Subversion in Writing

[Louanne Learning]

Outrage is reactive; subversion is strategic.

Outrage is what you tweet; subversion is what you smuggle into someone’s subconscious. The former feeds algorithms. The latter rewires them.

What Is Subversive Literature?

Every act of control begins with language. Every act of resistance begins with taking it back. One way is subversive literature.

markoneill.org

 

[Stuart Dren]

So, I would say being subversive in your writing is putting an idea in the head of the reader that "This is just not right."

Okay, and I'm posing this question not only to you, but to anyone. I've been Googling around, and found some stories whose titles seem to keep appearing. In no particular order:

Fight Club
The Handmaiden's Tale
1984
Lord of the Flies
The Wizard of Oz
The Grapes of Wrath
Fahrenheit 451

In anyone's opinion, subversive yes or no?

 

[Naomasa298]

I am somewhat surprised to hear you both say that there is no more meaning in what a writer is writing about than what appears in the plot. Is not the very exposure of the reality a call for change? Why else would they write about it?

Perhaps you aren't familiar with using social dynamics as narrative pressure. This is a method of writing where the setting itself causes movement in the plot. That's why they would write it. It creates plot movement, and a reason for the inciting incident.

You missed a line from your source:
However much radicals admired him, Dickens was never a radical author

Dickens was absolutely not calling for social reform. He was criticising misapplied morals, not even saying that the laws themselves must change. He believed that the system should be applied with more dignity, not that it should be abolished. He was certainly not considered "subversive" in his time - he was no Marx. THAT is what subversive looks like. Dickens was critical. Critical =/= subversive. And importantly, Dickens wasn't engaged in some kind of underground subversive movement. The Poor Laws were being actively discussed in Parliament. It was a mainstream debate.

I don't engage in presentism. I deal with enough of that in history discussions.

 

[Naomasa298]

In anyone's opinion, subversive yes or no?

Half of those, no. The Wizard of Oz was, again, critical, not subversive - and that's only if you accept the premise that TWoO is a populist allegory. Subversive writing inevitably calls for radical change, which is why governments are wary of it.

Orwell, however, does fall into what a historian would call subversive. Both 1984 and Animal Farm point towards the system and show how broken it is. There is no reform, no reconciliation of values, no path out that makes the system "better". It must be destroyed. Marx does the same. Subversion opts out of the system.

That is why Jack Kerouac is much more subversive than you could remotely attribute to Dickens.

 

[Louanne Learning]

The Handmaiden's Tale

I think this fits more into the "speculative fiction" genre - which is how Atwood referred to. Maybe a cautionary tale?

But it being on the list does raise a question - can all genres fit the "subversive" role?

 

[Louanne Learning]

However much radicals admired him, Dickens was never a radical author

You raise an interesting point. Does the subversive writer need to be a radical writer? I would say no. Radical writers are surely mostly subversive, but the inverse is not necessarily so. Subversive writers are not always radical.

Subversion can be more subtle and slow. It may seek to influence, and this can be accomplished by questioning or destabilizing a norm. Radicalism is more overt, more intense, more revolutionary, in calling for radical change.

It may be said that Dickens was calling for change, not only in social conditions by highlighting them, but especially in individual hearts, in his subtle way. This is certainly apparent in A Christmas Carol with the transformation Scrooge undergoes -

“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.”

And remember Marley's speech -

“Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

And in Great Expectations -

“That was a memorable day to me, for it made great changes in me. But it is the same with any life. Imagine one selected day struck out of it, and think how different its course would have been. Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation of the first link on one memorable day.”

And in David Copperfield -

“Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.”

And in A Tale of Two Cities -

“Death may beget life, but oppression can beget nothing other than itself.”

And a quote from Dickens outside of his writing -

“The most important thing in life is to stop saying 'I wish' and start saying 'I will.' Consider nothing impossible, then treat possibilities as probabilities.”


Taken in the context of the themes of his writing, I would call that last quote a call to action.

 

[Naomasa298]

You raise an interesting point. Does the subversive writer need to be a radical writer? I would say no. Radical writers are surely mostly subversive, but the inverse is not necessarily so. Subversive writers are not always radical.

Subversion can be more subtle and slow. It may seek to influence, and this can be accomplished by questioning or destabilizing a norm. Radicalism is more overt, more intense, more revolutionary, in calling for radical change.

It may be said that Dickens was calling for change, not only in social conditions by highlighting them, but especially in individual hearts, in his subtle way. This is certainly apparent in A Christmas Carol with the transformation Scrooge undergoes -

“I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.”

