Subversion in Writing

[Louanne Learning]

A tool in the writer’s toolkit, or a theme? Makes the reader take their eyes away from the page for a moment just to think about what they just read?

A subversion is provocative – it's the unexpected - turns norms or tropes on their head. Peels away layers to get to the truth. Makes readers question their assumptions. Makes them say, “That’s a new way of looking at it!”

Here’s one definition I came across --

… a subversion is when the story sets up an expected path, event, trope, etc, and then when the moment arrives to bring that same event/trope/story element to its expected conclusion … something happens to turn everything the reader expected about said element on its head.

Charles Dickens was considered a subversive writer because he criticized economic, social, and moral abuses in the Victorian era.

Must subversion always include social commentary? What other kind of commentary might it include?

How about subversion in writing structure? Are non-linear narratives (disrupting the chronological flow of time) subversive? Or the unreliable narrator?

Has anyone read Watchmen, by Alan Moore? I hear it subverts the entire superhero genre.

It just seems to me that to be subversive is a good thing for a writer to be. I am just wondering all that that might entail.

 

[Schism]

All revolutions become bureaucracies.

 

[Naomasa298]

Those are two different types of subversions. They're doing two unrelated things.

One is a subversion of tropes and clichés. You set up one narrative expectation and replace the outcome with another one, for dissonance. For example, something like:
"He ran as fast as his legs could carry him. Because he was only 4'6", that wasn't very fast."

The other is social or political commentary that is considered "subversive". Like, I dunno, writing about Winnie the Pooh in China. Or a President making himself King in a powerful democracy.

One subverts reader expectation, the other reframes issues outside of a social/political mainstream narrative.

 

[Stuart Dren]

Well the subversions of tropes become tropes themselves, to the point where just following the original trope becomes a subversion.

If its barebones definition just giving the reader something different than they expected, well that's pretty necessary in some form or other. I would have a hard time finding a story that doesn't have some form of subversion. One of my recent favourites is from Who Goes There?

"Us," Blair giggled. "It can imitate us. Dogs can't make four
hundred miles to the sea; there's no food. There aren't any skua
gulls to imitate at this season. There aren't any penguins this far
inland. There's nothing that can reach the sea from this
point—except us. We've got brains. We can do it. Don't you
see—it's got to imitate us—it's got to be one of us—that's the
only way it can fly an airplane—fly a plane for two hours, and
rule—be—all Earth's inhabitants. A world for the taking—if it
imitates us!

"It didn't know yet. It hadn't had a chance to learn. It was
rushed--hurried--took the thing nearest its own size. Look--I'm
Pandora! I opened the box! And the only hope that can come out
is--that nothing can come out. You didn't see me. I did it. I
fixed it. I smashed every magneto. Not a plane can fly. Nothing
can fly." Blair giggled and lay down on the floor crying.

Chief Pilot Van Wall made for the door. His feet were fading echoes
in the corridors as Dr. Copper bent unhurriedly over the little man
on the floor. From his office at the end of the room he brought
something and injected a solution into Blair's arm. "He might come
out of it when he wakes up," he sighed, rising. McReady helped him
lift the biologist onto a nearby bunk. "It all depends on whether we
can convince him that thing is dead."

Van Wall ducked into the shack, brushing his heavy blond beard
absently. "I didn't think a biologist would do a thing like that up
thoroughly. He missed the spares in the second cache. It's all
right. I smashed them."

This is so brilliant I want to scream. You would think Van Wall hasn't appreciated the severity of the situation and so is checking to make sure they can still fly out. No. In fact, he fully appreciates the stakes at least as much as the reader does, and is checking to be certain no one can fly out. Campbell could have easily drawn more conflict from someone acting irrationally, which would have been tiresome. Instead, it's riveting.

You'll probably find the most subversions in comedy. That's probably why it often doesn't age well, or sometimes its reversal is so iconic that it becomes timeless.

 

[Pyroglyphian]

It just seems to me that to be subversive is a good thing for a writer to be. I am just wondering all that that might entail.

As Naomasa pointed out, it depends on what kind of subversion we’re talking about.

I like seeing subversion within the writing craft, as I think it keeps things fresh and prevents stagnation, even though – as Schism and Stuart Dren noted – the new eventually ossifies. One question I've occasionally wondered is whether subversion must be deliberate; if you break with convention unintentionally, are you being subversive? Or just clumsy?

