Robert McKee, in his book Dialogue, asserts that subtextual dialogue is idiosyncratic of realistic, mimetic genres of storytelling, as opposed to nonrealistic genres such as horror, sci-fi, fantasy, etc... He writes: “...one of the key differences between nonrealism and realism is subtext. Nonrealism tends to diminish or eliminate it; realism can’t exist without it. why? Because to clarify and purify a character’s symbolic nature - virtue, villainy, love, greed, innocence, and such - nonrealistic genres eliminate the subconscious and with that, psychological complexity.” Now, McKee often strikes me as overly academic and lenient towards what he would call “unorthodox” writing but what most people would call “bad”. But this assertion seems wild even for him. It flies in the face of everything I’ve studied. Every experienced writer of dialogue I have listened to has said that subtext is key. Period. I’ve never heard anyone single out certain genres as discouraging it. what do you make of this assertion? Could you point me to an example of subtext making a scene fail in these genres? If I were to write a fantasy novel, should I seriously aim to make my characters devoid of any psychological complexity? Is McKee out of his mind!?
I think possibly it's easier to get away with a lack of subtext in genre-based fiction. Plot tends to be more of a driver and there's more readers out there who just want to read some subtext-free escapism about storming the Dark Lord's tower than there are who want to read a subtext-free account of a depressed middle-aged English professor staring out a cafe window at the ocean. But I wouldn't say that I've ever seen subtext make a scene fail or that it's a bad thing to include. Fantasy, sci-fi, romance etc can be just as deep and complex as any literary book, and are better for it when they are.
I partially agree with him, but not entirely. Yeah, that was one of the things that made me kind say "Whaaaaat?" I would say that if you categorize fiction on a scale with say pulp fiction and the superhero comics of the 30's at one end (the 'low' end) and pure literature on the other, then for the most part the subtext exists toward the literary end. However, he specifically said if i remember right that sci-fi and fantasy simply doesn't or shouldn't have subtext. Not necessarily true. There's sci-fi and fantasy that's pure escapism, deliberately made simple so people don't have to deal with complexity or anything like the problems of the real world while reading it, and a lot of sci-fi and fantasy leans in that direction, but some authors get labelled as fantasy or sci-fi because they write imaginative stuff, but it includes a lot of complexity and subtlety. Like Gene Wolfe for instance. Check out his amazing interview called On Encompassing the Entire Universe. He explains that he does what some of the great literary authors of the past used to do, including Homer and Shakespeare and Milton—he writes about not only everything that exists, but everything that COULD exist, so you end up with things like gorgon-headed monsters and giant bronze automatons guarding islands. But his characters have a good deal of complexity and subtlety, and I do believe there's subtext. But McKee is right to the extent that the closer you get to pulp fiction you don't want complexity. If you have worlds that each only have one product and everything is made from it, you probably don't want subtext.
I completely disagree with this opinion, both in substance and in reasoning. The question isn't realism or non-realism, it's the themes and focus of the story. Just as high fantasy will have less subtext than low fantasy, so will a WW1 surrealist isolation story have more subtext than a fictional story of a car racer. Point of the matter is that I feel this argument is loaded with a fair amount of prejudice towards non-realism instead of digging deep enough to explain the actual phenomenon. Comparing cross-genre, a political high fantasy world built on intrigue and complex themes will (and should) have more subtext than a young adult detective story set in the present world. To be blunt, I don't think an author claiming this has ever picked up Kafka's works.
i don't know if he was out of his mind but he's so incorrect i started laughing. i think McKee doesn't understand speculative fiction of any sort and really shouldn't have given his opinion.
I'd say you probably notice the subtext more in literary works. Dragons, vampires, and explosions are attention-getters that dominate the page. Doesn't mean there isn't plenty of subtext, but the reader is less likely to key in on it.
This thread has got me thinking about it. I think the main difference is whether important things are being carried by the subtext or not. The kind of exchanges McKee details happening in subtext involve a surface level where they seem to be talking about inanities like the weather, but the real meaning is hidden beneath the surface. Readers need to understand that and be able to 'read' the subtext level or it doesn't make sense. But sometimes the conversation carries the meaning on the surface with a just little extra oompf underneath—a bonus, but not necessary for understanding the dramatic meaning. I think that kind of subtext is fine for any level of writing. In fact it would be hard to avoid unless dialogue is written like for a children's book, totally on the nose.
