Iceberg theory

[athousandsorrows]

What do you make of Hemingways iceberg theory?

I find it coming pretty close to home with how my prose is written. A lot of the sentiments he expressed about his own theory strike true to me.

I've always felt that less is more. Albeit I do think that there's a time and place for everything. Even prose that's written in a very verbose manner, like Edgar Allen Poes stories.

Perhaps I'll develope a style that incorporates the two.

 

[Naomasa298]

If I'm writing Jack Vance, I won't use one simple word when three complex ones will do.

 

[Seven Crowns]

The "iceberg theory" was mainly about subtext, yes? You see (read) what is visible on the page, while the main story is only implied and hiding under the surface. I remember reading Hemingway in high school and being deeply annoyed by that, haha.

It's like a metaphor that instead of existing in a phrase, lives at the level of story. So for us, are we willing to write a story whose real purpose is never stated?

 

[athousandsorrows]

The "iceberg theory" was mainly about subtext, yes? You see (read) what is visible on the page, while the main story is only implied and hiding under the surface. I remember reading Hemingway in high school and being deeply annoyed by that, haha.

It's like a metaphor that instead of existing in a phrase, lives at the level of story. So for us, are we willing to write a story whose real purpose is never stated?

That's the theory.

It really all boils down to preference. Who's to say if implication isn't a form of statement.

 

[Stuart Dren]

From Wikipedia. Iceberg theory - Wikipedia

In 1923, Hemingway conceived of the idea of a new theory of writing after finishing his short story "Out of Season". In A Moveable Feast (1964), his posthumously published memoirs about his years as a young writer in Paris, he explains: "I omitted the real end [of "Out of Season"] which was that the old man hanged himself. This was omitted on my new theory that you could omit anything... and the omitted part would strengthen the story."

In his essay "The Art of the Short Story", Hemingway is clear about his method: "A few things I have found to be true. If you leave out important things or events that you know about, the story is strengthened. If you leave or skip something because you do not know it, the story will be worthless. The test of any story is how very good the stuff that you, not your editors, omit."

I don't know how the value judgement would come from anyone apart from the writer, since Hemingway was the only one who knew for sure what actual elements he was omitting for any given story. Perhaps he indeed only expected the writer to be the judge of the not-there.

He skipped right past ambiguity into the amorphism of Jell-o.

Maybe it was merely his own tactic to avoid being too direct with themes? No problem there. Otherwise I'm completely unwilling to play ball e.g. "Sam-I-am's full name is actually Sam-I-am-not. It's all in the subtext, a clever omission."

 

[Naomasa298]

Taken to the Nth degree, here is my new story in full:

Did you like it? Seriously though, it then becomes about what to include. Can you exclude the fact that Romeo and Juliet killed themselves? You might say yes, and show the aftereffects, but then your not really excluding it, it just happens off-page. You must include *enough* to formulate a coherent and interesting story, enough to keep a reader engaged. How about, having included the fact that Juliet is nearly 14, the subtext is that Romeo is nearly 40? And rather than the story being about how a feud between families prevents young lovers from being together, it is really about one family being upset at the other because their dirty pedo guy keeps coming after their young daughter? But if you don't at least obliquely refer to that, the story becomes entirely different.

Maybe that is what Shakespeare actually conceived in his mind?

 

[Montecarlo]

I think subtext is critically important. In some ways to me good writing is like a magic illusion: it only works if the audience doesn’t know how it’s done. Like for my novel I needed the audience to feel the main character deeply desires love and family even though she didn’t consciously believe that, and in fact consciously opposed it. But I can’t come out and write something like “if she was truly honest with herself, she would realize she actually really wants the love and stability of a good family” because that breaks the illusion!

I guess I should also mention that it’s probably not a universal truth to always have to rely on subtext and subtlety. I just finished The Great Alone by Kristin Hannah and some pretty obvious connections she just comes out and states (at the right time):

Spoiler: Spoilers

that the most dangerous thing to Leni and her Mom aren’t the various natural dangers outside their Alaskan homestead, but the man living with them; that Leni needs to fly the nest and not be bound by her mother’s poor choices. (Though, now that I think about it, Leni never does that!)