And remember Marley's speech -

“Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, benevolence, were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

And in Great Expectations -

“That was a memorable day to me, for it made great changes in me. But it is the same with any life. Imagine one selected day struck out of it, and think how different its course would have been. Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation of the first link on one memorable day.”

And in David Copperfield -

“Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.”

And in A Tale of Two Cities -

“Death may beget life, but oppression can beget nothing other than itself.”

And a quote from Dickens outside of his writing -

“The most important thing in life is to stop saying 'I wish' and start saying 'I will.' Consider nothing impossible, then treat possibilities as probabilities.”


Taken in the context of the themes of his writing, I would call that last quote a call to action.

The key is this - he was participating in what was already a mainstream discussion. It was being discussed at ministerial level and in newspapers of the era. If Dickens was subversive, then the government was too. Which it clearly was not. Nor was he hiding what he was saying in allegory or metaphor.

Again, social or political critique does not equal subversion.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I am somewhat surprised to hear you both say that there is no more meaning in what a writer is writing about than what appears in the plot.

Where the hell did I say that?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Where the hell did I say that?

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by saying commenting is not subverting

 

[Homer Potvin]

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant by saying commenting is not subverting

What, all commentary? Any commentary is subversion? Any subtext is subversion? Anything written between the lines is subversion? That there is nothing to a piece of writing then what is written in the plot?

What kind of black and white garbage is that and how could you possibly have inferred that from anything I said? Or anything else anybody said?

 

[Louanne Learning]

What, all commentary? Any commentary is subversion?

Well, no, we were specifically talking about the writings of Dickens

Here's what George Orwell wrote about Dickens in a 1939 essay -

It dealt with incidents which not one in a thousand of Dickens’s readers would ever hear about, and which no more invalidates his work than the second-best bed invalidates Hamlet. All that the book really demonstrated was that a writer’s literary personality has little or nothing to do with his private character. It is quite possible that in private life Dickens was just the kind of insensitive egoist that Mr. Bechhofer Roberts makes him appear. But in his published work there is implied a personality quite different from this, a personality which has won him far more friends than enemies. It might well have been otherwise, for even if Dickens was a bourgeois, he was certainly a subversive writer, a radical, one might truthfully say a rebel. Everyone who has read widely in his work has felt this. Gissing, for instance, the best of the writers on Dickens, was anything but a radical himself, and he disapproved of this strain in Dickens and wished it were not there, but it never occurred to him to deny it. In Oliver Twist, Hard Times, Bleak House, Little Dorrit, Dickens attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been approached.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Well, no, we were specifically talking about the writings of Dickens

Here's what George Orwell wrote about Dickens in a 1939 essay -

It dealt with incidents which not one in a thousand of Dickens’s readers would ever hear about, and which no more invalidates his work than the second-best bed invalidates Hamlet. All that the book really demonstrated was that a writer’s literary personality has little or nothing to do with his private character. It is quite possible that in private life Dickens was just the kind of insensitive egoist that Mr. Bechhofer Roberts makes him appear. But in his published work there is implied a personality quite different from this, a personality which has won him far more friends than enemies. It might well have been otherwise, for even if Dickens was a bourgeois, he was certainly a subversive writer, a radical, one might truthfully say a rebel. Everyone who has read widely in his work has felt this. Gissing, for instance, the best of the writers on Dickens, was anything but a radical himself, and he disapproved of this strain in Dickens and wished it were not there, but it never occurred to him to deny it. In Oliver Twist, Hard Times, Bleak House, Little Dorrit, Dickens attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been approached.

I don't care what Orwell has to say about Dickens... do you have any opinions of your own, or just what you can quote from the Internet? I want to know where I or Nao said:

I am somewhat surprised to hear you both say that there is no more meaning in what a writer is writing about than what appears in the plot.

Where was that said, because it appears to me that you're putting words in our mouths. And derailing a discussion--again--when you don't like what other's have to say or have the temerity to offer their own opinions that may disagree with your... quotes?

 

[Louanne Learning]

do you have any opinions of your own

I think anyone who has read this thread knows my opinion

Where was that said, because it appears to me that you're putting words in our mouths

I’ve already apologized for not choosing my words carefully enough

And derailing a discussion--again

That’s not how I see it - or saw it last time.

when you don't like what other's have to say or have the temerity to offer their own opinions that may disagree with your

I gave you a heart on your first post!

