By
Scott Wagland
There’s a funny thing about subtext- it needs text. There’s very little point to it unless the text itself is readable. There’s nothing wrong with having a work full of symbolism, but if you neglect to make something accessible on face value you’ve got no one to blame but yourself when it goes unnoticed.
Call me a philistine, but when art needs to be explained by an external source then something has gone wrong. A work should be able to stand on its own. Some artists and authors talk about trying to make statements, about expressing their views, their emotions, but if no-one could possibly see it without resorting to footnotes and interviews, I’m sorry, but you’ve failed to express it. “And here we see the inner angst of the artist, and a yearning to free themself from the patriarchal norms imposed by an uncaring, materialistic society”; that might have been the intent, but all it looks like is a section of hastily painted, streaky wall with something spilt on the corner. It might still be pleasing to the eye, and someone might want to hang in on a wall. Yet the subtext and text are so disjointed it’s not even a case of translation, but imposition of meaning from the outside. It might still be art, but as a means of expression it has failed.
The situation differs somewhat when you come to writing. A nonsense string of characters (not random, but mashed in a pattern that betrays inner turmoil) won’t be called serious writing, regardless of what the author was attempting to express. If it doesn’t please the eye, no-one will give it enough attention to dig through to the subtext. Pleasing can take into account many things; does it flow off the page into the mind, does it hold interest, is it entertaining? Poetry doesn’t have to be particularly coherent, but is the imagery evocative, or soothing, and flowing? In other words, is it readable?
When it comes to fiction the primary consideration has to be the text. Layers upon layers of meaning can follow, but if the text itself is poorly constructed, if it’s boring, if it fails to engage the reader on face value, then it will never be good writing- regardless of how much meaning is inserted into the subtext. Examine fiction. Deconstruct it if you must. But firstly, read it. Subtext is a bonus. It can turn a simple story into a great work of fiction. But it can’t save a bad story from being unreadable.
There are those who, however, when it comes to written works, stage, or screen, fail to see the forest for the trees. The self-styled ‘serious’ appreciators of art, those who define themselves by group identities such as bohemian or avant-garde or the myriad –isms, ‘intellectuals’ and academics. Not that everyone in these groups falls into this trap, but there are quite a few who are all sub and no text. Those who are insular and elitist when it comes to their field, who only judge the worth of a work by its symbolism and ignore the literal. Any works from those in their own or aligned groups are superior, and anything with mass appeal is inferior. They dissect and discuss the minutiae of their works without ever stopping to ask if anyone has actually enjoyed the text, and not just the themes and symbolism. Popular works are, naturally, inferior. Anything that is commercially successful has of course been stripped of any deeper meaning. Bestselling authors, blockbuster films, they’re just prole feed. You can’t enjoy any works like that if you want to remain a non-conformist.
One of the easiest areas to point out the bias is in film. I’m sure you’ve met those with elitist attitudes when it comes to critiquing movies. Any movie out of Hollywood (and that includes anything by a large studio whether physically located there or not) is, ipso facto, inferior. Anything with a large budget automatically loses a star – any special effects or explosions and another star comes off. Alternatively, anything ‘independent’ or foreign is given a star. After all, independent writers and directors haven’t ‘sold out’. They can maintain their artistic vision, and not be robbed of it by soulless studio financiers. Mainstream films are full of gratuitous violence and sex, of juvenile jokes, or watery romance, and formulaic plots. They’re slick industrial products, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Independent films on the other hand abound with meaning, they’re deep and insightful explorations of the human condition, they speak of the inner struggle of the artist. Who cares if the acting is poor, the editing is terrible, and the script incomprehensible; the symbolism is there.
That’s not to say there are no good independent films, there most definitely are. To be sure, there are many terrible Hollywood films as well. The problem lies in defining the film not by what is on the screen, but by what went on behind it. Watch it. Watch what is on the screen. Then start thinking about what wasn’t on the screen, the subtext. Then judge whether the film is good or bad.
When it comes to scenes within a film, the bias is also often there. A flash of breasts in a Hollywood movie is gratuitous; a five minute sex scene with actual penetration in an independent or foreign movie is ‘artistic’. Car chases; shoot-outs; explosions; they’re just there to gloss over holes in the script, or attract a bigger audience. So what if they are? A scene can exist just for the sake of entertainment, and just because there are some gratuitous scenes it doesn’t mean the work as a whole is devoid of deeper meaning. This isn’t confined to action either- entertainment covers the whole range, comedy to tragedy, action or drama. Entertainment can mean evoking excitement, lust, sadness or joy, laughter or fear, lover or hate. It means having something interesting happen. The text needs to keep the interest of the audience on its own, even if it has to resort to gratuitous scenes to keep it moving. Only then can the subtext flourish.
Even Shakespeare wasn't above gratuitous violence and pussy jokes1. Shakespeare's plays are full of gratuitous violence and sexual innuendo, sure to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the day. No doubt some of the murders in his plays are required as dramatic elements- Hamlet just wouldn't be the same without characters dropping left, right, and centre. But there are plenty more inserted purely for the spectacle. There's also a difference between romantic words of love and risqué double entendres.
But don't get the wrong idea- this isn't a criticism of Shakespeare. I have nothing but admiration for his plays. The point is that even while he was writing his layers, his subtext, his deeper meaning, he didn’t forget to make the story interesting. He went to lengths to make sure his works were accessible to a wider audience; murders, war, explosions (like the cannon that burnt down the Globe), fights, trash talk, jokes, lewd jokes, innuendo; sex, romance, lust, love. Sometimes there for the plot – often there just for the groundlings.
It really hit home during high school, when doing comparative studies of one of Shakespeare’s plays and a modern play. Shakespeare, once you get past the changes of the English language over the last four centuries, was enjoyable to read, even before the heavy discussions started. The modern play, though written with more understandable language, was simply unreadable. There were discussions about the subtext, the themes, the symbolism; but none of them could cover the fact the story was, for lack of a more poetic term, crap. Again, this isn’t to say there aren’t perfectly good modern plays being written. Yet this play was put forward as worthy of study by educational academics. I could only assume that the subtext was written first, the themes and symbolism carefully planned- and the actual story was just tacked on at the end. Perfect for dissection and discussion, just not for reading or watching. Not to mention, when you go so far as to include stage directions for a prop just so you can point out its symbolism in later discussions, something is seriously wrong.
Good fiction should automatically convey its themes. It should say something about the human condition and the society in which it is set simply by virtue of staying true to its narrative. It can say more than it does it at face value- subtext- but subtext should be an extra layer, not required for enjoyment.
Shakespeare did this well. But also consider something like George Orwell’s Animal Farm. I read the book shortly after seeing the cartoon version when I was around ten years old. The story was good, I enjoyed reading it, and some themes were clear- even though I had no idea who Stalin was, or Trotsky; I had no knowledge of the works of Lenin or Marx; I didn’t know what communism was or any of the history of the Russian revolution. But it was still a good book. Years later, when I did know of these things, I read it again. There was a whole other layer, and the book was better for it. Or consider Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. For all the talk of symbolism and allegories, the story itself is an entertaining throughout. Much like Ishmael in the Golden Inn telling his stories to keep his cup filled, Melville enjoyed telling his yarns. Amusing anecdotes and detailed descriptions of whaling life permeate the novel, and the main story itself keeps the readers interest.
Text is important. You can write to a theme. You weave layer after layer onto your text. But it’s not something to be tacked on at the end. It’s important that the text is worth reading for itself. Subtext without text leaves…
Copyright © Scott Wagland 2007. Do not reproduce without permission. All rights reserved.