes knowing what it means when a character doesn't fully understand, and readers wanting to confirm their conclusions, which is dramatic irony. Subtext engages readers as surely as empathy, as suspense, as conflict. It engages readers' curiosity too. As subconscious as subtext meaning generally seems to be, it's consciously available for readers. It's there underneath intimately, privately, personally adding to engaging readers in the participation mystique.

[TheZies]

Check out Robert McKee's work Story.

http://www.amazon.com/Story-Substance-S ... 0060391685

There is a chapter devoted entirely to subtext.

In the writing course I'm taking, we did a lot with subtext. It's important, even if it's little. I would say be careful not to confuse subtext with interpritation. Subtext has more to do with underlying tension associated with the plot than "the shoe is red because it's associated with the devil." The more dramatic the scene the more powerful the subtext.

Quick, simple subtext:

Mary and Jim sat at their table in the dinning room.
"How was your day?" Mary asked.
"Good," Jim said, fiddling with his napkin.

There is something underlying there with Jim. In my current WIP, it is in first person. So I'll insert my characters thoughts inbetween dialogue rather than just action.

like:
Mary and I sat at the dinning room table.
"How was your day?" Mary asked.
Terrible
"Good," I said, fiddling with my napkin.

Subtext is a powerful tool in adding tension and depth. It doesn't have to philosophically deep, but just a simple, "oh, what is he hiding?" It can help strengthen your plot and push the reader through the story. It isn't something to worry with on your first draft. But on draft 9 or 10 after you've developed the story and the characters, it will strengthen the story. IMHO.

[polymath]

Yeah, TheZies, right on.

Subtext is context with hidden though accessible meaning.