Recent searches
Search options
I think a lot about how subtext is a double-edged sword.
It asks the reader to invest more fully in the story and when the reader is able to do so, it creates an incredibly rich experience. A relationship between reader and story forms. It's more alive and more immersive.
But subtext is also exclusionary to any reader who doesn't have the particular cultural experience that the subtext relies on.
And this is really important:
It also means that writers of privilege can get away with using more subtext (and fewer explicit explanations) because there's a cultural expectation that readers with less privilege will do (or have already done) extra work to understand that privileged writer's culture.
@allisonwyss What if you're just writing about your experience because it's the only experience you have? Sometimes the sub- is sub even to the writer.
Well, if it happens to be an experience that is typical of a privileged person, workshoppers and editors and reviewers will let you tell a lot more of the story through subtext.
But if it happens to be an experienced that privileged folks are unfamiliar with, you'll be expected to explain a lot more.
I'm not saying it's wrong to write about things that are easy to tell through subtext for these reasons.
I'm just saying it's not fair. It's an extra annoying obstacle for some.
@allisonwyss Are you thinking primarily of fiction or nonfiction?
Fiction is my specialty but I think it's true of both.