One of the examples he mentions of subtext-free dialogue is in LOTR: “Those who venture there never return.” But is this really a good example?
What do you mean? Just that particular line? I'd want to see a complete exchange. I'd need to watch or read a chunk of LoTR to see, but I don't think it has any real subtext going on. From what I recall it seems people pretty much say what they mean and mean what they say.
And suddenly it occurs to me. I think I understand why he would say it's more of a 'realistic setting' thing. Often in fantasy and sci-fi much of the appeal is in the world-building or the fancy technology. Characters often don't have a lot of depth to them. But in a real-world based story you don't have those things to draw the attention away, it's firmly directed at the people themselves. And the people aren't 'types' (Elves, Orcs, Dwarves, Hobbits etc), they're often fully-rounded characters. That's where the depth is, unless it's a silly story. In a real-world setting we're all familiar with the complex social rules and mores etc, so the writer is free to delve deeply into those, and that allows complex and multi-layered character interaction. To try to get that kind of character interaction into fantasy or sci-fi would overload it. You're already trying to get across how the complex world works (you don't need to do that in a real-world story). I mean, it certainly can be done in sci-fi or fantasy, but I can't recall seeing it done often if at all. Even though I mentioned Gene Wolfe above, I'd need to check into it. I can't remember if there was subtext or not. I suspect in order to pull it off you'd need to have a setting that allows real-world style interaction between characters, so the way people are interacting is pretty much like it would be in our familiar world. Just a spur-of-the-moment hypothesis though.
Yes, Wolfe. M. John Harrison. Ursula K. LeGuin. Octavia Butler. Samuel R. Delaney (some of his works are rife with it). P.C. Hodgell. Ellen Kushner. Ian M. Banks. Tanith Lee. Angela Carter. That's just off the top of my head when it comes to SF/F authors who use subtext. Not that every conversation qualifies, of course, and some use it more than others, but I believe they all make use of it. Kazuo Ishiguro has at least three SF/F novels. They're in my Kindle queue but I haven't read them yet. I'd be surprised if he abandoned subtext for them.
I had to google the book the OP mentioned, and was surprised to see it came out in 2016. That sort of view I thought was much more prevalent a decade or two (or more) ago. I thought we'd moved on past the whole "let's turn our noses up at genre fiction" attitude but apparently not. How disappointing.
That's bad writing though, not an ideal or average for fantasy/sci-fi. The main challenge of those genres is that the world has to be built, but characters still must be unique and developed.
oh, *gosh.* he didn't base his opinion on the dialogue craft of an entire genre on one book that's so old it could collect social security at the time of publication? the wild-ass things people think they have the right to say based on a thimble's worth of information. my goodness!
He might be right with his first line about there being more of a tendency for non-realistic fiction to have subtext, but it's clearly not a hard-and-fast rule. Is there subtext in poorly written romances or soaps? Probably not. Did Shakespeare get subtext into his tales of witches and ghosts, or did Whedon get subtext into Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Oh yes, copious amounts. And neither of those examples would be half as famous or loved if they didn't.
I don't think he's saying you should erase subtext. He's saying that genre writing puts characters into tropes, and that filtering process flattens the character to some degree. Genre characters often say what they literally mean because they're pushing plot from a set angle, and that angle is determined by their genre role (hero, villain, foil, etc.) Plus, because genre is fascinated with spectacle, there isn't time to dwell on conflicting motivations. (I think he says that in that chapter.) You shouldn't be going through your work and simplifying what's there. By the time you've written it, the simplifications have already happened. McKee is big on characters not understanding their own wants/needs. They don't understand themselves and so they say things that have double meanings. The subtext rises out of them. He's not talking about snarky genre know-it-alls who play with words (your Buffy, Loki, etc.), but people who are generally lost in the world and themselves. They're pulled in many directions and sometimes go nowhere, whereas a genre character might bumble about, but eventually beelines to some goal. He/she does that with words too. (disclaimer: I've only read some of this book, not all of it. It actually looks really, really good. I should probably finish it. Has a screenplay feel to it, but playwrights really understand dialogue.)