In the wider sense of subversion, I see it operating at a foundational level of values. We each have a value system, and where we notice discrepancies between our values and those embodied within sociopolitical conventions, the degree to which we act out against them is perhaps the degree to which we can be said to be engaging in subversive behaviour. Needless to add, this is not the exclusive preserve of writers, though artists generally – as cultural producers – have the ability to spread ideas that can potentially reinforce or challenge those conventions. Whether being subversive in this sense is “good” is probably subjective; i.e., if your values align with mine, please feel free to proceed!

 

[badgerjelly]

Has anyone read Watchmen, by Alan Moore? I hear it subverts the entire superhero genre.

Yes. I highly recommend reading anything by Alan Moore (graphic novels or novels). Porbably the only work of fiction I really want to have a go at in the furture is Jerusalem.

Alan Moore is a special kind of human being that quietly insists on attention by making large silent splashes in human culture pool.

 

[Louanne Learning]

ou'll probably find the most subversions in comedy.

Yes, subversive writing often relies on satire - "a form of artistic expression that uses irony, sarcasm, wit, and humor to criticize and ridicule individuals, institutions, and societal norms"

Using comedy would keep the reader engaged and entertained, instead of coming across all serious or morose, or as a lecture. And it's good for pointing out hypocrisy. And we like to laugh at people who deserve it.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Alan Moore is a special kind of human being that quietly insists on attention by making large silent splashes in human culture pool.

Love the imagery here

 

[Schism]

Hey. I'm a vampire who injects garlic into his veins each and every morning.

Aren't I cool?

PS I drink holy water like it's going out of style.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Like Nao said, there's the subversions of tropes, which is modern, and regular subversion, which is older than dirt. They're two completely different things. So much so, that we should be using the phrase "subversion of tropes" for the former and the regular word "subversion" for the latter, as they have nothing to do with each other. The trope thing is fairly standard. Take any classic literary device and invert it. Best example--though probably outdated--is the hardboiled detective rescuing the damsel in distress. Flip it around and make the detective a chick and the damsel a dude and you've subverted the trope. Or take the crimefighting superhero and turn them into a self-indulgent, hedonistic baffoon who doesn't care a whit about justice.

And so on. Subverting expectations is certainly a key ingredient to that, but not all misdirectional things are subversive.

Regular subversion is when a value of ideal is challenged indirectly. Often through an art form that can slip past the authoritarian goalie . Or reciprocally, a certain value or ideal is championed via an art form so as to avoid stating something directly, which would likely fall on death ears because nobody likes being preached to or being value-shamed. Heinlein, for example, was criticized for writing subversive tales of militarism. If he came right out and said militarism is good and here's why, that wouldn't be subversive. Another example would be Western music as viewed from authoritarian regimes. A classic one that came up in the early 00s was when Britney Spears was huge and images of her half-naked on stage with a snake draped around her shoulders made its way to the Muslim world. It's one thing to silence people and concrete symbols that preach against sharia law, but rooting subversive messages out of music or art that repackages the threat into something more subtle is impossible to combat.

The communist bloc was notorious for this, too. Particularly Western cinema. They didn't have the Internet then, so it was more of a contraband situation, but there are very good reasons why half the world (at least) heavily sensors the Internet or controls it outright.

Peels away layers to get to the truth

Not sure where you got that one from, but I would say it's the complete opposite. Subversion takes a perceived truth and adds as many layers as possible to keep it from being revealed.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Not sure where you got that one from

I was thinking of Dickens exposing the ills of Victorian society

 

[Homer Potvin]

I was thinking of Dickens exposing the ills of Victorian society

I can kind of see that, but was he looking to subvert the institution at the time or just commenting on it? I'm not 100% sure it qualifies as subversion to simply criticize/comment on something, particularly in such a on-the-nose Dickensian fashion, but then again, if the readers at the time read some Dickens and started thinking "Hey, our society is really fucked" instead of "oh, these poor characters dealing with hard situations," that would definitely be subversive.

It also points to the thing that all regimes/institutions of any nature fear: the fundamental undermining of the ethos that allows them to organize people in the first place. The communists were deathly afraid of this. You were allowed to criticize and persecute the behaviors of individuals as bad actors, but were never, ever, ever, ever allowed the criticize the society or system that wrote the script.

 

[Naomasa298]

Dickens wasn't necessarily being critical of his society, he was being realistic in his portrayal, especially based on his own experiences in the workhouse.

Subversive novels usually call for change. Oliver Twist wasn't really doing that - at its heart, it is a journey story, of the hero, Oliver, overcoming the odds. More of an adventure, really. Oliver finds out he has an inheritance, all the bad guys get their dues and Oliver lives happily ever after. Tale of Two Cities ends with a hope for change, but it's not exactly calling for it, and written post-Napoleonic Wars, so in a sense, that vision had already come to pass for him. Great Expectations is similar to Oliver Twist, in that it uses poverty as a backdrop and for narrative pressure, not social commentary.

