Context vs. Subtext (Context Should Not Become Subtext)
Context First, Subtext Second
Subtext, especially good subtext, can be tricky to write. But in order to write good subtext, you need to have context first. And in order to do that, you need to understand the difference between them and where each one fits in storytelling.
Some writers make the mistake of trying to make the context into subtext. This is a problem for several reasons, one of the main being that it makes the story very vague. In vague writing, the audience can’t really tell what is going on. Without proper context, they aren’t sure how to interpret information and actions. Often, this sort of writing manifests when the writer is trying to follow the “show, don’t tell” rule too religiously, which usually leads to writing that is too cinematic.
However, creating context does not necessarily mean you have to “tell” straight-out all the time. It can also come from taking advantage of connotations, words with specific feelings attached to them. With that said, though, it’s impossible for most stories to have proper context without some telling.
Context reassures the reader that they are in the hands of a good writer through validation and helps them interpret what is happening in the story.
When there is little-to-no context in a story, the reader (subconsciously) can’t tell what is intentional or what is a mistake. For example, if you have one character call the other by the wrong name, but give us no context, we don’t know if that is a typo or something intentional. And if it’s intentional, we don’t know what it means.
Mack shut the Hummer’s hood. “Should be fine now,” he said to John.
“Great. Thanks, Karl.” John got in the driver’s seat and stuck his key in the ignition. The Hummer roared to life.
John headed for the main road.
This creates a few problems in the reading experience. Because the audience isn’t sure how to interpret John’s dialogue, they’ll be stuck thinking about it longer than they should be, longer than it deserves. And they’ll be waiting for an explanation, and they’ll want it quick. As they continue reading paragraphs, the tension builds up in the back of their minds, but it’s not the good kind of tension. It’s not the kind of tension that makes them eager for more of the story. Instead, the tension comes from them not being sure they can trust the writer. The tension comes from them not being able to tell if John calling Mack, Karl, is intentional.
If it was a mistake, it shouldn’t be there. It should be edited out. If it’s not a mistake, they have no context for how to interpret it. Is this supposed to be a character trait? Showing that John has difficulties remembering names? Or is it meant to show that John is a jerk who calls people the wrong names to get under their skins? Or is it meant to show how nervous John is about talking to people?
We don’t know because we don’t have any context. It’s vague and could mean any number of things. The reader is stuck trying to figure it out.
This can happen when the writer is trying to make their story mysterious, exciting, or engaging by leaving room for readers to come to their own conclusions and interpretations. They are right in their desire to have the reader participate, but it is misplaced. This is a job for subtext.
If the writer is not going to give the reader a clear interpretation right away, they need to validate the readers’ concerns. The writer needs to clue them into the fact that this is intentional, so the reader isn’t stuck trying to appraise the author. If something strange happens, and the audience doesn’t know why (because it will be revealed later), they need their confusion or skepticism validated, so they can stay in suspended disbelief. They need the writer to say, “Hey, I’m aware this is strange, but it’s intentional, hang in here with me.”
When handled right, this may actually strengthen the audience’s trust in the writer instead of weakening it (as long as they believe there will be a proper payoff for waiting).
Context gives the reader something to grasp onto, it gives them a sense of grounding, so they can be participators through subtext. If there is no context, there is almost no investment in the story, because the audience doesn’t have access to the meaning of any of it. If they don’t have access to any clear meaning, they are unable to care about what happens. The only way the audience can be invested in it, is if they are invested in the author–they trust the author will bring context later (and it MUST be brought later, not left uninterpreted).
jacobvanloon
theartofmadeline
areudirty
yousharknotpass
izzy806
titsay