When I post, I am thinking of what I can write that other members can take away with them, it's not about disagreeing for disagreement's sake

 

[Homer Potvin]

Fight Club
The Handmaiden's Tale
1984
Lord of the Flies
The Wizard of Oz
The Grapes of Wrath
Fahrenheit 451

Fight Club... maybe? It's a bit on the nose with a gang of ruffians directly attacking the system. It doesn't have as much of "sub" part.

Handmaiden's Tale... a bit too preachy and speculative, I would say.

1984... definitely.

Lord of the Flies... never read it, but from the various movies, probably

The Wizard of Oz... in what way?

The Grapes of Wrath... been a long time, but what part? The American Dream isn't what it's cracked up to be and there's no land of milk and honey down the road? I mean, duh, but I guess I could see that one.

Fahrenheit 451... definitely.

Somebody mentioned All Quiet on the Western Front upthread, which was directly banned by Hitler for subverting what he considered German ideals. That might be the granddaddy of them all. He loved Storm of Steel of though with themes of duty, strength, and stoic perseverance, despite Junger's subtext, which is actually anti-war in my opinion and subverts the tenets of Nazism on several levels.

The key is that subversion is not direct. It undermines something indirectly, very often by not framing it as an acknowledged problem at all, like Winston learning to love Big Brother at the end of 1984. There's that "sub" prefix at the beginning, meaning under or beneath. It's not overt.

 

[Trish]

The Grapes of Wrath... been a long time, but what part? The American Dream isn't what it's cracked up to be and there's no land of milk and honey down the road? I mean, duh, but I guess I could see that one.

It was promoting labor unions and collective action over individual, to be fair. Though I'd personally think of Of Mice and Men before Grapes of Wrath for Steinbeck.

 

[Naomasa298]

The Wizard of Oz... in what way?

There is an interpretation of The Wizard of Oz that says it is an allegory for the American socio-economic system.

The Yellow Brick Road - The gold standard
The silver (not ruby, in the novel) slippers - bimetallism
The scarecrow - agriculture
The tin man - industry
The lion - military
The wizard - the empty power of government

That interpretation isn't universally agreed though. Frank L. Baum never said it was anything other than a children's story.

 

[Trish]

There is an interpretation of The Wizard of Oz that says it is an allegory for the American socio-economic system.

The Yellow Brick Road - The gold standard
The silver (not ruby, in the novel) slippers - bimetallism
The scarecrow - agriculture
The tin man - industry
The lion - military
The wizard - the empty power of government

That interpretation isn't universally agreed though. Frank L. Baum never said it was anything other than a children's story.

What are the witches and the flying monkeys?

 

[Naomasa298]

What are the witches and the flying monkeys?

I dunno... the US and Soviet Union, and science?

I've seen both the Wizard of Oz and Wicked on stage, and I have to say, I think Wicked is better.

 

[Homer Potvin]

It was promoting labor unions and collective action over individual, to be fair. Though I'd personally think of Of Mice and Men before Grapes of Wrath for Steinbeck.

I'd have to read it again. Been since high school. Don't think I ever read Mice. I don't remember being a Steinbeck fan, but can't remember why. I think I have both of them in this classic leather bound set of like 100 classic books I inherited from my grandmother.

There is an interpretation of The Wizard of Oz that says it is an allegory for the American socio-economic system.

The Yellow Brick Road - The gold standard
The silver (not ruby, in the novel) slippers - bimetallism
The scarecrow - agriculture
The tin man - industry
The lion - military
The wizard - the empty power of government

That interpretation isn't universally agreed though. Frank L. Baum never said it was anything other than a children's story.

Okay. I can see that. You can also get high and watch it with Dark Side of the Moon playing in the background, which I've never tried but have heard so many stories about it that I feel as if I did.

What are the witches and the flying monkeys?

Probably satanism or atheism or paganism for the former. Maybe communism or fascism for the latter? Militant minions who blindly follow a false authority? I don't know. Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey. Wings or not.

 

[Trish]

That interpretation isn't universally agreed though. Frank L. Baum never said it was anything other than a children's story.

Yeah, I like the more obvious interpretation, personally. They were all just pieces of herself.

Probably satanism or atheism or paganism for the former. Maybe communism or fascism for the latter? Militant minions who blindly follow a false authority? I don't know. Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey. Wings or not.

LOL. The ones with wings are objectively more cool.

I'd have to read it again. Been since high school. Don't think I ever read Mice. I don't remember being a Steinbeck fan, but can't remember why. I think I have both of them in this classic leather bound set of like 100 classic books I inherited from my grandmother.

I read Mice when I was 11. Had a pretty profound impact on me. The ending is brutal (and also beautiful and inevitable).