 

[JLT]

Well, characters grow over time, and confront situations where they're forced to get out of their usual mindset. A classic example is Huckleberry Finn repudiating what he was taught about supporting slavery.

If you're talking about plot twists, I think the best one was in the movie In America. Johnny, an Irish immigrant, brings his wife Sarah and their daughters to a tenement in New York, where one of his neighbors is Mateo, an artist. Jonny confronts Mateo and accuses him of being in love with Sarah. Mateo replies that he is indeed in love with Sarah, and with Johnny, and with their daughters, and with everything that lives and moves. That's when Johnny suddenly realizes that Mateo is dying.

Talk about a plot suddenly going ninety degrees. And Paddy Considine plays it perfectly.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Well, characters grow over time, and confront situations where they're forced to get out of their usual mindset. A classic example is Huckleberry Finn repudiating what he was taught about supporting slavery.

If you're talking about plot twists, I think the best one was in the movie In America. Johnny, an Irish immigrant, brings his wife Sarah and their daughters to a tenement in New York, where one of his neighbors is Mateo, an artist. Jonny confronts Mateo and accuses him of being in love with Sarah. Mateo replies that he is indeed in love with Sarah, and with Johnny, and with their daughters, and with everything that lives and moves. That's when Johnny suddenly realizes that Mateo is dying.

Talk about a plot suddenly going ninety degrees. And Paddy Considine plays it perfectly.

That's a cool plot, but how is it subversive?

 

[Trish]

That's a cool plot, but how is it subversive?

Because initially he's portrayed as a scary, intimidating, highly suspicious character (he screams a lot). You're expecting him to do something bad, have ill intentions, etc. But he's not. He's dying and what he's dying of (AIDS) has made him afraid to be open with people even though he's drawn to them.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Because initially he's portrayed as a scary, intimidating, highly suspicious character (he screams a lot). You're expecting him to do something bad, have ill intentions, etc. But he's not. He's dying and what he's dying of (AIDS) has made him afraid to be open with people even though he's drawn to them.

Okay. That part wasn't clear. I would have to see it.

 

[Louanne Learning]

but was he looking to subvert the institution at the time or just commenting on it?

Subversive novels usually call for change.

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? I like this quote that I read -

Every act of control begins with language. Every act of resistance begins with taking it back. That’s the unspoken truth at the heart of subversive literature — not “books that shock,” but books that interfere with the operating system of culture.

You both seem to be looking for "sledgehammers" though I have been advised against them in the past. Dickens did not write with sledgehammers but to imagine his writing did not have an impact would be to underestimate the catalyst they were for social reform. As an example, his stories galvanized public opinion against the Poor Law system. He championed the novel as a way to draw the reading public to what needed to be changed.

As far as Oliver Twist is concerned, consider how this passage from it appealed to the Victorian conscience -

The evening arrived; the boys took their places. The master, in his cook’s uniform, stationed himself at the copper; his pauper assistants ranged themselves behind him; the gruel was served out; and a long grace was said over the short commons. The gruel disappeared; the boys whispered each other, and winked at Oliver; while his next neighbours nudged him. Child as he was, he was desperate with hunger, and reckless with misery. He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity: ‘Please, sir, I want some more.’

 

[Stuart Dren]

I'm getting lost, not about subversion, but subversive literature.

Am I wrong to just consider it meaning literature from a countercultural perspective?

It might be harder to view Dickens as subversive from the perspective of a totally different era i.e. today. I haven't read his stuff, so I don't have a strong opinion on that. Huxley was for sure, though.

I recall one of his short stories was about a young artist who was distressed about being drafted to fight in the world war, how it would be a waste of his life. He died in the war. His friend got his girl (who got over her husband's death pretty quickly). Everyone moved on. The end. In a time swollen with pro-war propaganda, that's subversive.

Something like All Quiet on the Western Front is subversive for similar reasons.

 

[Louanne Learning]

literature from a countercultural perspective?

here's another description of "subversive literature" I came across -

"insurgency through narrative ... It’s about the architecture of belief."

We tell stories. If there is an intent in the writing to remind the readers that the emperor is naked, that's subversive.

A good subversive work doesn’t scream rebellion; it whispers dissonance until the reader starts to question the melody. That’s how the system collapses — not through riots, but through quiet reprogramming of thought.

Outrage is reactive; subversion is strategic. Outrage shouts “I’m angry.” Subversion whispers, “You’ve been lied to.”

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."

be harder to view Dickens as subversive from the perspective of a totally different era i.e. today.

Every writer is for sure a product of his era.